daoneandonly wrote:
I can appreciate how you approach this doc, no name calling or outlandish accusations, just thorough points as you see it, thank you.
Whats the point? Ultimately everybody wants the same thing in life. To have your basic needs met and then a bit of happiness on top of that. Some people think their happiness derives from winning, measuring it against others, and getting more happiness points (and/or dollars) than other people. That's cool in sports, I like it there. Where we get to pick teams and pointlessly roar for one or the other color.
Politics finds us in the same position sometimes. But we are not always playing the same game. Some are cheering for Team Red. Some are cheering for Team All Human Beings. We end up arguing about the rule system (politics) and picking teams becomes more important than the goal (what is the definition of 'winning' in the game of America. Or in the game of 'humanity').
But I'm Team Happiness. I feel like those founding documents are pretty remarkable in laying out what governments should be for. All governments. For all people. I live and work here, in a purported democracy, so I have a stake and a say (theoretically) in what our country's effect is in the world. But I don't think my happiness depends on you and I hating each other and one of us winning. I think the same way your views changed on health care by having a hard scare, that if you woke up in someone else's skin and circumstances you might feel differently. ME too. So I might as well try your skin on for a while. Without the aid of a white van and powerful sedatives and a portable surgery suite.
Absolutely God is on the side of helping the poor, and all this falls into the realm of basic human decency and ethics. But one could easily make that same argument for the social issue I constantly harped on, wasn't trying to bring it up again and keep beating this horse, but why does separation of church state matter there, but not here? That's what I don't understand, seems rather convenient for the progressives, no?
That's a neat trick by which you can dismiss your own moral tenets. By trying to say other people shouldn't believe them. YOu don't have to follow them, but they shouldn't either, since they don't belong to them.
I didn't bring up religion. You did. But you argue against the words you quote. I'd submit you can be progressive and still believe in a religion. That those moral choices guide the decisions you have to make in life, without requiring all people go to the same church as you. That's what separation of church and state is about. Not dismissing religion, simply saying: It doesn't matter what tradition leads you to the ethical choice, so long as you arrive at a moral position. Just don't ignore the entreaties of those teachings when its convenient to you.
Mr Rogers was a minister in his faith. His spoken words are about as Progressive a policy as you get in life. To say nothing of the Reverend Doctor Martin. I'm not even going to talk about what team that Jewish carpenter seems to have been supporting.
Yeah unfortunately I did have a health scare, still have to deal with all the aftermath, it's changed my views on the healthcare system and how no man or woman should have to worry about paying for their healthcare needs. But that's a separate entity from taxes.
How is it separate? We are talking about who funds a society. Civilization and not barbarism. You saw how stark that fear is that there should be people who can't afford care. Now, picture the desperation of a man in Minnesota who can't afford his heating bill in February. A mother with a hungry baby. If they could pay for their needs, they would. They can't. But all are not given the same advantages. Life isn't fair. The deck is stacked in favor of people who have reached success.
With respect to how you mention how you cant see ppl in those higher brackets not having reason to complain that they are treated unfairly, of course there are reasons. There's people who sacrificed time, energy, social life, etc to get to those brackets, despite what Zonk thinks, not every person who may have some wealth was gifted it by daddy like Donald Trump.
The Brookings institute says an estimated 35-40% of wealth is inherited not self made.
" Contrary to American beliefs about equality of opportunity, a child’s economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents.
Forty-two percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution remain in the bottom, while 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top.
Children of middle-income parents have a near-equal likelihood of ending up in any other quintile, presenting equal promise and peril for those born to middle-class parents.
The “rags to riches” story is much more common in Hollywood than on Main Street. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the very top. "
Where you are born and to whom you are born seems to be the greatest determiner of what happens to you in the future. An accident of birth determines the fate of the majority of people. So yeah, statistics say sure, some people can rise or fall, but in general if you are born at the bottom you stay at the bottom and if you are born at the top then society looks out for you better and there you are likely to stay.
