Now you're talking about encouragement vs. help via social security and
welfare. Encouragement to not use those services is a fine thing, but that
isn't "germane" to the issue of wealth distribution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should
they be allowed to starve to death on the streets?

Of course not. Nor should they be encouraged to be homeless by programs
that do so. San Francisco's $425 per month compensation to each homeless
person comes to mind.

What about the unwed mother who is 17, because she didn't have access to
information about birth control.

Hogwash. That's akin to implying that there are crooks who are unaware of
Miranda, despite hearing it on TV a million times over the last 20 years.
Yes, there should be programs for unwed mothers, too, but not ones that
encourage such behavior as the current ones do.

What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute herself to
get food for herself and her child?

The *good* folks in Afghanistan seem to believe that's a satisfactory
plan. See above.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying
something like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent
my belief and seems pretty stupid.

It was during the Kennedy administration. JFK gave us one of the largest
tax breaks in history, reducing the marginal tax rates substantially.
Some of his House and Senate democrats disputed his move--despite that it
did pass both democrat-controlled houses--and were asked what the maximum
marginal rate should be. One reporter asked a few of them if 100% sounded
okay, to which they nodded their heads. Of course it's stupid.

You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing numbskull comment,
which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I don't think I've
called you a right-wingnut lately.

It wasn't directed at you, Jon. And yes, you've been most gracious to us
conservatives of late. My ad hominems are directed at Doug. It's
probably a futile gesture, but I'm hoping that he might begin to see the
pointlessness of name calling.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the
space program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the
street, and all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why
are you only talking about the services you don't like?

Redistribution of *personal* wealth. From one's pocket to another's.
It's a basic tenet of communism. Building infrastructure and military
might is not quite the same thing. Conservatives have no objections to
military spending, infrastructure, the space program, and such provided
the expenditures are controlled, monitored, and wise. The $200 hammers
and $50 plastic caps for the legs of B-52 cockpit seats are examples of
less-than-wise, uncontrolled, unmonitored spending.

But to answer your question directly, conservatives believe that people
should take care of their own affairs unless they are unable to do so.
Before my father died, he exhausted the entirety of his estate on nursing
home care. I had to make periodic trips to the Medicaid office on his
behalf, and while there I noticed no shortage of young, healthy males and
females, many of them illegal aliens no doubt, collecting their welfare
checks at the window.

Max