On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 4:05:20 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
> <
miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT),
plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
> >>
> >> There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
> >> "meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
> >> their own needs or suffer.
> >
> >there is also nothing in the constitution that says we can't try to help/provide for the poor.
> >
> >there is NO QUESTION that the government safety net has gotten far too large and out of control(and has been for some time), and interestingly enough a lot of it isn't even directed for the poor. But whatever.....
> >
> >But still, there is clearly a role for the govt to provide something for those who have nothing.
>
> You have a lot of company now that you have become a socialist.
Im a socialist because I believe it's right for the govt to spend some amount of money on poor people? Really?
this doesn't make sense hugh. It's not an either/or thing. I understand I have to pay some amount of taxes. I just think it's too much.