Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:15 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,873,039 times
Reputation: 2519

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimtheGuy View Post
Driving, like homeownership IS NOT A RIGHT. You sound like you would be happier under communist rule. Have you looked into Cuba? Wacko M. Moore says they have a great healthcare system.
Actually no,having lived in a socialist lite society I find it stifles the human spirit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:17 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 14,142,209 times
Reputation: 4700
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
My point was that when it comes to bureaucracy and regulations,facts and commonsense oftentimes fly out the widnow.
If you believe that then how in the world can you support government run healthcare????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:18 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 14,142,209 times
Reputation: 4700
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
What about 'fairness'?

Being 'fair' is what governs our lives now.

It isn't 'fair' to deny care to people who do not pay for it....

Or so goes the emotion driven 'logic' of some.
Didn;t your momma ever tell you that "life isn't fair"???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:20 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,873,039 times
Reputation: 2519
Tim,I don't support welfare of any sort unless it is privately funded.

I am simply hoping to illustrate the foolishness of having gov't nanny states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 5,000,340 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
The thing is your idea of humane may differ from others but you do not have a problem forcing you ideas upon everyone.

How about this,you simply donate your money to help the less fortunate,as there seem to be a few people who think like you you should be able to help quite a few.

I will do what I see fit and to the person I think deserves my help.


Charity can't be forced and neither should you force your version of humane behavior.
I'm broke (not looking for a "government handout," though, don't worry) but try to "give" when the opportunity arises... but there are many problems that are mitigated or solved best with a combination of collective and private action. If you leave everything to private charity, some people who need help will inevitably be "left out" as the resources are limited and the distribution scattershot... if the government gets involved then some people who don't really need help will get it, but I don't understand how some seem to prefer the former situation to the latter, like they're more concerned about "the undeserving poor" having too much than they are about the rest of them having too little, or less than they need to live a healthy life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:31 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,873,039 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
I'm broke (not looking for a "government handout," though, don't worry) but try to "give" when the opportunity arises... but there are many problems that are mitigated or solved best with a combination of collective and private action. If you leave everything to private charity, some people who need help will inevitably be "left out" as the resources are limited and the distribution scattershot... if the government gets involved then some people who don't really need help will get it, but I don't understand how some seem to prefer the former situation to the latter, like they're more concerned about "the undeserving poor" having too much than they are about the rest of them having too little, or less than they need to live a healthy life.
People will be left out no matter what.

The war on poverty has cost this nation trillions(with a T) of dollars and the result?
Why the same number of people living below the poverty level.

Perhaps it is time to call an end to this war,it is obviously a failure.

Let charity go back to where it belongs,as a private choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 5,000,340 times
Reputation: 604
The poverty rate's about half of what it was when the "War on Poverty" started, although it's gone up from about 10% to around 12.5% since the Bush administration took the reins. Other countries have fought far more successful "wars on poverty..." As for how much it's cost the nation, the US spends less on social programs as a percentage of GDP than nearly every country in the industrialized world. And we have around the highest poverty rate. Coincidence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:43 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,873,039 times
Reputation: 2519
In 1964 36 million people lived in poverty.
In 2004, 37 million.

Somewhere between 8-10 TRILLION DOLLARS has been spent to achieve this.

In 2006, $368 BILLION was earmarked to be spent on poverty programs.
14.6% of the federal budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 5,000,340 times
Reputation: 604
That certainly isn't misleading, you know, the US population hasn't grown whatsoever in the past 40 years, has it? And where does the 8-10 trillion figure come from? What's the source of the statistics? Did it all go to the "poor" or does it include middle-class social spending like Medicare and Social Security?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2007, 08:53 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,873,039 times
Reputation: 2519
But the object of the war on poverty was to eliminate the poverty stricken.

The number living in poverty GREW.

If you wish to use percentages, 22% of the pop. was below poverty level in 1960.
The figure was 12.7% in 2004.
DO you consider this a good investment of 8 TRILLION DOLLARS?

It might have simply been cheaper and maybe more effective to GIVE each poor person $100,000 back in 1960....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top