Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To say that private charity would take care of all the helpless like the handicapped and elderly is unrealistic and just sounds scary. No way that would work. Government programs are needed for the truly helpless or else they are at the mercy of other people.
Like most liberals, it seems you have little faith in the compassion of individuals. Speak for yourself in this regard, if you need the government to force you to help the less fortunate. How were they cared for before the nanny government was instituted? So, you'd rather the "truly helpless" to be at the mercy of a power-mongering bureaucrat than passionate individuals who voluntarily provide help? hmmm. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Like most liberals, it seems you have little faith in the compassion of individuals. Speak for yourself in this regard, if you need the government to force you to help the less fortunate. How were they cared for before the nanny government was instituted? So, you'd rather the "truly helpless" to be at the mercy of a power-mongering bureaucrat than passionate individuals who voluntarily provide help? hmmm. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Well lets be realistic here.
What were things like in the 20's and 30's in major cities? People living in cramped housing, dark rooms, getting paid an extremely minimum wage. Thats what 100% conservative tendencies create.
And charity, like most things, fluctuates with the economy and peoples personal finances. When the economy is good, people donate, people give. But when we have an economic downturn, like now, people quit giving to charities. Thats when people need the help the most, when times are hard. What the federal government does is allow for that to be federalized, and helps people get through the rough times.
Now I'm not for a socialist paradise. I want people to work, if you're on welfare, I feel you should have to donate at least 10 hours a week to community service. I think that food stamps should be more like the WIC program, and limited to specific food sources that are cheaper. Instead of a EBT card that can be spent on lobster, give them a voucher that says "you can eat this, and that". After all, beggars can't be choosers, right?
What were things like in the 20's and 30's in major cities? People living in cramped housing, dark rooms, getting paid an extremely minimum wage. Thats what 100% conservative tendencies create.
And charity, like most things, fluctuates with the economy and peoples personal finances. When the economy is good, people donate, people give. But when we have an economic downturn, like now, people quit giving to charities. Thats when people need the help the most, when times are hard. What the federal government does is allow for that to be federalized, and helps people get through the rough times.
Now I'm not for a socialist paradise. I want people to work, if you're on welfare, I feel you should have to donate at least 10 hours a week to community service. I think that food stamps should be more like the WIC program, and limited to specific food sources that are cheaper. Instead of a EBT card that can be spent on lobster, give them a voucher that says "you can eat this, and that". After all, beggars can't be choosers, right?
I must disagree. 90 years of "Compulsive charity", "redistribution of wealth" or "economic slavery", whatever you'd like to call it, hasn't helped reduce the number of Americans in poverty. Though I do agree with reforming the current system with the mandates you suggest, the only true solution is to eliminate federal government programs that inefficiently take money from the achievers to give to the non-achievers, whether self-inflicted or not. Local charities/organizations, friends and family are much better at discriminating between the lazy and the truly needy.
Using your logic, the current economic downturn has proven that the federal government's "help" only exasperates the problems and lengthens the downturn by allowing the unemployed to stay unemployed as long as the checks keep appearing in the mailbox. In addition, it raises the national debt to unsustainable levels, causing additional economic concerns in the future.
I must disagree. 90 years of "Compulsive charity", "redistribution of wealth" or "economic slavery", whatever you'd like to call it, hasn't helped reduce the number of Americans in poverty. Though I do agree with reforming the current system with the mandates you suggest, the only true solution is to eliminate federal government programs that inefficiently take money from the achievers to give to the non-achievers, whether self-inflicted or not. Local charities/organizations, friends and family are much better at discriminating between the lazy and the truly needy.
Using your logic, the current economic downturn has proven that the federal government's "help" only exasperates the problems and lengthens the downturn by allowing the unemployed to stay unemployed as long as the checks keep appearing in the mailbox. In addition, it raises the national debt to unsustainable levels, causing additional economic concerns in the future.
You see, I don't see it as redistribution of wealth, with no benefits for those who earned, and had to pay in.
Let me paint a picture for you. 10% of Americans are on food stamps now. What would happen if they were completely removed from the budget? You'd have rioting, violence, and an extreme raising of the crime rate.
Is a country on the verge of anarchy a good place for business? No. So anyone who is doing ok or good pays extra into the system to manage the fear of the lowest earners, and keep them in line.
The line that describes this, "keep them fat, dumb, and happy".
I feel that restricted government assistance wouldn't perpetuate the continued use of government assistance. As it is now, while being on government assistance isn't great, its at least good for most people. If you make it the bare minimum, people are going to want to get off of it, but it also keeps them from starving, and going to your house with a gun to steal bread.
For example: You want smaller government, and point to the desire to cut taxes and benefits to people, thinking that free market economy takes care of people better, and can point to examples where that's true.
Read human history. Before the free market economy it is nothing more than the struggle for food, shelter, housing, protection. The free market has cured all those problems for everyone, rich and poor.
Free market also gave us roads, airplanes, automobiles, world wide web, industrial revolution, boats, trains, telephone, computers, efficient use of energy, the printing press, the assembly line, math and engineering, architecture, the light bulb, numerous medical devices and I could go on for hours.
The free market has given us everything in life that is beneficial to our well being, protection and long life.
Socialism and government has given us tens of millions dead or suffering and high fructose corn syrup.
Govenrment is by far the most evil institution ever conceived. It should just go away and the entire world should run on capitalism. It's the biggest no-brainer in the history of earth.
You see, I don't see it as redistribution of wealth, with no benefits for those who earned, and had to pay in.
Let me paint a picture for you. 10% of Americans are on food stamps now. What would happen if they were completely removed from the budget? You'd have rioting, violence, and an extreme raising of the crime rate.
Is a country on the verge of anarchy a good place for business? No. So anyone who is doing ok or good pays extra into the system to manage the fear of the lowest earners, and keep them in line.
The line that describes this, "keep them fat, dumb, and happy".
I feel that restricted government assistance wouldn't perpetuate the continued use of government assistance. As it is now, while being on government assistance isn't great, its at least good for most people. If you make it the bare minimum, people are going to want to get off of it, but it also keeps them from starving, and going to your house with a gun to steal bread.
If people engage in violence simply because they lose their compulsory taxpayer assistance, then that says more about them than the taxpayers. An honorable person would focus on doing what is legally necessary to care for their responsibilities. Personally, I don't feel its my place to ensure that people behave themselves or are "kept in line". I certainly don't feel that I should succumb to extortion by those threatening unruly and/or illegal behavior by considering it a "benefit" to me. By doing so, similar to succumbing to the demands of terrorists, I would only be encouraging similar behavior in the future.
Stats show that ANY government assistance encourages more government assistance, maybe to varying degrees. Restrictions are typically "managed" by those who they affect by "playing the game", much like some who receive food stamps and drive the best cars and eat the better foods.
If people engage in violence simply because they lose their compulsory taxpayer assistance, then that says more about them than the taxpayers. An honorable person would focus on doing what is legally necessary to care for their responsibilities. Personally, I don't feel its my place to ensure that people behave themselves or are "kept in line". I certainly don't feel that I should succumb to extortion by those threatening unruly and/or illegal behavior by considering it a "benefit" to me. By doing so, similar to succumbing to the demands of terrorists, I would only be encouraging similar behavior in the future.
Stats show that ANY government assistance encourages more government assistance, maybe to varying degrees. Restrictions are typically "managed" by those who they affect by "playing the game", much like some who receive food stamps and drive the best cars and eat the better foods.
There is no honor in letting people starve.
Even Jesus said it was ok to steal to feed ones family.
For example: You want smaller government, and point to the desire to cut taxes and benefits to people, thinking that free market economy takes care of people better, and can point to examples where that's true.
I'm attempting to understand the mindset of the conservative mindset in the USA, as all I've seen in the ads and literature is hate and vitriol, which to be honest, is getting tiresome.
Well, I am a libertarian, but seeing as how you are specifically mentioning the economic policies of conservatives, I think this can relate to me as well.
A lot of government programs are outright failures. Public housing and the War on Drugs are two that come to mind, but seeing as how most conservatives support the War on Drugs, I will voice my objections since you inquired about conservative views, not libertarian ones. Public housing has been a success in the sense that the people who live in public housing aren't living in a box. Housing projects are usually the worst (or among the worst) communities in every major city. Housing projects like Jordan Downs, (formerly) Pruitt-Igoe, and Cabrini-Green are infamous nationwide for violence, poverty, and decay. The original idea was to replace substandard housing in dangerous neighborhoods with housing projects, which have because substandard and dangerous. The government has become a slumlord.
Why does Hollywood film so many movies outside of Hollywood? Why do cities in Canada, Australia, and Eastern Europe often fill in for American cities? Think it might have to do with all the taxes and regulations on the industry in US (and especially in California)? If anything, it should be absurd that Hollywood would be filming anything but a select few movies outside the States. Most of the actors live in the Greater Los Angeles Area, most of the special effects studios are based there, there are plenty of sound stages and sets to look like almost any location on Earth, etc. But it is cheaper to fly out to Calgary and have it fill in for the San Fernando Valley and pay for the housing of the cast and crew than to actually shoot a movie in the San Fernando Valley.
Although the free market isn't perfect by a long shot, I still trust it to solve problems more effectively than the government. I expect mentions of corporations like WorldCom or Enron or the various examples of Wall Street scandals from the 80s as examples of how the free market doesn't work. My rebuttal is that in the majority of those cases, the people involved were violating the law to begin with and in most cases flagrantly violating the law. They weren't doing gray area things nor were doing the type of things that most advocates of deregulation support, but committing outright fraud and embezzlement. When government causes a problem, it is usually trying explicitly prevent one.
Even Jesus said it was ok to steal to feed ones family.
I'm not sure the Bible Jesus says that. If this is the case, do you support home invasion if the perpetrator has a good reason?
Would you let your neighbor starve? If not, what would you do if you knew he/she was starving. Would you take them food from your refrigerator? Or, would you break into your other neighbors' houses to get food to take to them? Which would be the more honorable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
