Those who are successful in America have unfair advantages. The government can step in to alleviate the suffering of those who are born without the built-in advantages others have. Some of these advantages are education, money, innate intelligence, robust health of body and mind, cleverness, self-discipline, habit of being thrifty, the ability to be proactive and future-oriented, being an American citizen, etc.
A.) True ______
B.) False ______
My answer is very, Very, VERY A.) True ____X
My reasoning is because the Constitution does not allow any such differences [see https://hubpages.com/politics/The-U-S-C … ons-Spirit how the spirit of the constitution] is for ...
1) Perfecting the Union "done without any form of divisions"
2) Establishing Justice "Without separate justices for class differences"
3) Insuring domestic Tranquility "Despite any man differences",
4) Provide for the common Defence "of people territory",
5) Promote the general Welfare "equally across the nation's people" and
6) Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity "equally to all without any reference to differences.
I do not understand you. I even went to your hub. What is your Point Of View in all actuality?
I am surmising you think the Govt. does have the arms to tie your shoes? That it IS possible to create conditions of equality of OUTCOME?
Our govt. attempts to create conditions of OPPORTUNITY for ALL ... (by enabling everyone to tie their own shoes.) THIS is do-able.
Is it not?
The Federal government can promote equality although they never have. All it has to do is implement the constitution, as my Hub's link shows has never been done by making every law it makes to represent one or more of the Preamble's 6 conditions rather to fulfill the wish of the "Military-Industrial-Compex's" (IMC) corporate interest as they are doing. Corporations are allowed in this nations to provide revenues to We The People and not for "corporate self-enrichment", as is presently happening, and supposed to renew their pledge every 3 years, I believe it is.
I'm saying government has no power at all except to make the laws necessary to ensure Corporation DO NOT control this nation - by "being the electors of representatives, senators, presidents and vices" (supposed to be done by We The People), they choose who Presidents appoint and Congress approves for the various cabinet position (to ensure Corporations have their way over medications to cause a lack of healing but the ill-treating health conditions instead, they ensure Congress, Presidents and Supreme Court Justices have enough dirt on them that they can control/buy them [why else are out of 535 congressman (most less than millionaires upon election) there are only 5 who are not as today] - because We The People have the controlling power over government, according to how my Hub reads, that we don't even care to do because we are "sleepwalking" in order to keep dreaming "the American Dream" of personal wealth rather than the collective needs We The People's.
Socialistic based governments have been more successful in promoting equality-of-outcome than democratic based governments.
A.) True _____
B.) False _____
Governments are better equipped to give people what they need than the people themselves. Furthermore, the people themselves should not be burdened by the necessity of helping each other.
A.) True ____
B.) False ____
Man's only need are unpolluted air, unpolluted water and environmentally ecologically grown foods and wisdom enough to maintain the ecological process of the earth, Governments, on the other hand provides everything for corporations' economic enrichment.
In my opinion, the answer is: False, to all three statements. Why ask someone without arms to tie your shoes?
In the same way, expecting ANY government to provide Equality of outcome is
I M P O S S I B L E !!!!!!
In other words, I do not believe the U. S. Federal government has the arms to tie the shoelaces of the people.
We really have to tie our own shoelaces, since we are the ones with the arms to do so …
My disagreement is because of what is written in the United States' Constitution. Those 6 condition the Constitution's Preamble demands of government is not asking any group to do anything for anyone else, what it does is DEMAND every individual to realize if they want "Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and if not we are allowed to ignore the constitution and allow an organization to demand to us what our rights.
Lets say, in America, we do not care about "equality of outcome" so much as helping those who need temporary help.
To what extent can a government provide assistance without creating dependency?
How can creating dependency and promoting fraud be deterred?
I do not see this as a political problem so much as a scientific one!
Its based on human nature.
To whatever extent time limits are clear, concise and applied. Of course, even limits that meet those requirements, but are overly long, will create dependency.
How can people who ARE NOT willing to read IN DEPTH the laws they are to be governed by to expect anything else than what "You The People" are allowing the people you [ARE SUPPOSED TO] have chosen and put in place with the power to direct their every move expect anything less than what you have because you are "sleep walking" in order to dream "The American Dream" of a financially controlled environment in opposition to the earth's eco system of "receive your SUPLY on DEMAND" as required?
How can that (specific?) amount of time be determined, I wonder?
If we could agree on this, we could all (both parties) get along!!!!!!
I am beyond miffed. People have to learn how to be accountable & responsible for their actions. They must learn that intelligent decisions equate to a good quality of life while stupid, irresponsible decisions equate to a subpar quality of life. The MAIN problem of American society & it has been since the creation of the so-called Great Society of the 1960s is helping the poor via handouts & freebies only create people who believe that they should be poor & live as good as the middle & upper classes. Welfare & all the other stupid, inane social programs are making poor people entitled. They believe that they should have a middle class life w/o putting in the effort & sacrifices to obtain such a life.
It really galls me that poor people contend that they should have the good life when they made stupid, irresponsible decisions. Talk about inverse logic. People who make irresponsible decisions deserve the lifestyle they get. In other words, good begets good while bad begets bad. If one wants to be successful, one had to make intelligent decisions i.e. delay immediate gratification in terms of immediate pleasures, become more pro-active regarding one's life, don't enter into marriage & parenthood until one is well-established emotionally, intellectually, psychologically, & most of all socioeconomically, & ultimately, one must be guided by logic, not instinctive, primitive emotions.
Remember the WORST thing is to help poor people by giving to them. Poor people become lazier & more entitled when such help is given. This help makes life easier for poor people & makes them lose incentive. When life was harder for poor people, they realized that being poor sucked & many fought to get out of poverty by intelligent planning & strategizing. It CAN be done. The American poor, FOR THE MOST part, WANT to be poor yet want to live a middle-class life but not by their efforts. They want the gub'ment to supply the affluent life. Well, it doesn't work that way! Work.....or STARVE & DO WITHOUT!
Some people really do need help. Pregnant girls, for instance, who are determined to have their child, and eventually they turn themselves around. Maybe the govt. could give zero interest loans. Expect people to pay back the loans at some point in time or in some way. People always respond, "… we already do pay taxes, why should I have to pay back the govt.?" Well, our taxes would be less if people were expected to return (and actually do return) the money they borrow from the govt.
That is, when read in-depth, exactly what the constitution is saying without a doubt, "be accountable & responsible for [our individual] actions."
… do we need a constitution? Or why have one if we do not bother to understand it and follow it?
Do you like the constitution we have, if only we could follow it …
or do you think we could just as well do without?
The United States Constitution are the laws or Ecology and, for the most parts, bypasses economics. I accept it because Revelation 12:5 calls it a "rod of Iron" the "man child" [son of man] will use to bring world peace for about 10% [10 virgins] of world population to be sealed (Rev.7:1-10) with half actually surviving the world's end expected to be accomplished no later than 2028 (Matthew 24:32-34 explaining Isaiah 11:10-12 that happened May 1948 and Psalm 90:10 revealing a maximum of 80 years from then).
Do we need a Constitution?
Yes, few man know ecology's laws therefore something representing it had to be written for then to have a mental picture of what to expect.
Did you read the Conclusion of the link? It shows George Washington knew man-en-mass are not wise nor honest enough to implement the constitution and surrounded to the will of "god" to do it in due time.
by Sophia Angelique19 months ago
According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, the answer is no.Gladwell showed repeatedly that whether people who succeeded or not, depended a great deal on how much wealth and education their parents had. For...
by My Esoteric15 months ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy...
by Charles James6 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by egiv7 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams12 days ago
Disclaimer: Not discussing rich people who inherited their wealth & made nothing of their lives. Not addressing poor people who are elderly, physically/emotionally/intellectually/ psychologically...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.