The American Dream

[fewwillfindit]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. Which is best for America?
3. Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

[Abraxas]

1. No, it is a strawman perpetrated by the right wing to smear the left. I don't think I have ever seen someone argue in favor of everyone ending up with exactly the same alotment of food, goods, children, professional success, etc.

And you say this despite the strong liberal advocacy for Affirmative Action and the Welfare State, correct?

As those two have nothing to do with equal outcome but rather basic minimums, I fail to see the point.

2. Equality of opportunity but it doesn't mean what they say it means. Any idea should have an equal chance based on merit of success, any crime should have an equal chance of being punished, each person should have equal access to education, job training, medical care, etc. None of that is possible without intensive regulation and welfare measures.

Yea, cause the individual citizen can't possibly do any of that on their own, we gotta have the state take care of all our whims and needs. But that's all irrelevant anyways, we're talking about oppurtunity versus outcome, not criminal justice or education or healthcare.

Prison or getting away with crimes are not outcomes? Death from a treatable illness but for a lack of money or quick treatment and release are not outcomes? Not being able to go to school to get training for the jobs or skills that can get one ahead and so ever being denied both or buying your way into an upper crust school and all the rewards that come with it are not outcomes? Yes, the state needs to implement measures to ensure basic minimums are met, otherwise all the effort in the world for large segments of the population would get them nowhere. Tell me true, do you believe equal opportunity exists in this country for pauper and trust fund baby?

The measurement of sucess in America is based upon the amount of work and effort the person devote to achieving it. Successful students earn top scores because they are hard workers and diligent students, F students earn poor scores because they're apathetic when it comes to school work. And, of course, the best way to help the F students is to give them free extra points at the expsense of A students, that's definitely good for the overall academic standing of the school.

A poor analogy. Perhaps the best way to help them would be to provide tutors for the children who need them and are willing paid for through the school funding paid for by the taxpayers, whether they happen to have their child use the particular service or not.

I can go on, but the point is made.

What point? Clearly state the point you're trying to make.

The Bible and Jesus were very much for giving to the poor and I find it remarkably hard to believe that were Jesus real he would favor a system that denied the poor as much care as the society could afford to give them. Had I posted longer versions of each of those passages, I also would have noted they were not afraid to invoke divine wrath and eternal torment upon those who did not provide to the poor, and it doesn't get much more coersive than that.

I will also note the idea that Jesus was only about voluntarily giving is rather ridiculous, given that the threat of God acting against you for failing to give to the needy seems to be present in a huge number of the references to giving in the Bible.

So you're claiming that Jesus was for forcing peple to give even if they didn't want to. Does Christianity teach this in any way, shape or form?

Yes. "Provide for the poor, go to hell, you have a choice, choose wisely." is not a misrepresentation of a great many of the passages regarding charity.

The short answers no. Augustine purports that humans have free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong, and the voluntary choice to either follow God and his commandments or reject them. It's a foundational doctrine of Christianity, so I probably won't defer the understanding of the philosophy and teachings of Jesus to liberals and atheists over theologians and church fathers.

How about defering to the Bible then?

Deut 15:9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,� so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.

Or, put another way, if you withhold aid they can call on God against you.

Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�

In other words those who do not unload their worldly possessions do not get into heaven.

Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Again, give to the poor or go to hell. Do you notice a pattern forming here?

[WinePusher]

And you say this despite the strong liberal advocacy for Affirmative Action and the Welfare State, correct?

As those two have nothing to do with equal outcome but rather basic minimums, I fail to see the point.

We both know that your description is wrong. Affirmative Action advances the equal outcome amoung individuals according to the Race and Ethnic standard of judgement, not the character standard of judgement. Which one was MLK for again? The Welfare State levels the income field making it so that an individual has the same outcome of monetary settlement has another person regardless of the work they put into it.

Yea, cause the individual citizen can't possibly do any of that on their own, we gotta have the state take care of all our whims and needs. But that's all irrelevant anyways, we're talking about oppurtunity versus outcome, not criminal justice or education or healthcare.

Prison or getting away with crimes are not outcomes? Death from a treatable illness but for a lack of money or quick treatment and release are not outcomes? Not being able to go to school to get training for the jobs or skills that can get one ahead and so ever being denied both or buying your way into an upper crust school and all the rewards that come with it are not outcomes?

In the context of this thread and the national dialouge, no. The issue of equal oppurtunity and equal outcome has to do with Social Economics, you know, the issue over wealth, the rich/poor gap, etc. Your examples aren't relevant.

Yes, the state needs to implement measures to ensure basic minimums are met, otherwise all the effort in the world for large segments of the population would get them nowhere. Tell me true, do you believe equal opportunity exists in this country for pauper and trust fund baby?

And it appears liberals abusively stretch this "government must provide basic minimums" argument to encompass things like getting a job or getting medical care when such intiatives clearly are unconstitutional. Government's the problem, not the solution, liberals need to understand that. And no, a pauper child probably does not have the same oppurtunities that another child would have. Which is why we, as a thriving and advanced society, devote particular attention to this issue. Counseling, extracurricular activities, big brother programs, food pantries, clothe drives, christmas present drives are all things my church and other churches do for their community. Not to mention the manu other private organizations devoted to alleviating these issues. I know what you're trying to get at, and the answer isn't to unleash the government and let it run wild and make this situation worse.

The measurement of sucess in America is based upon the amount of work and effort the person devote to achieving it. Successful students earn top scores because they are hard workers and diligent students, F students earn poor scores because they're apathetic when it comes to school work. And, of course, the best way to help the F students is to give them free extra points at the expsense of A students, that's definitely good for the overall academic standing of the school.

A poor analogy. Perhaps the best way to help them would be to provide tutors for the children who need them and are willing paid for through the school funding paid for by the taxpayers, whether they happen to have their child use the particular service or not.

Sure, schools hire tutors along with full time teachers at the taxpayers expsense. I've know problem with that, however it isn't the liberal solution and you know it isn't. The liberal solution would be to restribute the grade average amoung the class so that they all end up with the same, nice, equal outcome.

The Bible and Jesus were very much for giving to the poor and I find it remarkably hard to believe that were Jesus real he would favor a system that denied the poor as much care as the society could afford to give them.

Now whose arguing againist this? Are you saying that if I don't support your way of doing things then I must not care about it? Isn't this the same type of slanderous logic used by liberals when it comes to criticizing Obama (if you don't like him you're a racist) or gay marriage (if you don't support gay marriage or the repeal of DADT you're a homophobe)?

Had I posted longer versions of each of those passages, I also would have noted they were not afraid to invoke divine wrath and eternal torment upon those who did not provide to the poor, and it doesn't get much more coersive than that.

Correct, and the strange thing is you take this to mean Jesus was for mandatory giving when the verses and theologians and christian philosophers clearly don't agree. Here's a favorite cartoon used by liberals and atheists, just replace "The Creationist Method" with the "The Liberal/Atheist method of trying to comprehend Jesus' Message."

[Abraxas]

And you say this despite the strong liberal advocacy for Affirmative Action and the Welfare State, correct?

As those two have nothing to do with equal outcome but rather basic minimums, I fail to see the point.

We both know that your description is wrong. Affirmative Action advances the equal outcome amoung individuals according to the Race and Ethnic standard of judgement, not the character standard of judgement. Which one was MLK for again? The Welfare State levels the income field making it so that an individual has the same outcome of monetary settlement has another person regardless of the work they put into it.

Affirmative Action serves to counteract systematic discimination against certain classes to create equal opportunity. It does not mandate that people get paid the same or have the same level of success in their career.

Yea, cause the individual citizen can't possibly do any of that on their own, we gotta have the state take care of all our whims and needs. But that's all irrelevant anyways, we're talking about oppurtunity versus outcome, not criminal justice or education or healthcare.

Prison or getting away with crimes are not outcomes? Death from a treatable illness but for a lack of money or quick treatment and release are not outcomes? Not being able to go to school to get training for the jobs or skills that can get one ahead and so ever being denied both or buying your way into an upper crust school and all the rewards that come with it are not outcomes?

In the context of this thread and the national dialouge, no.

Says who? I hardly think you are in the position to dictate either the contents of this thread or the contents of the national discourse. Simply put, if neither consider other factors beyond the shallow surface ones like taxes and welfare payouts, then both the thread and the discourse are deficient.

The issue of equal oppurtunity and equal outcome has to do with Social Economics, you know, the issue over wealth, the rich/poor gap, etc. Your examples aren't relevant.

They are relevant. The rich/poor gap changes opportunities for education which in turn changes their economic outcome. It changes how the law treats them, which changes economic outcome. It changes whether they can keep their job after getting sick or whether medical bills will cause them to fall into deep debt, changing the economic outcome.

You are trying to frame this in terms of everyone having equal opportunity and liberals charging in to steal the money of those who take advantage of them when we both know the situation is vastly more complex than that. Placing such restrictions is an artificial and attempts to avoid having to admit the vast economic discrepencies that plague this country make any notion of equality of opportunity a laughable prospect. My examples are relevant, they frame a small portion of how your equality of opportunity cannot exist without government intervention and regulation.

Yes, the state needs to implement measures to ensure basic minimums are met, otherwise all the effort in the world for large segments of the population would get them nowhere. Tell me true, do you believe equal opportunity exists in this country for pauper and trust fund baby?

And it appears liberals abusively stretch this "government must provide basic minimums" argument to encompass things like getting a job or getting medical care when such intiatives clearly are unconstitutional.

A falsehood as the framers of the constitution were the first in the US to create a government based healthcare mandate.

Government's the problem, not the solution,

A pithy, hollow, empty, insubstantial, soundbite. Government is the problem when people determined to make it not work are the ones running it so that the upper crust can prosper a little more at the expense of everyone else. When government is run for the good of the people, to advance the ideas of maximizing freedom and maintaining human rights and dignity, it is part oft he solution.

liberals need to understand that. And no, a pauper child probably does not have the same oppurtunities that another child would have. Which is why we, as a thriving and advanced society, devote particular attention to this issue. Counseling, extracurricular activities, big brother programs, food pantries, clothe drives, christmas present drives are all things my church and other churches do for their community. Not to mention the manu other private organizations devoted to alleviating these issues. I know what you're trying to get at, and the answer isn't to unleash the government and let it run wild and make this situation worse.

And yet with all those initiatives, all that private charity, all that support from the church, you have already conceded the pauper does not have equality of opportunity. The private sector has failed. In Europe, in Canada, where broader government protections exist, the problem is not so great. Why then can it not be used to solve the problem here.

The measurement of sucess in America is based upon the amount of work and effort the person devote to achieving it. Successful students earn top scores because they are hard workers and diligent students, F students earn poor scores because they're apathetic when it comes to school work. And, of course, the best way to help the F students is to give them free extra points at the expsense of A students, that's definitely good for the overall academic standing of the school.

A poor analogy. Perhaps the best way to help them would be to provide tutors for the children who need them and are willing paid for through the school funding paid for by the taxpayers, whether they happen to have their child use the particular service or not.

Sure, schools hire tutors along with full time teachers at the taxpayers expsense. I've know problem with that, however it isn't the liberal solution and you know it isn't. The liberal solution would be to restribute the grade average amoung the class so that they all end up with the same, nice, equal outcome.

The problem with this is an incorrect assumption, namely that there is "the" liberal solution. There are many liberal solutions, among them, is, in fact, to raise taxes/fees and use that revenue for the benefit of those in need of additional assistance. As for your proposed "the" liberal solution, I know of nobody who advocates that and so I suspect it to be a strawman, just as other claims of liberals desiring "equality of outcome" tend to be.

The Bible and Jesus were very much for giving to the poor and I find it remarkably hard to believe that were Jesus real he would favor a system that denied the poor as much care as the society could afford to give them.

Now whose arguing againist this? Are you saying that if I don't support your way of doing things then I must not care about it?

I never said anything about caring, I'm simply pointing to the fact that there are people dying in America from diseases we can cure, starving while we have food to spare, and homeless when we have more empty buildings than we know what to do with. That is largely the result of deregulation, the result of subpar welfare systems, the result of private enterprise being left to its own devices.

Isn't this the same type of slanderous logic used by liberals when it comes to criticizing Obama (if you don't like him you're a racist) or gay marriage (if you don't support gay marriage or the repeal of DADT you're a homophobe)?

No, this is a red herring (nor is the latter of your two examples even slanderous).

Had I posted longer versions of each of those passages, I also would have noted they were not afraid to invoke divine wrath and eternal torment upon those who did not provide to the poor, and it doesn't get much more coersive than that.

Correct, and the strange thing is you take this to mean Jesus was for mandatory giving when the verses and theologians and christian philosophers clearly don't agree. Here's a favorite cartoon used by liberals and atheists, just replace "The Creationist Method" with the "The Liberal/Atheist method of trying to comprehend Jesus' Message."

I'm not interested in cartoons. The fact is Jesus said pretty bluntly, "give to the poor or go to Hell". The idea Jesus was against coersive measures to give to charity is rather undermined by the way he spoke about it.

[WinePusher]

Affirmative Action serves to counteract systematic discimination against certain classes to create equal opportunity.

No, you are wrong. The counteraction of systematic discrimination is done by discrimination laws. So, if we go by your definition of Affirmative Action it is redundent, if we go by the actual definition of Affirmative Action it becomes reverse discrimination and antithetical to what Dr. King taught. Looks like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Prison or getting away with crimes are not outcomes? Death from a treatable illness but for a lack of money or quick treatment and release are not outcomes? Not being able to go to school to get training for the jobs or skills that can get one ahead and so ever being denied both or buying your way into an upper crust school and all the rewards that come with it are not outcomes?

In the context of this thread and the national dialouge, no.

Says who? I hardly think you are in the position to dictate either the contents of this thread or the contents of the national discourse. Simply put, if neither consider other factors beyond the shallow surface ones like taxes and welfare payouts, then both the thread and the discourse are deficient.

Even if we were to pay attention to your factors they are irrelevant. Criminal Justice is determined by State Criminal Law that is administered by impartial Judges wherein both the plantiff and the defendent have representation by an educated attorney and is judged accordingly by a group of their peers. So we can throw that one out as it is no where near "unequal." As for the "death from treatable illness" that liberal talking point has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Read the Code of Medical Ethics set forth by AMA.

They are relevant. The rich/poor gap changes opportunities for education which in turn changes their economic outcome.

No Abraxas, education in this country is free. The only difference is that rich people have the ability to send their kids their private schools while poor kids generally have to go to public schools. But liberals don't seem to see any sort of discrepency between private versus public education, so unless you admit that private schools outperform public schools your point is moot.

Government's the problem, not the solution.

A pithy, hollow, empty, insubstantial, soundbite. Government is the problem when people determined to make it not work are the ones running it so that the upper crust can prosper a little more at the expense of everyone else. When government is run for the good of the people, to advance the ideas of maximizing freedom and maintaining human rights and dignity, it is part of the solution.

Yea, I've seen similar comments like this made by other liberal users, never get's old. Friedich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and other members of the Austrian Schools have thoroughly debunked these assertions of of 'allegience to the State' and 'government must have a big role to take care of us.'The key problem with this type of political philosophy is that it doesn't understand the relationship between the government and the people. When most of the market is privitized, and government regulation exists at a bare minimum then the people are the primary weilders of power and decision making. When the government operates most of the market and regulates institutions such as healthcare, education, pensions, whatever, the power has been stripped from the people and put in the hands of a group of politicians. This is precisely why when moving up the government ladder, from municipal to state to federal, the higher you go the less power remains with the people.

Liberals need to understand that. And no, a pauper child probably does not have the same oppurtunities that another child would have. Which is why we, as a thriving and advanced society, devote particular attention to this issue. Counseling, extracurricular activities, big brother programs, food pantries, clothe drives, christmas present drives are all things my church and other churches do for their community. Not to mention the many other private organizations devoted to alleviating these issues. I know what you're trying to get at, and the answer isn't to unleash the government and let it run wild and make this situation worse.

And yet with all those initiatives, all that private charity, all that support from the church, you have already conceded the pauper does not have equality of opportunity.

Because people are born into different situations. What would you have us do, use the government to stop the drug addicted mom, or have the government relocate the child to a proper home? Notice that low income communities in America have traditionally been associated with Public Housing sectors.

The private sector has failed.

Read above, the public sector has failed at most everything it has tried to do and will continue to fail because that is the nature of government.

In Europe, in Canada, where broader government protections exist, the problem is not so great. Why then can it not be used to solve the problem here.

I am unable to speak to Canada. However, it seems that Democracy is all but dead in Europe due to these "broad government protections." Have you heard about the student riots in England, or the protests in Greece. Seems like Dennis Prager was right, "The bigger the government the worse the citizen." Other than that, seems like European Economies are failing one after another. Guess that's what happens when you attempt to join into a single fiat currency and have bloated central banking policies.

Sure, schools hire tutors along with full time teachers at the taxpayers expsense. I've know problem with that, however it isn't the liberal solution and you know it isn't. The liberal solution would be to restribute the grade average amoung the class so that they all end up with the same, nice, equal outcome.

The problem with this is an incorrect assumption, namely that there is "the" liberal solution. There are many liberal solutions, among them, is, in fact, to raise taxes/fees and use that revenue for the benefit of those in need of additional assistance.

A form of wealth redistribution, we have already been over this. The working citizen will have to pay an extra $100 in taxes so that welfare checks and luxurious public emplyee benefits and be paid for. It's right out of the Marxist playbook.

The Bible and Jesus were very much for giving to the poor and I find it remarkably hard to believe that were Jesus real he would favor a system that denied the poor as much care as the society could afford to give them.

Now whose arguing againist this? Are you saying that if I don't support your way of doing things then I must not care about it?

I never said anything about caring, I'm simply pointing to the fact that there are people dying in America from diseases we can cure, starving while we have food to spare, and homeless when we have more empty buildings than we know what to do with. That is largely the result of deregulation, the result of subpar welfare systems, the result of private enterprise being left to its own devices.

Why do people die in America if they have a disease, did you know that AMA Ethical Code and the Hypocratic Oath forces a physician to render care to a person even if they can't afford it. And I am unconvinced by the Food Wasting thing. Check out faith based food pantries, they are stocked by donations and feed the homeless on a regular to daily basis.

I'm not interested in cartoons. The fact is Jesus said pretty bluntly, "give to the poor or go to Hell". The idea Jesus was against coersive measures to give to charity is rather undermined by the way he spoke about it.

Unless you can find a passage that says "I command you to give to the poor even if you don't want to" you are simply misconstruing biblical verses to garner support for your case.

[micatala]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?

Not by any means. It is really a straw man set up by conservatives to bash progressives and liberals.



On welfare, it is clearly false to portray welfare as "equal outcomes for all." Welfare support does not get one even close to the average for everyone else. It is intended to serve as a basic safety net.


Now, does welfare sometimes get abused? Sure. However, let those who think we should do away with welfare provide data on what percentage of welfare spending is given out under some kind of fraudulent or unfair basis. Anecdotes don't cut it.

And, keep in mind keeping people out of poverty has a payoff in lower crime rates, etc.



On affirmative action, I agree this can go too far, but it is is also clear that those who have less opportunity and lower outcomes as a result are not in that situation simply because they are "lazy."


I agree with the basic notion that hard work should be rewarded, and we should take measures not to give people resources they don't need simply because they are lazy. However, it is fallacious to think that you can ever get rid of imperfections in any large system, whether run by government or not. If you focus only on that, and ignore the larger picture, you can do more harm than good. We could conceivably get rid of welfare and affirmative action and this would solve the problem of a few people getting things they "don't deserve." But you would be solving that problem at the expense of creating much worse ones.

[*]Which is best for America?

THis question is rather a straw man since it assumes progressives in general are out for equal outcomes.

[*]Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?[/list]

The Bible clearly supports generosity to the poor, and as noted above, even supports the notion that it be mandated, although that was in the context of a theocratic system.


As a free society, we should not mandate generosity for religious reasons. However, we should, I believe, adopt policies reflective of a civilized nation, and this includes taking care of those who are poor due to either circumstances or ineherent inability.


Just to throw some data out there, the link below shows per capita spending for 1997 in each state.

http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2001/Table%2044.htm

This seems to include Medicaid spending, and I would guess this is a large chunk of the per capita totals.

Here are the 2005-2006 figures.

http://ppinys.org/reports/jtf/welfarespending.htm




The table at this link might be more elucidating.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/social-welfare- ... ummary.htm

Traditional "cash assistance" welfare was a total of 20.7 billion in FY 2000. Not insignificant, but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall federal budget.


Would it be a good idea to eliminate this spending? I am open to debating the ramifications of doing so, but would frankly think those ramifications would ultimately cost us more than 20 billion.


Medicaid is a large chunk. Should we eliminate that? Again, I am not sure we would ultimately come out that far ahead, unless we are OK with having lots of people die from lack of health care. We do need to do something about the rising costs of this program, and overall rising health care costs.



At any rate, I think any serious discussion of downsizing or eliminating welfare or aid to the poor needs to take into account the costs we would incur, both in monetary and human terms, of doing so.

[Furrowed Brow]

I know we are discussing the American Dream but I don't think that is so different for the UK.

When most of the market is privatized, and government regulation exists at a bare minimum then the people are the primary weilders of power and decision making.

This is accurate I think. But “which people?� and “for whose benefit?�.

We have just seen a very material argument for why less regulation in the banking market proved disastrous. The Governor of the bank of England issued a statement this week that the banks have still yet to learn their lesson and that they should be more socially responsible.

As a direct consequence of this financial disaster my rent was increased by 11% last week. I have no say in this other than live in my car. The rent rise is not limited to me. It is due to reductions in government spend to pay for the national debt. Across the board folk are being told they are getting no pay rise or face redundancy or in some case they will be getting pay cuts. Yet this last week a major bank and a couple of other major companies posted large profits. A major advertising company just posted its largest every profit.

As it happens I’m ok, it stings, but I’ll survive, however there will be poorer folks pushed to the wall by this, and those who survive are going to find life just gets a lot poorer. We are living in a time of austerity when there is no recession. How did that come to pass. the major answer is that we paid billions to keep the banks afloat because lack of strong regulation allowed them to grow to the size that we could not afford to let them fall and they had the freedom to behave in a way that guaranteed they would fall.

Whilst out and out state ownership of industry is equally disastrous there is no convincing argument or evidence that says minimal government and regulation are of any benefit to the folk in the social bands F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, U We tend to be less well educated and we die earlier. When we do manage to send our kids to college they don't get the top jobs. I have sat in offices where a third of folks have a degree and yet are earning well under national average and rely on state assistance to top up their incomes.

[nygreenguy]

No, you are wrong. The counteraction of systematic discrimination is done by discrimination laws. So, if we go by your definition of Affirmative Action it is redundent, if we go by the actual definition of Affirmative Action it becomes reverse discrimination and antithetical to what Dr. King taught. Looks like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Seriosuly though, you are wrong. Discrimination laws have to deal mostly with outright obvious discrimination. AA goes further in trying to level the playing field.

Reverse discrimination would be NOT giving a job to a white guy BECAUSE he was white, if no one else is applying. What AA says, of you have 2 equally qualified candidates, try to hire the minority.

Even if we were to pay attention to your factors they are irrelevant. Criminal Justice is determined by State Criminal Law that is administered by impartial Judges wherein both the plantiff and the defendent have representation by an educated attorney and is judged accordingly by a group of their peers. So we can throw that one out as it is no where near "unequal." As for the "death from treatable illness" that liberal talking point has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Read the Code of Medical Ethics set forth by AMA.

Sorry, but the reality of the situation disagrees:

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/heal ... =PM:HEALTH

Yea, I've seen similar comments like this made by other liberal users, never get's old. Friedich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and other members of the Austrian Schools have thoroughly debunked these assertions of of 'allegience to the State' and 'government must have a big role to take care of us.'

The problem about people like these is they only deal in theory. When we look at reality, we see a totally different situation. Anyone can come up with an economic theory that says anything because economics is not science.

Because people are born into different situations. What would you have us do, use the government to stop the drug addicted mom, or have the government relocate the child to a proper home? Notice that low income communities in America have traditionally been associated with Public Housing sectors.

This is horrible logic. Public housing was set up FOR low income people.

Read above, the public sector has failed at most everything it has tried to do and will continue to fail because that is the nature of government.

It has built our infrastructure, educated our children, protected us from invaders, protected our natural resources, sent people to the moon, etc.. Your comment has no basis in reality

I am unable to speak to Canada. However, it seems that Democracy is all but dead in Europe due to these "broad government protections." Have you heard about the student riots in England, or the protests in Greece. Seems like Dennis Prager was right, "The bigger the government the worse the citizen." Other than that, seems like European Economies are failing one after another. Guess that's what happens when you attempt to join into a single fiat currency and have bloated central banking policies.

Yet europeans are still happier, live longer, have a growing scientific community, have increased entrepreneurship, etc...

One again, the facts disagree

A form of wealth redistribution, we have already been over this. The working citizen will have to pay an extra $100 in taxes so that welfare checks and luxurious public emplyee benefits and be paid for. It's right out of the Marxist playbook.

People, especially those on the right, tend to overestimate taxes

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... ction.aspx

See that, 86% of the american population pays less than 10% in taxes.

Why do people die in America if they have a disease, did you know that AMA Ethical Code and the Hypocratic Oath forces a physician to render care to a person even if they can't afford it. And I am unconvinced by the Food Wasting thing. Check out faith based food pantries, they are stocked by donations and feed the homeless on a regular to daily basis.

Emergency care =/= health care. I know for a fact. I had an abscess in my mouth, which one could die from and NO ONE would see me. I literally called over 50 dentists and all the hospitals.

And dont even get me started on how my mom was treated with her cancer.

[dianaiad]

..... "Provide for the poor, go to hell, you have a choice, choose wisely." is not a misrepresentation of a great many of the passages regarding charity.

The short answers no. Augustine purports that humans have free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong, and the voluntary choice to either follow God and his commandments or reject them. It's a foundational doctrine of Christianity, so I probably won't defer the understanding of the philosophy and teachings of Jesus to liberals and atheists over theologians and church fathers.

How about defering to the Bible then?

Deut 15:9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,� so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.

Or, put another way, if you withhold aid they can call on God against you.

Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�

In other words those who do not unload their worldly possessions do not get into heaven.

Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Again, give to the poor or go to hell. Do you notice a pattern forming here?

I love all those quotes you have given...but I note a disconnect here; a very big one. Remember, Jesus was rather clear that He did not come to reform the current government, but to set up His Kingdom in Heaven. He was quite clear that the choice was that of the individual, and that what that individual believed was the motivator; after all, if the individual did not believe that God would 'get him,' then there wasn't any other restriction upon his actions, was there?

In fact, there is a rather famous quote from Jesus...something about giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Jesus did not ever advocate the forced compliance of others.

But you are.

I am reminded most forcefully of a fairly recent study, in which it was found that personal charitable giving was far more prevalent among conservatives than for liberals; it confirmed the idea I've always had about the two systems of thought:

Conservatives believe that we should care for our brothers and sisters, be charitable, and give aid and comfort to all.

Liberals believe the same thing. They too think that Conservatives should do the caring. It's a win/win situation for them, actually; they get to LOOK compassionate, with everybody's money but their own.

[Kuan]

..... "Provide for the poor, go to hell, you have a choice, choose wisely." is not a misrepresentation of a great many of the passages regarding charity.

The short answers no. Augustine purports that humans have free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong, and the voluntary choice to either follow God and his commandments or reject them. It's a foundational doctrine of Christianity, so I probably won't defer the understanding of the philosophy and teachings of Jesus to liberals and atheists over theologians and church fathers.

How about defering to the Bible then?

Deut 15:9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,� so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.

Or, put another way, if you withhold aid they can call on God against you.

Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�

In other words those who do not unload their worldly possessions do not get into heaven.

Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Again, give to the poor or go to hell. Do you notice a pattern forming here?

I love all those quotes you have given...but I note a disconnect here; a very big one. Remember, Jesus was rather clear that He did not come to reform the current government, but to set up His Kingdom in Heaven. He was quite clear that the choice was that of the individual, and that what that individual believed was the motivator; after all, if the individual did not believe that God would 'get him,' then there wasn't any other restriction upon his actions, was there?

In fact, there is a rather famous quote from Jesus...something about giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Jesus did not ever advocate the forced compliance of others.

But you are.

I am reminded most forcefully of a fairly recent study, in which it was found that personal charitable giving was far more prevalent among conservatives than for liberals; it confirmed the idea I've always had about the two systems of thought:

Conservatives believe that we should care for our brothers and sisters, be charitable, and give aid and comfort to all.

Liberals believe the same thing. They too think that Conservatives should do the caring. It's a win/win situation for them, actually; they get to LOOK compassionate, with everybody's money but their own.

Actually, im not sure if you could say it like that. I think a lot of the personal contributions by both sides are affected by their political positions. For example, the reason I think liberals donate less is because they think the ogvernment is going to do all the rest. Im not really sure though if thats the case, just a possibility.

[dianaiad]

Actually, im not sure if you could say it like that. I think a lot of the personal contributions by both sides are affected by their political positions. For example, the reason I think liberals donate less is because they think the ogvernment is going to do all the rest. Im not really sure though if thats the case, just a possibility.

..........and that, right there, is the problem. You are quite right; liberals think that
"the government" is going to do 'all the rest," as if "the government" obtained the money from thin, thin air. The problem is, Conservatives are well aware of where the government gets money; from the rest of us. It's not a coincidence that most conservatives pay taxes--and a huge proportion of liberals don't.

I still have this vision of the woman who was celebrating the election victory of Barrack Obama, and how she was so excited that her bills were going to be paid, her rent paid, and money would be coming into her pocket. When asked where Obama was going to get that money to pay her bills, she said "from his personal stash? I dunno!"

That's the problem; they 'dunno.'