[Ephedrine]

I think the general theme of the President's State of the Union Speech can be summed up in these two paragraphs:
(see the rest at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ress-full-text)

"These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and
teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our
institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're
not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their
differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think
about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in
educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of
high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in
control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so
tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where
hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."

Want to play off the Military again? Fine, everyone does it Mr. President, I won't personally hold that against you.

My concern is this continuing push towards basic altruism. It sounds pretty good when we say "We're all one big American team right? We should expect to give a little of ourselves to meet our shared challenges as a nation". The premise itself seems sound, and it certainly falls in the realm of basic Christian fundamental values I claim to espouse, so one might wonder what specifically about this concept is a cause for my concern?

Now, it's important to keep in mind who is asking for help. The requestor is our Commander in Chief, the senior member of our Executive Branch of government, and his proposals for a solution would eventually lead to legislation. Now when something appears in legislation (if you've paid attention to virtually any that has come of late), it generally does not come in the form of "requests" . When a government legislates, it derives the solutions for its objectives from the use of force. This becomes problematic in and of itself.

Now one might state the nature of the objectives overshadows the means by which they are achieved. The next question, is how much of your compulsory participation is directly applied towards these positive means. Welfarism in itself can be effectively defined as government-managed charity. Like any charitable organization there will inevitably be costs absorbed in the overhead associated with the program itself. When applied directly to a private charitable organization this tends to be a known and publicly disclosed percentage, with the added benefit being that we as individuals have the opportunity to pick and choose who the targeted beneficiaries of our contributions will be. When it's achieved through our Federal Government, this means it is being funded effectively by our tax dollars, and it's significantly more of a challenge to determine what level of benefit percentagewise the targeted recipients derive from those contributions. I would venture in most cases, the percentage is quite miniscule, and may be directed towards recipients you might prefer they did not, such as in enabling drug addicts or funding abortions or in other manners that might be in complete opposition to your own personal values. Keep in mind, a lot of it is simply applied to the vast infrastructure of the Federal government itself, which includes foreign investments overseas in private interests, bailouts of organizations that have historically exhibited irresponsible and unethical business practices, and the funding necessary to keep countless individuals imprisoned who are guilty of crimes little greater than what could be considered self-destructive by being caught in the use of controlled substances that have been declared illegal. There is simply no way of knowing what those taxpayer contributions you're making are really actually paying for!

I'm opening the floor for discussion, what are your individual thoughts towards the President's call for Altruism?