Comment by Clarence Dember on July 18, 2011 at 9:16pm

You know, they borrow us into an irretrievable hole we must default to escape.

Comment by Kit Blumenstein on July 18, 2011 at 9:28pm

The 14th amendment, sections 4 and 5 says clearly that should Obama chose to do so he can over ride Congress and end this theatrical gamesmanship over the debt ceiling.  yes, Natalie the Bush tax cuts were and are one the worst mistakes in history.  We cannot have a country of nearly 350 million beings and do nothing to protect the elderly, children, sick and poor.  To counter that means this nation as others will be judged not on its' accomplishments but rather on how it treats the least able in this society. 

The debt or deficit if you prefer is neither as bad nor as desperate as the politicos would have one believe.  This is mostly games for the free TV attention and frankly I find it boring.  They were elected to do something - anything to attempt to revive this economy - so far I see only chatter and people taking sides rather then any positive action.

We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities.
Bill Maher

Comment by Lary9 on July 18, 2011 at 11:05pm

Government is instituted by the people, for the people and of the people. Its main product is political "Liberty". That is it duly proper function. Among the various attributions of Liberty, like Kit says, it is the "Social Contract" with the people that is paramount. Until people really feel vested in self-government, there will never be any understanding or acceptance of it and its democratic potential.

Comment by Natalie A Sera on July 18, 2011 at 11:33pm

Kit, a Bill of Responsibilities is a fascinating idea! Not that I think it will ever happen. :-( But we are evolved to be social animals, and even apes take care of each other. The selfishness of some (not all) wealthy people, libertarians, and Republicans appalls me. And where is the Religious Right, who are supposed to be adhering to Christian ideals? I know Clarence Dember won't agree with me, but I was raised with the ethic that no matter how poor you are, you need to give to those who are poorer. For the wealthy, that is a VAST number of people!

Comment by Clarence Dember on July 19, 2011 at 12:48am

Narhalie, I can give to the poor or to the charity of my choice or to the bum standing outside the bodega or quick mart. As soon as you make it an obligation for me to give on your criterion you take away my choice in the matter. So I can be for a "woman's ring to choose" and that's OK as long as 8'm not for my own right to choose.

Comment by Clarence Dember on July 19, 2011 at 12:51am

I give up trying to type on this phone. I'm m out of this no edit group. Cute. No eraser, no input.

Comment by Susan Stanko on July 19, 2011 at 7:52am

So, Congress promoting the general welfare doesn't actually mean that?  This is what I don't get about libertarians.  They say they are following the constitution but, they really aren't.

Comment by Natalie A Sera on July 19, 2011 at 1:01pm

C

Clarence, I think it has something to do with how you define the idea of "promoting the general welfare" or however they word it in the Constitution (I'm obviously not a Constitutional scholar, LOL!) Some things are indisputably necessary for the govt. to do, such as national defense (not talking about Afghanistan, but what about WWII? That was a clear case). Some things are (to me) indisputably NOT necessary, such as determining whether a woman may have an abortion. But there are a lot of things in between. What about vaccinations? Refusing vaccinations can and does result in deaths of innocent children. But it also carries a small risk of adverse reactions. So do you have the right to choose to refuse to vaccinate your child, when, if he gets the disease, he can give it to an infant too young to be vaccinated, and kill that infant? (I'm thinking of the pertussis deaths)

Education has clearly been associated with the general welfare, along with (hopefully) making citizens better able to vote intelligently (although that seems questionable, LOL!). Do you have the right to CHOOSE not to pay taxes for education?

I guess when I hear people talking about choice when it comes to supporting govt. the choice usually boils down to the idea that they want to support their pet causes (if they have any), and everyone else can go to hell. A truly cooperative society just doesn't work that way. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, to the best of my ability. But we may not have equal abilities -- does that mean you'll take my back scratching, but leave me out of it when it's my turn?

Comment by Ian Mason on July 19, 2011 at 3:26pm

Well put, Natalie. Freedom includes responsibility.

Comment by Kit Blumenstein on July 19, 2011 at 4:00pm

"...to promote the general welfare.." is in the preamble of the constitution and the years have shown that all parts of the constitution are open to interpretation of both the people and the times.  To me personally, it means that the government is responsible for the many things we can not as individuals tend to ourselves.  This is why we pay taxes.  The government is to  establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  Those few words are the social contract between we the citizens and our chosen government.

 

To continue on the path that was set for us by the founders we must take responsibility, for the actions of ourselves and our government.  Some of that is voting and paying taxes, there is far more that we do not accept as our responsibility, it's far easier to blame those fools we elect.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• …
• 717
• Next ›
• Page