It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are we our brothers keeper?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
*Mods, please move if this is in the wrong spot.


Are we our brothers keeper?

In the greater sense, no. As individuals we must earn our own way. If we CHOOSE to help, that is another thing. Charity cannot be enforced (social programs). Charity is given freely, not out of duty or coercion but from the desire to build and create.

If a house is burning down do you add on a new room? No. If a house is slowly being built but needs a board here, an extra hinge to hold a door there, yes. Too many on welfare are "burning houses". Too many generational recipients seem to have no desire for improvement and are as equally bad as the looters from the govt. that steal our money to give to them. The generational welfare individual will be forever shackled via karma to the looters that keep them there.

In the past, a man would practically FIGHT in order to pay back assistance. If the person assisting refused payment as a sign of friendship or lack of need, the recipient would find some way to make things "right".

Lets say they lost a job at a factory. They would move where there was work to be had. It was a matter of HONOR AND SELF RESPECT!

"Well, those on welfare don't have jobs or there are no jobs to get."


Fine. I agree that the job situation is abysmal. Yet another instance of the government interfering with the natural
flow of money/energy that flows through the veins of a country. Weak industry, no jobs. No jobs, no wealth.

No wealth, no growth.

Today, we were discussing tax evasion at lunch. We all pretty much condoned it but also understood that it could also lead to the unhealthy effect of having a bullet put through your skull. To the point, I explained that our
country was designed to be ran off of duties and tariffs levied against other nations that were doing business with
us.

This did two things.

1. Protected jobs from outside forces (as much a threat as a standing army!)
2. Kept trade equalized in value.

Free trade isnt!

Enter the Fed and IRS. Essentially, our economy was hijacked at the inception of these two. Our money that we worked for, was no longer ours to do with as we saw fit. We were forced to "render unto Caesar".A few years later, we had the wonderful opportunity of another socialist (FDR) who decided that he also knew better what we should do with our money.

He gave us "welfare".

To this point, the neighbors/church or family took care of the "old widow down the street". Our people were a better people because we operated simultaneously as individuals AND a collective. As individuals, we made our way, were innovators, and basically looked for whatever hadn't been done before. As a collective, we understood that having strong individuals built the foundation for the rest.

Welfare does neither. It doesn't build, it doesn't create.

To be fair, there are some that have crawled up from welfare's cesspool. They were of the "old school" fiber. Maybe they had a temporary set back.

They REFUSED TO GIVE UP!

In the past, they would might have lost a farm to weather, a home to fire, or what have you. The neighbors would help build one back and that person would return the payment (if asked for) with work. Value for Value.

that is all gone.

Our jobs are all gone to slave labor (which cannot be beaten for price), taxes on small business are wretched (obamacare is really a nail in that coffin), and innovation is stifled or completely destroyed.

Ask Tesla about JP Morgan, Marconi, and Thomas Edison. Ask Preston Tucker about the guys from the "Big Three" and the government?

( secure.wikimedia.org... )

....and no. The government is not supposed to "create" jobs. It makes jobs possible via an amenable environment.

The value in a person is in what they create. If they can create the ability for someone to climb higher, that is
enough. If they only pick a person up and place them on that "rung of the ladder", they have created nothing but an illusion.

Hold a child till he's 5 and he'll never walk. Left alone, he will learn.


Are we our brothers keeper? Are we responsible for the irresponsible foul ups of others?

no.




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Amen.

So many Americans feel "entitled" to things; that things are "rights". They have been told this all of their lives.

It is so sad to me that, like that 5 year old in your story, they have been held and never allowed to walk. That is why they are so angry. The system has handicapped them from the very beginning.

I really don't know how we can solve the problem, unfortunately. How do we turn this around?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I think a good way to turn things around would be the negative income tax proposed by Milton Friedman. I don't support social welfare or the Negative income tax in principal but since the band-aid is already stuck on and ripping it off would be to painful for many, to the tune of riots, this would be the way to go in my opinion. At the very least, it would get the ball rolling in reform of a broken, ineffective, wasteful system.

www.econlib.org...

ETA: At least with the NIT we would eliminate the middleman and the waste from paying all the government workers that administer and work in social welfare bureaucracy.
edit on 12-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Hawkins said "With humility comes the willingness to stop trying to control or change other people or life situations or events ostensibly 'for their own good'."

That somewhat resonates to me, yet at the same time I feel that selfless action to assist those in need cannot be a bad thing.

Edit - Regarding being held accountable by the fiscal irresponsibility from others, I in no way feel any obligation.
edit on 8/12/11 by Big Trouble in Little Chi because: Added a line



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I am quite amazed that I haven't been flamed as evil and elitist....its early in the morning though, a whole 'nother day ahead LOL!

I'm still digesting Atlas Shrugged (finished just a couple of weeks ago).

As stated in my post, I have no issue with helping someone that is worthy of help. If I can see that (like myself) you are doing all you can and things are still tight, I'll do what I can to help.

IF I have some hood rat run up to me and and say "you owe me, unass it", he will likely earn only my ire....and a bullet.

In this country, we are some of the most giving people around (if left to our own devices). Its how we started.

You either helped or perished.

You also either worked or perished. There was no room for a lazy person.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I think a good way to turn things around would be the negative income tax proposed by Milton Friedman. I don't support social welfare or the Negative income tax in principal but since the band-aid is already stuck on and ripping it off would be to painful for many, to the tune of riots, this would be the way to go in my opinion. At the very least, it would get the ball rolling in reform of a broken, ineffective, wasteful system.

www.econlib.org...

ETA: At least with the NIT we would eliminate the middleman and the waste from paying all the government workers that administer and work in social welfare bureaucracy.
edit on 12-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA


Gotta disagree with you.

Welfare is still welfare. To give wages that are unearned is just a way to take the incentive away from working and improving.

Riots? Only for a little while. After most of the rioters are either in a hole or behind bars, the "pain" will be over. Withdrawal from a society of "instant titty" will cause some to be petulant. At that point, we will police ourselves. England lost that right. We haven't and wont.

there is no reason why EVERYONE in our country shouldnt have a job....as long as the government gets out of the way and does ITS job.

Its job? Protecting our jobs.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 

Feelings.
Emotions.
Caring.
Why don't you care?
Don't you have any emotions?

You have to give to people. And if others don't give, then you have to take from them because they don't care enough.

__________________________________________

Notice how it's all about caring/giving/emotions?

Not about responsibility, dignity, honour, respect?
These concepts are being erased from our lexicon faster than Charie Sheen at an open bar. It's up to us to insure that these concepts don't leave. That we remain true to the values that we used to have as a nation.

S&F



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Personally I disagree.. To a degree I think we are.. In the 1930s when the worst of the depression was hitting around here the locals with surplus cash decided to set up a system that would be funded by public subscription to give the poor around here free shoes..

and free dental.. free medical... free legal advice.. free training for a new career.. heck they even brought old cottages to give those who where suffering most a reprieve (even if it was only for a few days) from their dire situation. They did that out of choice to help their fellow man.

If anything that was one of the birthing spots for the UKs social systems.. the people pulled together and supported each other during times of deep crisis and on the whole I deeply believe such systems benefit society.

The problem I have is when the systems are turned into political weapons or profit machines. either used to enslave or rob society.. which is what I believe we see in the way the systems are managed today and it is my firm belief that administration of said systems should be out of reach of the government or corporations.

So my contention is that these social systems are not bad.. but the way they are used as political weapons or as a revenue/tax streams is.

ETA to amend my poorly written post.
edit on 13/8/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


We are, but our brothers want independence so no. Good question.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull


So my contention is that these social systems are not bad.. but the way they are used as political weapons or as a revenue/tax streams is.

ETA to amend my poorly written post.
edit on 13/8/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)


How are these systems not bad?

If you have a child and you expect little of them, you will receive kind in return.

"A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take it back"

My family makes enough to do just "ok". No fancy vacations, no "lets go buy a new TV". We operate on cash. That would be vastly better without the government STEALING a ton of it to give to some crack mama down in harlem or some white trash cranking out meth in East Texas.

Without self respect (not this abomination "self esteem") being cultivated, our country will NEVER again be what it was. A man cannot feel good about himself if he wakes up every morning and "takes his ration" from his master. A REAL MAN will drag his bare balls across glass to remove himself from such a situtation.

I choose who and and when to give my money too. It shouldnt be coerced.

( sorry for the tone sounding harsh
)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I was invited to this thread but don't have much to say.

I might not be my brother's keeper, but I really don't want my brother to kill my dad or cut my head off either.
Sometimes I wish I didn't have siblings, wish I were an only child.

Sibling rivalry really sucks. It's really bad when you're little, and they hold you down, and they pass gas on you. KWIM? Makes you wanna come up swinging and kick em in the shins.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join