Reason I am a Liberal: Infrastructure in deep trouble/decay

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Ah... so they're both at fault!



    yeah, they're both at fault.



    but since Clinton reformed wellfare, wellfare is truly an insignificant insignificant sum of money . . . (less than military band spending . . last I heard)



    Decent services of job training and a basic parachute for the ultra-needy should be acknowledged as part of setting up the foundations of a civilization. Jefferson certainly believed as much: a civilization is only as great as its ability to deal with poverty . . .paraphrase



    And yes there is, and has been much "pork" . . .

    but we need to make sure that the proper motive, when dealing with the network of services that make up the foundations of our community, is not the Bottom-Line for some corporation . . . such as the energy corporations who have clearly shown where their interests lie: Enron et al



    and the issue of corporate subsidies is no gnat on the windshield . . . it is an large amount of money that has an enormous impact on the manner in which we conduct supposed 'free trade' at home and abroad, as well as, its general effect on the moral and spiritual environment (call me whacko for bringing that up but if you can see what Im talking about then you know that it is not whacko)
  • Reply 22 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    in·fra·struc·ture (?n?fr?-str?k'ch?r)_Pronunciation Key

    n.



    1.\tAn underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.

    2.\tThe basic facilities,services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.





    welfare and health care would be services.




    No the services it mentions are quite clear. You receive electrical service, that is not the same as free health care.



    Nick
  • Reply 23 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    You seemed to be speaking for all conservatives. Unless you just want let government "turn to dust." In that case, what's a little dust that can't be dusted? Mom's got the all ready for your visit.



    Your mom is ready to blow away the entire government.



    Wow...



    I've heard that "our" room is a little dirty thanks to you and your young bachelor ways.



    I'll be over soon and this time, don't steal all the blankets at night or you'll have to go back into the attic.





    Nick
  • Reply 24 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I don't know. You say Welfare isn't a service, but that doesn't make it true. I consider it a service so we should probably decide on a definition and decide where it falls. It's not 'income redistribution' for the sake of income redistribution and it is an essential service for many people.



    However it isn't infrastructure and to say so is dishonest.



    You call some of the things you get from infrastructure a service. You get electrical service from the electrical lines. You get phone service from the telephone lines.



    You do not get welfare service from the welfare lines...



    or do you?





    You know what I mean...



    Nick
  • Reply 25 of 80
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Your mom is ready to blow away the entire government.



    Wow...



    I've heard that "our" room is a little dirty thanks to you and your young bachelor ways.



    I'll be over soon and this time, don't steal all the blankets at night or you'll have to go back into the attic.





    Nick




    I knew you were gay. <-- see what happens when you grossly distort things?
  • Reply 26 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge



    Welfare is not income redistribution...




    Of course it is. Do you REALLY need this explained to you?

    Quote:

    ... Cook County Hospital is now 'income redistribution' in your eyes?



    Try reading what I wrote. I specifically made a distinction between welfare and health care.
  • Reply 27 of 80
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    No the services it mentions are quite clear. You receive electrical service, that is not the same as free health care.



    Hospitals are considered social infrastructure.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman However [welfare] isn't infrastructure and to say so is dishonest.



    Funny that you should talk about honesty.



    Welfare can be considered social infrastructure if deemed necessary of a functioning economy. Just because you don't believe it is doesn't give you (mr. aversion to truth himself) the right to attack someone and call them 'dishonest.'



    Welfare is also considered a social service by definition:



    social service: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance of the sick, destitute, or unfortunate. [webster]



    Oh, and maybe you should spend 10 or 20 seconds to be a little better of an armchair etymologist...



    From the usage notes in Amer Her: The term infrastructure has been used since 1927 to refer collectively to the roads, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy, or a portion of it, to function...people now use infrastructure to refer to any substructure or underlying system.
  • Reply 28 of 80
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Welfare isn't a service. It's a transfer payment. It's income redistribution. Health care is a service but it still isn't infrastructure, though.



    As I pointed out to trumptman, welfare is a social service, and hospitals are social infrastructure.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    I hate it when people make arguments they know aren't true.



    I hate it when people BS to give their arguments much needed support.
  • Reply 29 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Of course it is. Do you REALLY need this explained to you?



    Accurately, yes. BS? No thanks.
  • Reply 30 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I knew you were gay. <-- see what happens when you grossly distort things?



    Shawn, just be quiet and enjoy the reach around.





    Nick
  • Reply 31 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Hospitals are considered social infrastructure.



    Funny that you should talk about honesty.



    Welfare can be considered social infrastructure if deemed necessary of a functioning economy. Just because you don't believe it is doesn't give you (mr. aversion to truth himself) the right to attack someone and call them 'dishonest.'



    Welfare is also considered a social service by definition:



    social service: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance of the sick, destitute, or unfortunate. [webster]



    Oh, and maybe you should spend 10 or 20 seconds to be a little better of an armchair etymologist...



    From the usage notes in Amer Her: The term infrastructure has been used since 1927 to refer collectively to the roads, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy, or a portion of it, to function...people now use infrastructure to refer to any substructure or underlying system.




    Yes well I can talk about honesty since I practice it. You repeating yourself continually saying I am not just doesn't cut it.



    You are intentionally telling a lie here. It is like when the Constitution mentions "Promote the general welfare" and you saying, see cut that woman a check. You are intentionally subsituting one definition for another to use the word out of context.



    I can intentionally change definitions too. See since a service is something you can receive from public infrastructure, I'll just do what you do, and use the definition of "serving" in the armed forces.



    Now I can force everyone to join the military to "promote the general welfare." I'm giving them a public service.



    Aren't you so happy now? We can just take all the food stamp money and give it to the military? Public housing? Sounds like a military base to me.



    Perhaps to you infrastructure can refer to whatever you wish to apply it. However the article was refering to civil engineers who were giving grades to the infrastructure of the United States.



    They made no mention of welfare or health care. They made mention of bridges, roads, power grids, dams, etc.



    So go call the civil engineers liars because they don't support your collectivist, utopian view.



    The rest of us are intelligent folks that can apply the proper definition of a word as determined by the context of the other words surrounding it in a sentence.



    To bad you must have failed that subject.



    Nick
  • Reply 32 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You are intentionally telling a lie here. It is like when the Constitution mentions "Promote the general welfare" and you saying, see cut that woman a check. You are intentionally subsituting one definition for another to use the word out of context.



    You see, those that wrote the Constitution purposefully left it ambiguous. Why? Because they knew the times would change, and the meanings would have to change with it. We no longer live in a time when someone can just 'go west' and build a house, plant some crops, graze some cattle and live. There is a new infrastructure in the country and this changes the definition of the Constitution.



    Does the Constitution say we should spend billions on nuclear weapons? Did the writers of the Constitution intend for this to take place? Of course not. Strict constructionists don't like to let the door swing both ways.



    So what's your point? Conservatives are willing to spend on roads? Wow. That's great. Why are they so against 'income redistribution' programs, but love corporate welfare?
  • Reply 33 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    As I pointed out to trumptman, welfare is a social service, and hospitals are social infrastructure.



    Apples and oranges. Health care is not the same thing as a hospital any more than an education is the same thing as a school.

    Quote:

    I hate it when people BS to give their arguments much needed support.



    Then don't. If you support welfare then support it. Ditto for the extension of health care. Stop trying to pretend it's infrastructure.
  • Reply 34 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Accurately, yes. BS? No thanks.



    Maybe you ARE this ignorant.



    Transfer payment



    A payment of money by the government to an individual that does not form part of an exchange but rather represents a gift without anything being received or required in return. Examples of transfer payments would include student scholarship grants, welfare checks, and social security benefits. Establishing programs providing for transfer payments from the budget to particular favored categories of the population represent one of the most direct ways in which a government may pursue policies of income redistribution.



    or this:



    transfer payment: A payment made without any corresponding production or expectations of production. Unless otherwise noted (such as business transfer payments), the term transfer payments generally refers to payments by the government sector to the household sector. The three most important transfer payments in our economy are for Social Security, unemployment compensation, and welfare. The intent of these transfers payments is to redistribute income, and thus the goods and services that can be had with the income. Transfer payments surface as income received but not earned (IRBNE) added to national income to derived personal income.
  • Reply 35 of 80
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    blah, blah, blah



    Man, you really said a whole lot of nothing here



    but just to remind you that welfare is a social service by definition since you apparently missed it



    social service: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance of the sick, destitute, or unfortunate. [webster]



    Look at the next post to see that health care is considered a part of infrastructure
  • Reply 36 of 80
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Apples and oranges. Health care is not the same thing as a hospital any more than an education is the same thing as a school.



    Then don't. If you support welfare then support it. Ditto for the extension of health care. Stop trying to pretend it's infrastructure.




    funny, both Ireland and Pakistan talk about health care as a part of infrastructure



    http://www.infrastructure.ie/glossary.htm, http://www.infrastructure.ie/about.htm



    http://www.pakboi.gov.pk/html/social...structure.html



    and those are just from the first page of a google search.



    I guess they have to stop 'pretending' it is an element of infrastructure.
  • Reply 37 of 80
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    As I said before:
    Quote:

    Decent services of job training and a basic parachute for the ultra-needy should be acknowledged as part of setting up the foundations of a civilization. Jefferson certainly believed as much: a civilization is only as great as its ability to deal with poverty . . .paraphrase



    I am willing to see it as part and partial of what foundations are needed for a civilization's proper and continued prosperity.

    Granted that the engineers were probably not taking in to consideration such a broad notion of infrastructure but I am.



    as for Trumps 'anti-collectivist' perspective: I think that your view is naive on three counts in particular

    1. that you assume that food stamp programs constitutes 'collectivism'

    and

    2. that we are Communists for wanting balance and for seeing that the increasing rift between the rich and the poor is negative to the well being of our culture at large (that means to everyone . . . including the rich)

    and

    3. That you think that you are an isolated autonomous subject who's 'freedom' is best expressed by denying the reality of living with others . . .that 'individualism' is best realized in denial of one's connection to the community within which that individuality can express itself. That is an unbalanced way of living.





    I think that Individualism is best realized when it is not founded on false representations of its inter-relationships with others, and, its situatedness in a culture. In other words: we are individuals but as individuals we are interelated in uncountable ways through teh form of civilization, including a responsibility for the infrastructure.



    So, politically I think that that means understanding a balance between civic responsibility and individual rights: not the Right's herd-like chanting of "we are all isolated individuals . . . keep you hands of my pie buddy" "DITTO"



    If we don't acknowledge that the foundations are dependant upon our input then they will continue to rot . . . the rich will continue to get richer and richer (just as in Ancient Rome) until the very grounds upon which they practiced their abuse dissolves under them



    . . . and believe me, these days there are millions upon millions who want to see exactly that happen to us . . .
  • Reply 38 of 80
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    As I said before: I am willing to see it as part and partial of what foundations are needed for a civilization's proper and continued prosperity.



    Social Capital, the ability and willingness of citizens to participate in civic, business and social life, is the basis of Social Infrastructure. Social services certainly are an important part of this. So I agree.
  • Reply 39 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Maybe you ARE this ignorant.



    Great SCOTT! Now, will you come back and recant this and admit that you're the one that's ignorant if I show how you're incorrect?



    Quote:

    ...a gift without anything being received or required in return.



    That's not Welfare. Sorry, you lose. Come on back and recant please, and eat your words.
  • Reply 40 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    You see, those that wrote the Constitution purposefully left it ambiguous. Why? Because they knew the times would change, and the meanings would have to change with it. We no longer live in a time when someone can just 'go west' and build a house, plant some crops, graze some cattle and live. There is a new infrastructure in the country and this changes the definition of the Constitution.



    Does the Constitution say we should spend billions on nuclear weapons? Did the writers of the Constitution intend for this to take place? Of course not. Strict constructionists don't like to let the door swing both ways.



    So what's your point? Conservatives are willing to spend on roads? Wow. That's great. Why are they so against 'income redistribution' programs, but love corporate welfare?




    Look if you want to drag the whole respective worldview thing into here that is fine. The thread basically said our infrastructure is in trouble. Pfflam used it as a justification for being liberal. I stated that most conservatives support infrastructure improvements, but that they are hard to afford when people keep taking the money for roads, bridges, etc. and using them for something else.



    The writers of the Constitution did not leave it ambiguous. General welfare does not mean wealth redistribution. Defense does happen to mean money, yes even billions spent on weapons. Defense is one of the key roles the federal government has to perform. Robin hood isn't.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.