Quote:
Originally Posted by aowen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed
|
You seem to be constantly conflating terms, which leads me to believe you have very sloppy mental processes. Doing away with the system is the not the same thing as doing away with certain government programs. The system of government we have is not dependent at all upon things like welfare, farm subsidies, banking regulations, or any other individual programs. If you get rid of farm subsidies, we'll still choose our representatives and there will still be 3 branches of government. With that said, the idea of a social contract is no more relevant when discussing a 20% reduction in a program than when discussing a 100% reduction. If one works within the system to get rid of most forms of welfare, does that suddenly break your "social contract" while an 80% reduction does not? You don't get to decide some arbitrary tipping point where the debate is suddenly invalid due to some artificial social contract you created. About the only legitimate argument about a "social contract" would come into play when people are discussing revolution or overthrow of the current system.