Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #17790
- Started
- Last post
- 33,475 Responses
- locustsloth0
But that's like saying that the person who gave up their taxi to someone else is at fault because the taxi driver drove off a cliff and killed the passenger. It's every person's responsibility to act lawfully and morally, in addition to having safeguards against those who chose not to.
Let's say that government welfare was eliminated and by some miracle the slack was taken up by various charities. Those charities could be (have been and are now being) taken advantage of too. What the agency needs is better oversight and regulation, but these are anathema to the right. So their solution (like Friedman's) is to eliminate the whole system- not a fair assessment of the right's position. I feel they want a less & more efficient government. Not elimination and not more of the same bureaucracy.whhipp
- and not more of the same bureaucracy.whhipp
- but they want more efficiency by cutting services, rather than improving the servicelocustsloth
- thats debatable... and would take forever to make the arguments. In the end I dont think one party is more compassionate than the other. Just have different philosophies on how to get there. Ron Pauls solutions seem more inline with which direction we should take.whhipp
- compassionate than the other. Just have different philosophies on how to get there. Ron Pauls solutions seem more inline with which direction we should take.whhipp
- which direction we should take.whhipp
- But Paul is the guy who wants to END nearly every program. That's opposite what you said up there^locustsloth
- get out of things it has no business in right. But he doesnt want to end social security and welfare... maybe reform because we will never have the cash the way its going forward.whhipp
- because we will never have the cash the way its going forward.whhipp
- Sure, lose the cap at $125,000. Problem solved.DrBombay