Lol I was bonding with Modern Warfare 2 over the weekend myself. ;) (That is one intense, realistic game. o_o)
take an Ebenezer Scrooge attitude:
OT, but have you seen it yet? It's really good. It's worth it to see it 3D Imax. Green ghosts withstanding, it is the single most accurate version to Dickens' book I've seen.
The question, I've realized, [...]
There... is not a thing you wrote that I didn't agree with! These are the real questions, the answers to which I believe is big no. - And there are several solid facts, statistics, and principles which attest to that belief. I'm still pondering whether to make a post purely on that case since several of my proofs come from published works. I hope their missing presence here didn't lead you to believe that I'm in favor of Washington's current plans, though!
I suppose the purpose of my post was to namely define that even if healthcare is a right, such a designiation doesn't equate to an entitlement. They use that as a bludgeon in debate: "But healthcare is a right!" To which we really need to be saying, "Yes, and... This means government handout how?" Instead, people backtrack all over themselves, avoiding the quesion while attempting to still mantain that they are, in fact, very compassionate people.
We have a government that is, by design, inefficient.
I would say more by evolution than design, though the Founders' blueprint certainly had its weak points that both parties have exploited. If we were still following the intent of Constitution, - to restrain the government and not the people, - there'd be a whole lot less bureaucracy, spending, and waste.
I think that such charities exist and function speaks volumes about the generosity of Americans, the willingness of our people to reach out to those of us in need.
Indeed, and we've always been like that. This is one of the coolest stories I've ever heard, and about a democrat President!
The year was 1887, and Congress had passed a bill to send money to some farmers in Texas who had been hit with a terrible draught. President Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill and said,
"I feel obliged to withold my approval of the plan a proposed by this bill, to indulge a beneolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to extend to the relief of individual suffering which is in o manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."
O_O Srsly. Dude was a democrat. What's more is that he further contended that the generosity of the farmers' neighbors would help sustain them through the draught. Not only was he right, but the neighbors charitably contributed 10 times what Congress had passed to help them!
The same was true of Katrina and even in overseas disasters like the massive tidal wave that killed all those people in the far east.
I've got to head to work though; I'll catch the second half later today. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 06:51 pm (UTC)take an Ebenezer Scrooge attitude:
OT, but have you seen it yet? It's really good. It's worth it to see it 3D Imax. Green ghosts withstanding, it is the single most accurate version to Dickens' book I've seen.
The question, I've realized, [...]
There... is not a thing you wrote that I didn't agree with! These are the real questions, the answers to which I believe is big no. - And there are several solid facts, statistics, and principles which attest to that belief. I'm still pondering whether to make a post purely on that case since several of my proofs come from published works. I hope their missing presence here didn't lead you to believe that I'm in favor of Washington's current plans, though!
I suppose the purpose of my post was to namely define that even if healthcare is a right, such a designiation doesn't equate to an entitlement. They use that as a bludgeon in debate: "But healthcare is a right!" To which we really need to be saying, "Yes, and... This means government handout how?" Instead, people backtrack all over themselves, avoiding the quesion while attempting to still mantain that they are, in fact, very compassionate people.
We have a government that is, by design, inefficient.
I would say more by evolution than design, though the Founders' blueprint certainly had its weak points that both parties have exploited. If we were still following the intent of Constitution, - to restrain the government and not the people, - there'd be a whole lot less bureaucracy, spending, and waste.
I think that such charities exist and function speaks volumes about the generosity of Americans, the willingness of our people to reach out to those of us in need.
Indeed, and we've always been like that. This is one of the coolest stories I've ever heard, and about a democrat President!
The year was 1887, and Congress had passed a bill to send money to some farmers in Texas who had been hit with a terrible draught. President Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill and said,
O_O Srsly. Dude was a democrat. What's more is that he further contended that the generosity of the farmers' neighbors would help sustain them through the draught. Not only was he right, but the neighbors charitably contributed 10 times what Congress had passed to help them!
The same was true of Katrina and even in overseas disasters like the massive tidal wave that killed all those people in the far east.
I've got to head to work though; I'll catch the second half later today. ;)