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.
Her over-riding belief, as with all liberals, is "I won't give any and you won't give enough to make up for me, so that just leaves me taking what I want from you."
I hope that echo chamber is cozy and warm for you. <3
I understand that many working poor people live in tenements nowadays. Many more would live in them if it were not for government programs and regulations. Is the government perfect? Absolutely not. But throwing out all programs and regulations certainly isn't the solution.
Who said anything about throwing out all programs? Private foundation charities addressed the need with similar results before taxpayer welfare programs. They can do so now.
Who said anything about throwing out all programs? Private foundation charities addressed the need with similar results before taxpayer welfare programs. They can do so now.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you and njquestions. It truly sounded as if both of you were arguing against any and all government social safety nets. I don't agree that private charity addressed the need with similar results before taxpayer welfare programs. I'd love some information proving that statement.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you and njquestions. It truly sounded as if both of you were arguing against any and all government social safety nets.
I was arguing for that. It's not up to you to decide what I need to do with my money and it's not up to you to decide what is a satisfactory amount for people to receive, either. The fact that you can't even comprehend that is the most amazing part of liberalism. You're like "can't we just compromise and I take as much money as I want with government programs and then you donate from what's left??"
I was arguing for that. It's not up to you to decide what I need to do with my money and it's not up to you to decide what is a satisfactory amount for people to receive, either. The fact that you can't even comprehend that is the most amazing part of liberalism. You're like "can't we just compromise and I take as much money as I want with government programs and then you donate from what's left??"
I'm aware of that. I already know that you believe it is your job to decide who gets what amount of other people's money. That's why you sound silly claiming that I'm making it up, when that's the entire basis of liberalism. At least be proud of what you believe in.
[/b]
I agree.
Unfortunately income theft and redistribution is the accepted new norm in America. Calling it "public assistance" doesn't change what it is.
I'm not sure what you are agreeing with. Could you please explain in a bit more detail?
2) Make sure nobody's feelings are hurt. So we went from soup kitchens to food stamps to EBT cards. Each move was made by liberals in order to make sure nobody "felt bad" about being on welfare. This is fact, by the way, and you can see it in the posts on here where liberals' reactions to society determining what welfare recipients eat is considered "treating them like animals." (I bold that because, on the other hand, determining what taxpayers eat is considered "extremely smart and scientific." They literally think better of their voting welfare recipients than they do of the people who support them.)
Has nothing to do with feelings but cost. It's a lot more cost effective to just give out an EBT card with a set amount rather than having a government run soup kitchen in every city, town, and village in the county. The soup kitchen would probably employ one of those overpaid government workers with a fat pension that you described.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you and njquestions. It truly sounded as if both of you were arguing against any and all government social safety nets. I don't agree that private charity addressed the need with similar results before taxpayer welfare programs.
You need to educate yourself:
Quote:
"Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator (Charity Navigator - Your Guide To Intelligent Giving | Home), the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.
The basic reason for this large differential in costs between private and public agencies is not difficult to see. Depending largely on voluntary contributions, most private agencies are under strong pressures to operate efficiently and keep costs low. Benevolent citizens naturally wish a large fraction of their donations to reach the needy, and many will not keep donating to an agency that does not accomplish that. Donors can select among private nonprofit charities, and competition between charities for donations tends to insure efficiency. Public aid agencies, in contrast, are budgeted their funds by Congress, which obtains them through compulsory taxation. These agencies are not under competitive pressures to keep costs down that are remotely equivalent to those of private charities. Indeed, their incentives may be much the opposite, as Niskanen (1994) has argued. Yet another factor promoting efficiency of private charities is that those operating at levels of inefficiency comparable to the average government agency are often prosecuted—by the government (which never applies the same standards or threat to its own agencies)—for fraud. Pressure on private charities to avoid such prosecution, and the bad publicity and loss of public trust resulting, is strong."
Has nothing to do with feelings but cost. It's a lot more cost effective to just give out an EBT card with a set amount rather than having a government run soup kitchen in every city, town, and village in the county. The soup kitchen would probably employ one of those overpaid government workers with a fat pension that you described.
Wrong. In fact, every time a liberal cites "cost control," for some reason they end up spending double what they claimed they would, and then demanding exponentially more ever year. In fact, it's laughable to hear a liberal claim that nobody could do things more cost-effectively than them, since they're essentially the biggest failures at budgeting. That's fact.
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.
