[pickledpepperRN]

In a democracy government is US.
I think a person who believes government cannot be helpful in promoting the general welfare should not be elected because that person will ensure that government does not solve anything.

I think the person who is willing to try to improve the general welfare will work for it and maybe succeed.

We need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.
I think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.
And an emergency hospital, EMS, and fire fighting system in every community.

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.

I think government has a part in this because the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

In a democracy government is US.
I think a person who believes government cannot be helpful in promoting the general welfare should not be elected because that person will ensure that government does not solve anything.

I think the person who is willing to try to improve the general welfare will work for it and maybe succeed.

We need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.
I think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.
And an emergency hospital, EMS, and fire fighting system in every community.

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.

I think government has a part in this because the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Our "Social Contract" is expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Neither of those documents allow for the type of intrusion into the lives of citizens that you call charity.

So, are you saying that if I believe that our social contract has a valid meaning, and that gov't should be limited, then I have no right to run for office, in effect, no right to express my opinion as an elected member of gov't?

Only those that believe that our social contract isn't worth the paper its written on can, in effect, steward the creation of our laws?

Here's the thing: it's not people like me ensuring that the gov't cannot solve these types of problems. We've spent trillions trying, using the philosophy of socialists convinced that they could create a better program, ala the Great Society.

That didn't fail because conservatives defunded it. No. It's still a behemoth.

It failed because the gov't NEVER solves things like this. For our social problems, the gov't is and will be part of the problem, and not the solution.

Gov't doesn't have the power to empower freedom. It can only take and regulate, meaning that it binds freedom, at every turn.

More important, gov't is not your friend. It never was. That friendship is always sold at high dollar, and you can rarely afford it.

It's not some pollyanna dudley do-right that's gonna implement all these wonderful programs. More than likely, it's companies just like Haliburton. Worse, gov't employees as motivated at those at the social security or DMV office.

I worked in gov't. "Close enough for gov't work" has a distinct meaning. It means: we don't have to compete for your business; we have a monopoly, thank you very much.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

I think that I very clearly spoke to my own preference for using tax dollars to help give the poor real job skills and not condemn them to a life of meniality working for WalMart. Real job skills for careers that pay a living wage. (Machinist, nurse whatever). Living wage jobs that take families away from dependency. Helping them become a part of society. Family and child early intervention programs do work and pay for themselves in direct benefits both to families and society at large.
...
Quoting Spacenurse:
We need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.
I think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.
And an emergency hospital, EMS, and fire fighting system in every community.

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.
endquote

I live 70 miles south of the I35W bridge that collapsed. Since 1994 responsible representatives from both parties have proposed a gas tax increase as a means to improve the condition of the roads and bridges of MN. Republican Governors vetoed these proposals at every passage. Now no one can say with any certainty that the bridge collapse could have been prevented if those had been allowed to pass but the state DOT commissioner was quoted as saying that inspection was chosen over fixing that bridge d/t budgetary constraints. Poor decisions lead to poor results and in this case people died.

Anti poverty programs do work. But as I said before the any job philosophy is penny wise and pound foolish. America needs nurse's, machinist, welders and people with technical skills far more than it needs checkers at WalMart (and many of those are being phased out with self checkout lines). If we want people out of poverty as a country then we need to invest the resources needed to give them the skills to move out of poverty. As the original source pointed out we are wasting 500 BILLION dollars per year d/t the adverse effects of poverty.

James Manktielow has some provocative thoughts about improving human performance and motivation:

Performance = Ability x Motivation

Where:

• Ability is the person's aptitude, as well as the training and resources supplied by the organization
  
• Motivation is the product of desire and commitment

Someone with 100% motivation and 75% ability can often achieve above-average performance. But a worker with only 25% ability won't be able to achieve the type of performance you expect, regardless of his or her level of motivation.

...

Improving Motivation

Sometimes poor performance has its roots in low motivation. When this is the case, you need to work closely with the employee to create a motivating environment in which to work. There are three key interventions that may improve people's motivation:

• Setting of performance goals.
• Provision of performance assistance.
• Provision of performance feedback.

source:(http://www.mindtools.com) and the subscription email address for the newsletter (http://www.mindtools.com/subscribe.htm).

[Elvish]

Do you ever NOT have an answer for something, Tim?
*takes tongue out of cheek*

I'm not Republican OR Democrat. I have registered independent because I got sick of folks assuming I am one way or the other when they find out my party registration.

I am not going to agree with you, and you are not going to agree with me. I am not worried about 2008, because 8/9/07 is enough for me to worry about.

[Spidey's mom]

Regarding the bridge and the vetoes of the gas tax . .I think what sticks in the craw of budget minded folks is that so much tax money is pouring into Washington but so much is being wasted on boondoggle projects, pork, waste, fluff, whatever you want to call it.

I read an article about a project in Minneapolis in the 1990's where 1 BILLION dollars of state and federal INFRASTRUCTURE dollars was spent on a light rail system called "Haiwatha Light Rail". Instead of using the money for what it was intended, infrastructure, it was used as a pretty photo op for politicians. Now, the estimates for the bridge are $250 million . .. . for the 1 billion dollars DIVERTED - you could build that bridge many times over.

THAT is why (some) mean old Republicans veto pork projects. Because the money should be spent on things we actually need.

I know people get sick of this, but if I ran my household like the government runs the country, I'd be in debt up to my ears.

"The administration in turn has demanded that Congress show more discipline, citing thousands of special projects, or earmarks, in highway bills that don't reflect the real priorities. The best known among them was one that Young supported: $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. That provision eventually faltered, but about $24 billion -- a little less than 8 percent of the total -- in the last highway bill was still devoted to projects singled out by lawmakers for funding."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D8QSB59O0.htm

steph

[UKRNinUSA]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

Regarding the bridge and the vetoes of the gas tax . .I think what sticks in the craw of budget minded folks is that so much tax money is pouring into Washington but so much is being wasted on boondoggle projects, pork, waste, fluff, whatever you want to call it.

I read an article about a project in Minneapolis in the 1990's where 1 BILLION dollars of state and federal INFRASTRUCTURE dollars was spent on a light rail system called "Haiwatha Light Rail". Instead of using the money for what it was intended, infrastructure, it was used as a pretty photo op for politicians. Now, the estimates for the bridge are $250 million . .. . for the 1 billion dollars DIVERTED - you could build that bridge many times over.

THAT is why (some) mean old Republicans veto pork projects. Because the money should be spent on things we actually need.

I know people get sick of this, but if I ran my household like the government runs the country, I'd be in debt up to my ears.

"The administration in turn has demanded that Congress show more discipline, citing thousands of special projects, or earmarks, in highway bills that don't reflect the real priorities. The best known among them was one that Young supported: $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. That provision eventually faltered, but about $24 billion -- a little less than 8 percent of the total -- in the last highway bill was still devoted to projects singled out by lawmakers for funding."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D8QSB59O0.htm

steph

I totally agree with you -and I'm a bleeding heart liberal, not a mean old republican!

[HM2Viking]

America needs nurse's, machinist, welders and people with technical skills far more than it needs checkers at WalMart (and many of those are being phased out with self checkout lines). If we want people out of poverty as a country then we need to invest the resources needed to give them the skills to move out of poverty. As the original source pointed out we are wasting 500 BILLION dollars per year d/t the adverse effects of poverty.

To get back on track the original point of this thread was an expression of concern about the adverse effects of poverty on our society which regardless of your individual political beliefs is something that we should all be able to agree on.

[pickledpepperRN]

ZASHAGALKA
So, are you saying that if I believe that our social contract has a valid meaning, and that gov't should be limited, then I have no right to run for office, in effect, no right to express my opinion as an elected member of gov't?

NO I am not

Only those that believe that our social contract isn't worth the paper its written on can, in effect, steward the creation of our laws?

NO I am not.

Here's the thing: it's not people like me ensuring that the gov't cannot solve these types of problems. We've spent trillions trying, using the philosophy of socialists convinced that they could create a better program, ala the Great Society
That didn't fail because conservatives defunded it. No. It's still a behemoth.

I think privatization is worse than defunding because it is not done honestly

It failed because the gov't NEVER solves things like this. For our social problems, the gov't is and will be part of the problem, and not the solution.

WE are the government.

Gov't doesn't have the power to empower freedom. It can only take and regulate, meaning that it binds freedom, at every turn.

Of course no one can "empower" anyone. WE have to use our power. Your employer cannot empower you either.

More important, gov't is not your friend. It never was. That friendship is always sold at high dollar, and you can rarely afford it.

WE are the government.
Of course a written contract is not a friend. WE can do our best to mitigate the selling of OUR rights as human beings. Rights to the basic necessities of life.

It's not some pollyanna dudley do-right that's gonna implement all these wonderful programs. More than likely, it's companies just like Haliburton. Worse, gov't employees as motivated at those at the social security or DMV office.

I have had a drivers license since 1960. My DH and millions of others Social Security checks arrive on time every month."

Want to eliminate the requirement for drivers to be licensed?
I already know you want to get rid of the Social Security insurance many of us have been paying for all these years.

I worked in gov't. "Close enough for gov't work" has a distinct meaning. It means: we don't have to compete for your business; we have a monopoly, thank you very much.

I worked at the VA during the Viet Nam war caring for orthopedic patients. I did all I possibly could for all my patients, veterans od WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
MOST of us were dedicated, caring, and hard working.

I guess it comes down to what you think of as the common welfare.

I admit to being frustrated that I don't have the money or the energy to help people help themselves. Although I've made it possible for at least two homeless people go to nursing school who are now working full time. One raised her kids working as a nurse after becoming homeless when she left her abusive husband. She couldn't live with her parents because he would have killed her so she came to this city.
She did use welfare, food stamps, and MediCal for 1 1/2 years.
If not for that government help she would have had to put her kids in a foster home and live on the streets.
The other lived with us after her "wonderful" parents put her out on the streets on her 18th birthday (she was a senior in HS).
I didn't have all the resources needed to provide what even two terrific young women needed. I did care for kids on weekends, pay for books and uniforms, buy bus passes, and give emotional support.

So do I want others to help? YES. Even those who have no ability to see that when everyone does better everyone does better.

If WE THE PEOPLE decide to use OUR tax money to provide necessities of survival to OUR fellow Americans what is so bad about that?

[VivaLasViejas]

The reality is, SOMEBODY is going to be on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, no matter what we do or don't do. Not everyone can earn $20 an hour or more; if tomorrow that became the norm, prices would rise dramatically due to the increased cost of doing business, and then........the $20/hr wage earner will be back on the bottom again.

Unless, of course, we adopt a socialist form of government, and America is not about to do that.

Now, I've been poor, and I've been not-so-poor, and you can call me selfish if you want---I don't believe I should be forced to give up what I've worked hard for, in order to make life cushy for those who refuse to help themselves or take responsibility for their actions. I will go to the mat for someone willing to pull him/herself up by the bootstraps and work hard, however, and I agree that people should be encouraged and supported in making as much of their lives as possible.

To that end, I think all concerned would benefit greatly if the government programs serving them were geared to helping them escape poverty, rather than perpetuating it as the current system does. But once again, there will ALWAYS be people working at Wal-Mart or Mc Donald's for 7 bucks an hour or so, because a) that is what the market will bear, and b) we are not all created equal, intellectually or educationally. And again, I suppose I'm just being selfish and mean when I say that I don't think someone who dropped out of high school and works as a day laborer should have the same lifestyle and earnings that I do. By the same token, I don't have, or deserve, the lifestyle and earnings of a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates.......the only difference is, I don't expect the government to help me reach those lofty heights, and I'm not angry at the world for not handing everything to me on a silver platter.

[Elvish]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

WE are the government.

I have had a drivers license since 1960. My DH and millions of others Social Security checks arrive on time every month."

Want to eliminate the requirement for drivers to be licensed?
I already know you want to get rid of the Social Security insurance many of us have been paying for all these years.


I worked at the VA during the Viet Nam war caring for orthopedic patients. I did all I possibly could for all my patients, veterans od WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
MOST of us were dedicated, caring, and hard working.

I guess it comes down to what you think of as the common welfare.

I admit to being frustrated that I don't have the money or the energy to help people help themselves. Although I've made it possible for at least two homeless people go to nursing school who are now working full time. One raised her kids working as a nurse after becoming homeless when she left her abusive husband. She couldn't live with her parents because he would have killed her so she came to this city.
She did use welfare, food stamps, and MediCal for 1 1/2 years.
If not for that government help she would have had to put her kids in a foster home and live on the streets.
The other lived with us after her "wonderful" parents put her out on the streets on her 18th birthday (she was a senior in HS).
I didn't have all the resources needed to provide what even two terrific young women needed. I did care for kids on weekends, pay for books and uniforms, buy bus passes, and give emotional support.

So do I want others to help? YES. Even those who have no ability to see that when everyone does better everyone does better.

If WE THE PEOPLE decide to use OUR tax money to provide necessities of survival to OUR fellow Americans what is so bad about that?

You said what I could not!