English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

This question's false premise doesn't deserve my time to explain the correction. I will say this: 80% of the wealth in this country is inherited.. is that looking to themself or is it hard work? NO The poor ppl work a heck of a lot harder then any other group/class.

2006-08-06 12:46:08 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

Yeah, I wondered that after Katrina when everyone was blaming the government instead of being glad they came, and listening to those people who went to Lebanon blame the US government for not getting them out fast enough (because we all knew how stable the middle east was for tourists, to begin with!)

To the guy above me, obviously, we owe veterans to help them with whatever they suffered on our behalf. That isn't looking to the government for a solution in the same sense. If the government sent them there, then like any other employer, they have responsibilities. As those who benefited from the veteran's work there, we are happy to cover the cost.

I'm talking about people who just suffered life, not what the government did to them, but expect to be bailed out.

Obviously, we want to try, but a little less entitlement would be nice.

2006-08-06 20:28:19 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

First, you're overgeneralizing. But let's go with the concept.

Many liberals believe it is the role of the government to provide for the people. Based on the constitutional principle of "providing for the general Welfare" and the Congressional authority to generally spend money for the Welfare of the people (Article I Section 8).

They believe that it is the government's obligation to take care of the people, being a government "for the people". So, since we live in a society where there is a strong federal government, the government can do its job by having everyone contribute part of what they earn or spend (taxes) and using that money for the good of everyone in society, including those who need financial assistance (see "welfare" above).

The other aspect involves government regulation. And here's where people get confused between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals believe in heavy government regulation to PREVENT people (and companies) from doing things that harms others. Conservatives believe in heavy government regulation to REQUIRE people to behave a certain way, with the secondary effect that this avoids harming others.

In the legal world, it's the difference between a prohibitory injunction and an affirmative or mandatory injunction. Each seeks to produce the same net result (lack of harm to others), but they go about it different ways.

As a result, liberals seek regulations that allow greater personal freedoms, and prevent government or business restriction of those freedoms, thus preventing harm to people from governments or businesses. Or that enforce freedoms and civil liberties, to prevent people from acting out of prejudice and hatred.

In contrast, conservatives figure that if you just tell people what to do in the first place, and mandate specific behaviors, you don't end up needing to protect people from harm because the actions that might produce harm are prohibited. But that also allows for enforcement of particular codes of behavior and moral values, because the government is in the business of telling people how to act.

As with all things, either mindset works in moderation. There are some things the federal government is better doing, rather than leaving it up to the individuals. National interstate highways, the military, and the space program all come to mind.

There are also things that individuals should do for themselves, and the government should not get involved. Parental choice of schooling, reproductive rights, and the media come to mind.

2006-08-06 19:44:32 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

When you are a Veteran of Combat your hearing, eyesight, touch, taste and/or ability to smell in one or more senses is impaired.
The Veteran does not hear or see what you or I would hear or see. What the veteran senses is distorted. Combat distorts the senses. So, what to you is a normal identifiable smell to a combat Veteran is a threat to his or her life or worse, a threat to his/her team.
What to you is a slightly different traffic pattern, maybe to a combat Veteran a sure sign of an attack at any second, a bomb planted in the road ahead. A suicide attacker getting close. What to you is a pat on the back maybe an attack on the Veteran and his team at any second.
So, understand, as a Combat Veteran you are on a feather trigger mod that does not go away when you get home to the states. Your wife or husband reaches out at night to touch you at night in bed, and the next thing that happens is the spouse of a combat Veteran is being choaked to death. Hopefully the Veteran will wake in time.
This kind of reaction to combat is not rare.
So lets go back to your ultimately fair question. In fact, it makes perfect sense in your world, but to a Veteran of Combat there is no "your world" left.
This otherwise normal person is not the same person and does not have the same reactions to input.
This problem, PTSD, is treatable, but it is not easy. And there are different degrees of PTSD, so with one person it may be a matter of several starts down a new road, with another it may be never.

2006-08-06 20:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0 0

I expect the government to do exactly what is it says in the Premable to the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Nobody makes it entirely on their own that is mythology.

2006-08-06 19:57:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because they pay taxes just like everyone else. The government takes enough money from me, I can expect them to at least help the poor people with the money I pay in, not just pander to the rich..

2006-08-06 19:47:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Example?

You need to talk to actual liberals, and not just listen to what Fox News tells you liberals are like.

2006-08-06 19:46:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Government has the power.

2006-08-06 19:46:34 · answer #8 · answered by 2feEThigh 5 · 0 0

Because it is easier for them to get help from others than for them to help themselves. It is probably some innate wiring defect that arises sometime before puberty.

2006-08-06 19:48:42 · answer #9 · answered by nittanyisland2000 2 · 0 0

Why are conservative the recievers of the largest share of government funds. quit being so ignorant

2006-08-06 19:46:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers