What "we" believe is determined by the policies we enact. You're a bit confused. I'm not advocating a new program to combat starvation. Ed said that "food and shelter" aren't guaranteed. I said I think they should be. Fortunately, they do seem to be. Think globally, act both locally and globally. As I've explained to you, society as a whole can do far more than I can individually, so I support social programs. But I also think it's important for individuals to do what they can. These aren't mutually exclusive. I do both, and encourage everyone to do both. Fortunately, many Americans do.
What we believe is based on how we live. Nope. They're not guaranteed, yet they're so easily obtained through some government programs and private charities that I can't recall a case where someone starved to death in this country. I understand society can do more than you as an individual, but why should they do what you wish them to? Shouldn't they do as they please?
That's what I mean by guaranteed. Not constitutionally guaranteed, but socially guaranteed. Everyone is currently guaranteed to at least be able get enough food and shelter to survive due to public policies and private entities. Hmm? I don't dictate social policy, we all do. Society is doing at it pleases. My belief is that one thing that pleases society should be to guarantee some basic necessities of life to even the poorest. For the better part of a century, that is what has pleased society.
There's nothing semantic about it. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what the word means. My position has been consistent from the start: as a society, we should ensure that everyone gets the food, shelter and health care necessary. It's not at all an issue to me that I am paying for previous social programs and future generations will pay for current social programs. Whenever you run out of points to make, your exit from the discussion often seems to be to spit "Don't be so superior" or "Semantic debates bore me," despite neither being relevant.
Really MaxieP? How did your family get here? Unless your a native american, then if your family had made its life better in their former country, you would not be here. Nice attitude to take. What a breath of freindly, fresh air.
Ah, once again with with the superior attitude. I do know what semantic means, thank you very much. I'm beginning to think you're so blinded by your own bullshit you can't even figure out what you were discussing in the first place. Allow me to help you. You started off by saying everyone should be guaranteed food and shelter, and when people pointed out that much of it was provided without government help, you backtracked and stated it should be "socially" guaranteed. What a crock. You clearly meant that the government should step in and ensure it. In fact, you went to great lengths to show how you'd pay more in taxes for it. As for having points to make, I could be like you and go on and on and on and on, but it's boring. We disagree on this issue; you want more government intervention and I prefer to let charities take care of it. That way, more of the money donated goes to the people that really need it, rather than feeding a bureaucracy with an endless appetite.
First, there's no such thing as a "Native American". The Injuns came across a land bridge. Second, with the exception of one set that came before there was a United States, every single member of my family that emigrated here came here legally. Excuse me if I have little sympathy for those that cut the line.
I'd like to see this "guarantee" you speak of, because I've never seen it, or even heard of it, and I've met several dozen families in the last few months who have no shelter unless you count old cars or tents, and eat only sporadically when someone takes pity on them. Maybe you are giving your personall guarantee? If so, please tell me your address so I can forward it to these shelterless families.
You've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't backtracking about the government providing it. I said "policy" which is obviously governmental. You were complaining about my use of "guaranteed," so I was clarifying what I meant by "guarantee"...that is, not constitutionally guaranteed, but guaranteed by current policy (welfare programs). That's what I meant by "socially guaranteed." Our society (not our constitution) ensures it,through government policy. I never changed my position that it should be by government. I appreciate the work that charities do, but I want a government mandated safety net, which are social programs.
I was referring to social welfare. If it is not currently sufficient to ensure that everyone has the food and shelter that they need, I'd be all for expanding it. My impression was that everyone had at least basic food and shelter. But obviously, I don't see the conditions of everyone in the US.
This country sure as hell provides shelter and food for anyone. All ya gotta do is commit a crime and you get to go to jail. This makes me wonder what homeless people are thinking, I would commit minor crimes to get a year or so before I slept in a sewer tunne.
No way, I heard Canada ships criminals to the North Pole and buries them in ICE. Global warming is going to show the world how those bastards really are.
