"In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry. In a land of healing miracles, neighbours must not suffer and die unattended. In a great land of learning and scholars, young people must be taught to read and write."
Lyndon B. Johnson, Inaugural Address on Wednesday, January 20, 1965
What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene to ensure that "children just must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address?
http://www.thisnation.com/library/inaugural/johnson.html
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfWhy forget about people when they grow up?
[b]"In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry. In a land of healing miracles, neighbours must not suffer and die unattended. In a great land of learning and scholars, young people must be taught to read and write."
[i]Lyndon B. Johnson, Inaugural Address on Wednesday ...[text shortened]... must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address?[/b]
Originally posted by @eladarWhy not? Republicans like you love to dictate to women that every pregnancy they have must come to term, and yet you also refuse to fund welfare programs for those mothers who are single or, God forbid, non-white. You forget them the very minute they are born.
Why forget about people when they grow up?
Stop being such a hypocrite.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfBecause conservatives would not be caught dead supporting their fellow human beings (especially the lowest rungs of society, because those have zero to offer them) because they view this as a "libtard" agenda.
[b]"In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry. In a land of healing miracles, neighbours must not suffer and die unattended. In a great land of learning and scholars, young people must be taught to read and write."
[i]Lyndon B. Johnson, Inaugural Address on Wednesday ...[text shortened]... must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address?[/b]
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @eladarI referred to "other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address" in the OP because I did not want to reproduce the whole text. And now I realize that I forgot to include a link to the transcript of the speech in my OP. So, I have added it. This thread is intended to be about more than just children, and is about society and government, democracy, and the welfare of the people.
Why forget about people when they grow up?
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneThe question is: What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of government to deliver on the assertions/aspirations made in LBJ's inaugural speech.
Because conservatives would not be caught dead supporting their fellow human beings (especially the lowest rungs of society, because those have zero to offer them) because they view this as a "libtard" agenda.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfLook at the destruction of black families after welfare was in acted and you will see it was not implemented well.
I referred to "other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address" in the OP because I did not want to reproduce the whole text. And now I realize that I forgot to include a link to the transcript of the speech in my OP. So, I have added it. This thread is intended to be about more than just children, and is about society and government, democracy, and the welfare of the people.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfYou would be better served not by asking your question again, but instead actually responding to my answer.
The question is: What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of government to deliver on the assertions/aspirations made in LBJ's inaugural speech.
26 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarAny excuse to 'kick them to the curb', right?
Look at the destruction of black families after welfare was in acted and you will see it was not implemented well.
And the "destruction of black families" is more the effect of how they've been mistreated by Republican administrations over the years. Don't shift the blame to those who are actually trying to help them.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @eladarSomething on the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate ~ what exactly would welfare "implemented well" be like, for example, and what would be the moral underpinning for it ~ would be more interesting and simple political assertions.
Look at the destruction of black families after welfare was in acted and you will see it was not implemented well.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneIf you want to sling mud at your political opponents, take it to Debates, Suzianne. I'd prefer this thread to be about the "spiritual" and moral side to deciding what a government's role should be.
You would be better served not by asking your question again, but instead actually responding to my answer.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneHow should "black families" have been treated differently by the government and what would the spiritual/moral justification for those policies have been?
And the "destruction of black families" is more the effect of how they've been mistreated by Republican administrations over the years.
26 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasand the most money who cANt even pass universal healthcARE laws....
Why, in a country who people clearly and proudly say "In God we Trust", do they have hospitals?
Dumbs*** American thinking