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.
I think some of you guys have maybe a little too rosy picture of "the good old days" before the government started providing social services and things... haven't you guys seen the crazy Gilded Age photographs with the 20 people stacked in the rotting one-bedroom tenements and all that? Do we really want to go back to those "good ol' days?"
I think some of you guys have maybe a little too rosy picture of "the good old days" before the government started providing social services and things... haven't you guys seen the crazy Gilded Age photographs with the 20 people stacked in the rotting one-bedroom tenements and all that? Do we really want to go back to those "good ol' days?"
It's nice to see you want to compare apples to oranges. I'm surprised you didn't mention the lack of running water, electricity, and air conditioning in the 1850s.
If you want we could talk about the squalid poverty of states with skimpy social service systems, such as my own state and Mississippi. We're still pretty firmly in "the good ol' days" in more ways than one.
If you want we could talk about the squalid poverty of states with skimpy social service systems, such as my own state and Mississippi. We're still pretty firmly in "the good ol' days" in more ways than one.
Alabama gets $1.63 from the federal government for every $1.00 sent to the federal government, Miss gets $2.02. This only further proves the point that corruption and inefficiencies of government provides one of the most compelling arguments to allow private charities to handle welfare and not government.
If you want we could talk about the squalid poverty of states with skimpy social service systems, such as my own state and Mississippi. We're still pretty firmly in "the good ol' days" in more ways than one.
You do realise that Mississippi spends $4BILLION a year on welfare programs, and your saying that your still pretty much in "the good ol' days"?
Surely since you admit that the $4Billion your one state alone spends hasnt brought you out of "the good ol' days", then I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted that its a waste of money..
Alabama gets $1.63 from the federal government for every $1.00 sent to the federal government, Miss gets $2.02. This only further proves the point that corruption and inefficiencies of government provides one of the most compelling arguments to allow private charities to handle welfare and not government.
Thanks for further ammo
haha, you beat me to it, but i wasnt far behind.. had to do the math based upon state population and amount spent per individual..
I'm not sure I follow your remark about people being taxed for people they disdain. There are most certainly abuses of the current system, but I would assume that any responsible person would agree that such abuse should not be encouraged.
So who are you suggesting wouldn't be helped by charities? People who aren't willing to do what is necessary to help themselves in the long run?
Those that are not "ambitious", gays, the "wrong" religion, poor grooming or a list of other faults most likely fall on this list at some locale. Those who watch their pennies, the "Tory" or landed gentry ....will be the judge, eh? It is IMHO a good idea to have federal mandate for who gets help. Genocide is a reality today, don't cha know? (BTW I don't care for many of the programs or like those undeserving either, but I have seen local politics at work)
Last edited by wordsmith680; 04-02-2008 at 08:46 PM..
Reason: dbl negative
haha, you beat me to it, but i wasnt far behind.. had to do the math based upon state population and amount spent per individual..
Well, just goes to show that there are at least two people out there who don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. The reason that public assistance came into being at all was the gross, complete, and widespread failure of private donation-funded charities to deal with anything like the scope of the problems. Even though private donations today are heavily subsidized by the government, the amount of voluntary giving is far, far short of what is needed, and many if not most so-called private charities continue to rely significantly on direct funding from the government above and beyond their own tax-favored status. A Thousand Points of Light has been tried before. It has failed...
I think some of you guys have maybe a little too rosy picture of "the good old days" before the government started providing social services and things... haven't you guys seen the crazy Gilded Age photographs with the 20 people stacked in the rotting one-bedroom tenements and all that? Do we really want to go back to those "good ol' days?"
We never left.
Not all the welfare money and good intentions in the world will help people who won't or can't help themselves.
Not all the welfare money and good intentions in the world will help people who won't or can't help themselves.
i wouldnt say we never left, during the 50s the poverty rate was around 22-25%, today its only at 12%
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.
)
