As A Liberal, I Believe The Government Should Have A Significant, Proactive Role In Providing For

[Beetwasher]

The general welfare of the population. This includes protection of fundamental human rights, the health and safety of the population and regulation of the marketplace to ensure adequate wages, safety, fairness, honest competition etc. As a progressive, I believe that while I would prefer the progress towards these goals to be instantaneous, I understand it usually (but not always) happens incrementally. And in this highly polarized atmosphere where Fox News rules and 20% of the population actually believes the President is a Muslim who is hiding his nefarious intent, progress is particularly, and singularly stymied, but somehow, still arguably happening.

Discuss, keeping in mind this is MY opinion. Voice yours, also keeping in mind that it is YOUR opinion.

If you think you are providing any facts to back up your opinion, source them, or don't call them facts.

That's the challenge. Rise to it.

[Kahuna]

1. I cannot argue with your logical and "pragmatic" approach. For

like it or not, that is the way it happens in the real world. Otherwise, we would have a bloody revolution every time the power changes hands. Though I suspect many would like that....as long as someone else is laying THEIR life on the line. :patriot:

[Beetwasher]

5. Yeah, I See A Lot Of Anarchic Sentiments Around Here

Without much thought as to the actual real world consequences of totally upending a system. I chalk it up to adolescence.

Not that our system isn't in need of radical change, I firmly believe it is, but it has to be done responsibly.

[NJmaverick]

2. That's the real world

We need to work TOGETHER to make things batter

[POAS]

4. Especially if it is

beer "batter". Nothing like beer "battered" perch fish fry....yum!

:toast:

Seriously, if we cannot find a way to cooperate then we may not be able to keep the Republic".

[Beetwasher]

6. One Of The Things I Found Most Abhorable About The Previous Administration

Administration was it's authoritarian mindset. It was just so offensive to me. And now we see so many supposed "liberals" on this site demanding the same type of authoritarian bent from Obama. You see too much "Bush was able to do it!". I guess as long as it's YOUR ideals being shoved down someone's throat then it's ok to some people.

[POAS]

7. VERY well said..n/t

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[kentuck]

8. I believe corporations are domestic enemies...

And Congress takes an oath to protect us from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Why do I think that? Because they are not interested in the "general welfare". They are only interested in their own bottom line.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Of course, without them, no one has a job.

As with everything in life, it's of an issue of balance - and that our government has allowed the nation to become far too imbalanced in their favor.

Of course they're going to only be interested in their own bottom line - that's the entire raison d'etre of a corporation. Which is all the more reason why we have to make sure that mission doesn't conflict with the interests of the nation and of our workers, as it's probably unreasonable to assume that corporations are going to do it themselves. It's like they have their own Three Laws of Robotics, that go a little something like this:

1 A corporation must make as much money as possible.
2 A corporation must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First Law.
3 A corporation may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Does that make them an enemy of the state? No - that's far, far overblowing it. But it does mean they have to be very closely regulated and monitored.

[Bobbie Jo]

10. It seems some Americans have the attention span

of a fruit fly.

"And in this highly polarized atmosphere where Fox News rules and 20% of the population actually believes the President is a Muslim who is hiding his nefarious intent, progress is particularly, and singularly stymied, but somehow, still arguably happening."

It's a wonder we get ANYTHING accomplished. We need to keep momentum moving in the 'forward' direction...as slow as it may seem.

The two steps forward, three steps back approach has been proven disasterous.

[kctim]

11. It is a "highly polarized atmosphere"

because some believe in 'provide' and others believe in 'promote.' This leads to different beliefs of what is progress.

[Beetwasher]

13. Not Really A Big Difference, IMO

Provide/Promote. It was a typo on my part, but my post stands. Would replace provide with promote and everything I said still stands.

[kctim]

15. There is a huge difference

when it comes to how individuals believe and how that divides them.
If you provide something, you supply it. If you promote something, you make people aware of it and let them make their own choice. Some people believe that choice is more important than having it supplied to them and others believe they don't have a real choice, for whatever reason, and want it supplied.

[Beetwasher]

16. Wrong

pro·mote    Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1.
to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

—Synonyms
1. abet, back, forward, advance, assist, help, support. 2. elevate, raise, exalt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote

The constitution is NOT talking about advertising the general welfare. It is talking about helping it FLOURISH and supporting it. Or, in other words, PROVIDING support, assistance and help so the general welfare of the population flourishes and progresses.

It sounds as if you don't think this is the role of government?

[kctim]

17. You can't just take the parts you like

in order to support you're position. First, it is the general welfare of the country, not of the population, as you stated. Yes, the general welfare of the population is a part of the general welfare of the country, but so are individual rights. This is where the differing beliefs clash.
Second, there is a huge difference between helping something flourish and providing the means for it to flourish.

Provide and promote are not the same thing, and it is very evident if one uses reason rather than emotion when reading "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare"

When viewed in its whole, the Constitution limits government from "providing" everything for individual citizens because it must infringe on other individuals in order to provide in such a way. Some people are ok with government doing that, others are not and those differing beliefs are what I thought we were discussing.

It does not matter what I think the role of govt is. It's role is outlined in the Constitution and the fact of the matter is that it is a limited role when it comes to what it can and cannot do to or for individual citizens.

[Beetwasher]

18. You Make Up Your Own Definitions, That's Your Problem

"Promoting" the general welfare means what I said it does per it's very definition, and still supports everything else I said.

As I said, I made typo and meant to say "promote" and it changes nothing in what I wrote thereafter since I meant to use "promote" and not "provide" in the first place. So your point is utterly moot. I acknowledged I made a mistake and used the wrong word. It changes nothing in the rest of my post.

[kctim]

19. Sigh

No, I am not making up my own definitions. I wish I had such power, but I do not.

To provide is to supply.
To promote is to encourage.

You ask anybody what those words mean in general, and you will get those answers. You ask them what they mean in a political sense and the definitions will differ based on the persons belief system.
The ONLY angle you have, and the one I support, is that the general welfare of the country, that is referred to in the Constitution, is dependent on the general welfare of the population, which is not mention in the Constitution.

The fact that you and I believe that to be true, does not discount that others believe the general welfare of the country is dependent on individual rights, and that they believe those rights are what the country needs in order to flourish and progress.

These different sets of beliefs and values are what divides us. Not FOX.

[Beetwasher]

20. Which Is Why I Started My OP Saying "I Believe..."

So, I don't know what your point is except to nitpick the fact that I used the wrong word, which I acknowledged. It changes nothing in my post and in fact the difference between provide/promote in the context I'm using them, is not very significant. I believe the gov't's job is to promote the general welfare BY providing such things as protections of civil rights etc.

And if you think Fox and other corporate media isn't dividing the country you ain't been paying attention.

[kctim]

21. It is about differing beliefs

not that you falsely believe the words are the same and misuse them.

People either believe govt should provide for them or that govt should leave choice with the people. More or less govt in individual lives is what divides us and that is why change takes so long in our country.

[Beetwasher]

22. The Founders Believed The Gov't Should Promote The General Welfare

And put it in the constitution. That has nothing to do with choice. I don't see the word choice in there, do you? You just made that up. Like I said, you like to make up your own definitions. One of the defined roles of the gov't IS to promote the general welfare, period. It doesn't say "The gov't should promote the general welfare and you choose whether or not to let them". We can debate what exactly "promoting the general welfare" is, and shared my beliefs. But there's no mention of "choice" because it's not relevant, nor did the founders think so or they would have put it in there.

Who the hell said that it's NOT about differing beliefs? Again, that's why I said "I believe..." Duh.

I never said the words were the same or that I believed they were. I said they don't make much of a contextual difference. Obviously you don't uderstand what that means, but that's your problem.

[Cleita]

12. That's what the government should do, however, I

believe our government has gone rogue and doesn't recognize it's Constitutional duty to do this.

[Beetwasher]

14. I Don't Think So

I think the Repubs have been rogue for a long time and that's the problem. As well as too many compromised Dems. But we're making progress nonetheless.

[mdmc]

23. ..