WN: Bush threatens to veto health bill - USA Today

[forrestkc]

Rush Limbaugh was a great inspiration. He said something one time that I will never forget. He said that most people in poverty are there because of personal choices they make. They wish to remain in a low paying job because they like it, or fear change, or they don't want to relocate. America is a place of opportunity, but we have to do what is necessary to succeed. Those were not his exact words, but basically what he meant. I had to make drastic lifestyle changes to become an over-the-road truck driver, but because I did, I was able to climb out of poverty, and no thanks to the liberals or Democrats.

So if you were a single mother, raising 3 kids on your own, you would have been able to become an over the road driver? I made drastic lifestyle changes and relocated to get ahead as well, but not everyone can.

What I think is rather ironic is that we can accord to spend nearly half a trillion dollars so far on Iraq, but we can't afford to make sure that every child in our nation has healthcare coverage.

[rtwo]

How is compulsory taxation and charity -not- an imposition of moral values by government?

Because, taxation is not a violation of ones rights unless they are anarchist and simply do not believe in any governing authority at all, and most social programs are a reflection of the collective public will and can be overturned by the voting public at any time. They are reflections of our moral values, not impositions.

In a country run for, by and of the people, taxation is a holding of money in trust. It does not belong to the government to do as they see fit. It belongs to the citizens, who put the government in power to do what the government was designed to do. When the government does things outside the scope of their charter (such as welfare and health bills like this one), the government is breaking that trust.

Further, the reason for the type of government we have in place is to protect individuals from the majority. If I give compulory taxes (and yes, they are compulsory), and they are used for something other than what the government was created for, it -is- by definition an imposition.

[rtwo]

Its a moral issue.

So, then, you're against gay marriage and truly pro-life (anti-abortion) on a government level, as well?

Most people who oppose the above positions cite that they are "moral" issues (though, in fact, they are issues of law and liberty). But, according to your above statement, you have no problem with governance by morality. I would assume, then, that even if you do believe that gay marriage and abortion are "moral issues", that you would have no such protests to those positions?

What Forrest and people like him try to do is make things like welfare the real moral issues to take away from their support for murdering unborn babies and supporting the homosexual agenda.

Well, sure. Here's my thing: I actually agree that it's a moral issue -- which is why I don't think the government ought to be dealing with it. The government is, by definition, an amoral entity - an imposition of morality upon people by such an entity is, necessarily, anti-liberty. What makes the other two issues different for me is that, A, abortion is the termination of innocent human life, usually for the sake of convenience (read: murder), and, B, for the federal government to make a ruling on homosexual marriage is to detract from State's rights, and is, in and of itself, a moral decision telling me and others that we must recognize such a union, to the detriment of our 1st amendment rights.

You just got through saying that insuring children is a moral issue, yet here you state that the government is amoral and shouldn't be imposing morality upon people? That is a huge contradiction. In addition, the government imposes morality all the time, when they do things like outlaw prostitution, drug use, polygamy, etc. They also have laws that would make it illegal to kill my neighbor up the street, so why not have a law to protect a baby from being murdered by it's mother? As far as the homosexual agenda goes, I am fine with the states choosing their own laws in that regard. That means that if a state wants sodomy laws in place, they should be able to have them.

It's not a contradiction at all. It's two separate but related statements: A - it is a moral issue; B - the government shouldn't be dealing with it.

No contradiction. I don't think the government was put in place to establish and enforce a moral will.

I think, Butero, that you and I agree (when I reread our posts) ... I apologize if I'm not clear here -- or perhaos I'm misreading something you wrote? As I said, Murder (and hence abortion) is not an imposition of morality, but a protection of life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness; such as is necessary for a civilization to properly function.

[forrestkc]

In a country run for, by and of the people, taxation is a holding of money in trust.

Yes, your catching on.

It does not belong to the government to do as they see fit.

Exactly.

It belongs to the citizens, who put the government in power to do what the government was designed to do.

Right again.

When the government does things outside the scope of their charter (such as welfare and health bills like this one), the government is breaking that trust.

This is where you messed up. It belongs to be people as a collective trust to meet the obligations that we the people place in the public sector. For example, it is the will of the people that we provide seniors with healthcare coverage (Medicare), so we the people, placed that obligation into the public sector, and thus we the people have instrusted our government to carry out this obligation.

Further, the reason for the type of government we have in place is to protect individuals from the majority. If I give compulory taxes (and yes, they are compulsory), and they are used for something other than what the government was created for, it -is- by definition an imposition.

Well see your sort of right there. For example, we have a separation of church and state to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. We all have civil rights and liberties that cannot be infringed upon by the majority. For example, even if 99% of voters in Alabama wanted to reinstitute segregation, it would still be unconstitutional. However, you have no right under the constitution to direct where your personal tax contributions go. For example, I cannot say that I want my taxes to fund military operations in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. However, I can try to convince enough of my peers of my position, and elect officials that better represent my views.

[forrestkc]

If the government cannot establish and enforce a moral will, then we shouldn't have laws against murder, theft, prostitution, drug use, slander, etc., on the books, because they are all moral laws. I have no problem with having the government regulate morality, because they do so all the time. What I have a problem with is liberals decrying the government regulating morality when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, yet they push things that are moral issues to them.

Laws against slander, theft and so on our not based in morality.

There is a simple principle that ours and all free societies are based in. It is that your right to live your life the way you choose to do so extends so far as to not to impede another individuals ability to do the same.

Virtually ever law we have, be it laws against theft, murder, rape, child molestation, property laws, and so on are based in that principle.

[rtwo]

Its a moral issue.

So, then, you're against gay marriage and truly pro-life (anti-abortion) on a government level, as well?

Most people who oppose the above positions cite that they are "moral" issues (though, in fact, they are issues of law and liberty). But, according to your above statement, you have no problem with governance by morality. I would assume, then, that even if you do believe that gay marriage and abortion are "moral issues", that you would have no such protests to those positions?

What Forrest and people like him try to do is make things like welfare the real moral issues to take away from their support for murdering unborn babies and supporting the homosexual agenda.

Well, sure. Here's my thing: I actually agree that it's a moral issue -- which is why I don't think the government ought to be dealing with it. The government is, by definition, an amoral entity - an imposition of morality upon people by such an entity is, necessarily, anti-liberty. What makes the other two issues different for me is that, A, abortion is the termination of innocent human life, usually for the sake of convenience (read: murder), and, B, for the federal government to make a ruling on homosexual marriage is to detract from State's rights, and is, in and of itself, a moral decision telling me and others that we must recognize such a union, to the detriment of our 1st amendment rights.

You just got through saying that insuring children is a moral issue, yet here you state that the government is amoral and shouldn't be imposing morality upon people? That is a huge contradiction. In addition, the government imposes morality all the time, when they do things like outlaw prostitution, drug use, polygamy, etc. They also have laws that would make it illegal to kill my neighbor up the street, so why not have a law to protect a baby from being murdered by it's mother? As far as the homosexual agenda goes, I am fine with the states choosing their own laws in that regard. That means that if a state wants sodomy laws in place, they should be able to have them.

It's not a contradiction at all. It's two separate but related statements: A - it is a moral issue; B - the government shouldn't be dealing with it.

No contradiction. I don't think the government was put in place to establish and enforce a moral will.

If the government cannot establish and enforce a moral will, then we shouldn't have laws against murder, theft, prostitution, drug use, slander, etc., on the books, because they are all moral laws. I have no problem with having the government regulate morality, because they do so all the time. What I have a problem with is liberals decrying the government regulating morality when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, yet they push things that are moral issues to them.

Ah -- we simply have a difference of definition. I just disagree that such things as murder, theft and slander are moral issues. They are laws, and should be, because they are in direct opposition to the life, liberty and pursuit of others' happiness. A government, specifically this government, is established spefically to protect its citizens from the actions of -others-. As for the prostitution, well... that's another discussion entirely.

[rtwo]

In a country run for, by and of the people, taxation is a holding of money in trust.

Yes, your catching on.

It does not belong to the government to do as they see fit.

Exactly.

It belongs to the citizens, who put the government in power to do what the government was designed to do.

Right again.

When the government does things outside the scope of their charter (such as welfare and health bills like this one), the government is breaking that trust.

This is where you messed up. It belongs to be people as a collective trust to meet the obligations that we the people place in the public sector. For example, it is the will of the people that we provide seniors with healthcare coverage (Medicare), so we the people, placed that obligation into the public sector, and thus we the people have instrusted our government to carry out this obligation.

Further, the reason for the type of government we have in place is to protect individuals from the majority. If I give compulory taxes (and yes, they are compulsory), and they are used for something other than what the government was created for, it -is- by definition an imposition.

Well see your sort of right there. For example, we have a separation of church and state to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. We all have civil rights and liberties that cannot be infringed upon by the majority. For example, even if 99% of voters in Alabama wanted to reinstitute segregation, it would still be unconstitutional. However, you have no right under the constitution to direct where your personal tax contributions go. For example, I cannot say that I want my taxes to fund military operations in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. However, I can try to convince enough of my peers of my position, and elect officials that better represent my views.

A contradiction. An imposition of welfare is actually the same.

But, alas, I see we will pretty much agree to disagree on this. That's okay. This is America - you have the right to be wrong.

[forrestkc]

A contradiction. An imposition of welfare is actually the same.

But, alas, I see we will pretty much agree to disagree on this. That's okay. This is America - you have the right to be wrong.

At least we do largely seem to agree on the civil liberties side of things though.

[rtwo]

A contradiction. An imposition of welfare is actually the same.

But, alas, I see we will pretty much agree to disagree on this. That's okay. This is America - you have the right to be wrong.

At least we do largely seem to agree on the civil liberties side of things though.

For the most part, it does seem that way.

And of course, we stand on the Greatest of Common Ground, our faith in Christ.

[Scarletprayers]

Well I feel like I'm "standing" on my head.....................................I and thousands like me, aren't stastics, and polls. But evidenly the unknown, unwashed masses matter more to the liberal set. Gee, forrest thanks....I can feel the love. Your entire stance is built on helping everybody, except the people that are actually paying for it.

I was really kinda thinking about not voting this time around as there isn't anybody I feel good about voting for, but, now I think I will, and it will be a Republican, if this is how most of the Dems look at things.