Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[Foxfyre]

I thankies you for the compliment, foxfyre. That was high praise indeed.

Seems to me, one issue that gets lost too often is that any government solution creates a government work force and a new power base for some bureaucrat, etc. I'd argue that under the old welfare system, it was the welfare workers and their bosses who caused more harm than welfare recipients. And I think we all know, HUD's public housing projects have been a disaster...one step up from concentration camps built by the Mob. I can go on like this all nite.

Perhaps some solutions that should be governmental should nonetheless be local or state, and not federal.

I don't have as much problem with some limited government services at the local level. If the city, for instance, has some spare cash, it can be a blessing to help out agencies who provide assistance to those who can't pay their heating bill in the middle of the winter when the alternative is busted pipes and over crowded shelters. City run senior centers, handicapped transportation, parks programs, zoos, aquariums, museums, hospitals, special events, etc. in cooperation with local citizens who provide funds, hands on assistance, etc. can all contribute to the quality of life as do state fairs, state parks, state reservoirs and water conservation projects, etc. all without being corrupting influences. The people vote bonds for most of this kind of stuff and all can enjoy and participate in it.

I have problems with programs at any level, however, that encourage dependency and/or irresponsibility or develop a shelf life of petrified wood so that they go on and on, year after year, decade after decade long after any measurable benefit has ceased to exist.

 

[Madeline]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

 

[uscitizen]

You folks are complicating a very simple answer.

Conservatives Watch Fox, liberals do not.

 

[rdean]

You folks are complicating a very simple answer.

Conservatives Watch Fox, liberals do not.

I watch Fox to know what the enemies of America are saying.

 

[rdean]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

Liberals want to find ways for them to become productive members of society. At the very least, help them to live their lives with integrity and dignity.

Conservatives say, "Let the fuckers starve".

 

[uscitizen]

You folks are complicating a very simple answer.

Conservatives Watch Fox, liberals do not.

I watch Fox to know what the enemies of America are saying.

I get more than enough of that on here.

Although I do confess to watching a couple of hours total of Beck lately to figure out why the adoration and worship by the right for that fool.
I gave up on figuring out the why and wrote him off as a mentally disturbed emo mess.
you can imagine what I think of his followers.

 

[rdean]

It's not really fair to consider "liberals" and "conservatives" because the Democratic Party is so "diverse". Not only are there people of many races, but they also come in a wide spectrum of "liberal" and "conservative". One of the main differences between conservatives in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is the Democrats aren't racist and they respect the differences of others even if they don't accept those differences.

It's much more difficult in the Republican Party because they are 90% white and don't respect the differences of others. Worse, they are proud of that fact.

 

[Madeline]

rdean wrote in part:

It's much more difficult in the Republican Party because they are 90% white and don't respect the differences of others. Worse, they are proud of that fact.

rdean, this sort of broad-brush characterization should be beneath you. I'm a Republican, and I'd defy you to find anyone who has ever felt I had treated them in a racist manner.

Most of my highly-active politiking years were spent in Florida, and there, it is far from true that "90% of all Republicans are white".

We aren't going to have much meaningful dialogue if all of us insist on false labeling.

 

[rdean]

I would list the difference instead between Republicans and Democrats since that makes more sense:

Democrats realize government is made up of people we elect into office. It’s not some shadowy government, but our very neighbors.
Republicans, being a party that is 90% white, is terrified that a minority leader would do to them what they have done to minorities.

Democrats seek to make education available to all Americans so they are less dependent and more productive. They understand the largest groups of welfare recipients are whites.
Republicans are anti education. They believe that knowledge will turn people from mysticism and understanding leads to less fear and liberalism.

Democrats understand that America is a country made up of immigrants from all over the world and understand that what keeps America safe is American ideas and leadership.
Republicans, being 90% white, don’t really care what happens to the rest of the world. In fact they are scared of people not like them.

Democrats, being diverse, share many ideas and see their political party as made up of individuals.
Republicans “follow the leader” and individualism is discouraged. They are expected to follow the party line at all times.

Hope that helped.

 

[Madeline]

And then there is Maddie's comment re how much of their massive wealth does a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a George Soros et al actually earn?

When it is somebody like Gates who started with nothing in his home garage and from purely his own ability to figure out how to provide a product that people wanted and would pay to have. . . . .as long as he does it legally and ethically, I say he earned every nickle he has or has ever had. I never looked into how Buffett or Soros made their gazillions, but whether they inherited them, won a major lottery at some point, or found it in the back yard, it doesn't really matter. If they obtained the money legally and ethically it is their money and nobody, certainly not the government, should be able to take it away from them just because they have more than anybody else.

From the conservative perspective, we conservatives are widely divided on whether a sales tax, fair tax, flat tax, flat percentage with some deductions allowed, etc. is the best way to go. But we're pretty unified on the principle that everybody should pay their fair share proportionately or the same as everybody else.

Many liberals also agree that everybody should pay their fair share BUT you have to exempt the really low income folks because it is the rich folks (or some such) who put them into that position . . . or . . .the fair share of the rich should be much much more percentagewise than the fair share of the lower income person.

Liberals see that as 'equitable' because the rich should not be entitled to keep so much when the poor have so little. It is the only compassionate way to structure the system.

Conservatives see making the rich pay a higher percentage as rewarding nonproductivity and punishing productivity and success which is counter productive to positive values and goals and contributes to a vanishing middle class. And they also see it as corrupting both for government and the beneficiaries of the policy.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. The problem is you enourage more and more people to be Paul.

This is a discussion worth having IMO. Let's use Buffet as an example (he's my favorite rich guy...as far as I know, not a breath of scandal has touched him in his whole long life). Buffet comes from a middle class background, not elite by any means. His extraordinary wealth is due to his uncanny ability to shepherd investments, and I'd characterize him as devoted to his shareholders (Buffet runs a mutual fund sort of thingie) but not ruthless. He hasn't made money off of splintering companies to get at pension funds, etc. as far as I know.

So, let's say Buffet grosses $1 Billion a year. How much has "he earned"?

Well, clearly the vast majority of it. He possesses a world class financial brain and should reap the rewards. I'm not gonna argue we should tax him into the middle class.

But did he earn it all? What about the people who work for him? The regulators (believe me, I gag as I write this, but bear with me) who assure him the stock market is fair?

Or to be more extreme, what if Buffet had been born in Guatamala? In other words, the whole "business of business" in the US allowed him to make his money -- shouldn't he pay a portion of those costs?

Now look at Buffet's personal life. Doubtless he has a secure neighborhood to live in. One reason it is secure is, it's not surrounded by ravaging hordes of starving people. Shouldn't he pay a portion of the costs of this security?

The point is, a rich man's gross receipts are NOT NOT NOT the measure of his "earnings". Those earnings would never be possible unless there were expensive and elaborate government services surrounding him, and it seems utterly selfish and short-sighted to me for the wealthy to claim the middle class and poor alone should underwrite those costs.

 

[rdean]

rdean wrote in part:

It's much more difficult in the Republican Party because they are 90% white and don't respect the differences of others. Worse, they are proud of that fact.

rdean, this sort of broad-brush characterization should be beneath you. I'm a Republican, and I'd defy you to find anyone who has ever felt I had treated them in a racist manner.

Most of my highly-active politiking years were spent in Florida, and there, it is far from true that "90% of all Republicans are white".

We aren't going to have much meaningful dialogue if all of us insist on false labeling.

You're joking right? This thread didn't start out with "meaningful dialog". Read the first posting.

 

[Madeline]

Are you aiming to be the lowest common denominator?

You strike me as a smart guy, rdean. I just think you can do better.

 

[oreo]

Here's one I got in my email:
Father/Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

VERY GOOD STORY:--and one that may hit a few of these liberals right between the eyes as to the difference between a conservative and liberal point of view.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Adrian Rogers, 1931

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there is Maddie's comment re how much of their massive wealth does a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a George Soros et al actually earn?

When it is somebody like Gates who started with nothing in his home garage and from purely his own ability to figure out how to provide a product that people wanted and would pay to have. . . . .as long as he does it legally and ethically, I say he earned every nickle he has or has ever had. I never looked into how Buffett or Soros made their gazillions, but whether they inherited them, won a major lottery at some point, or found it in the back yard, it doesn't really matter. If they obtained the money legally and ethically it is their money and nobody, certainly not the government, should be able to take it away from them just because they have more than anybody else.

From the conservative perspective, we conservatives are widely divided on whether a sales tax, fair tax, flat tax, flat percentage with some deductions allowed, etc. is the best way to go. But we're pretty unified on the principle that everybody should pay their fair share proportionately or the same as everybody else.

Many liberals also agree that everybody should pay their fair share BUT you have to exempt the really low income folks because it is the rich folks (or some such) who put them into that position . . . or . . .the fair share of the rich should be much much more percentagewise than the fair share of the lower income person.

Liberals see that as 'equitable' because the rich should not be entitled to keep so much when the poor have so little. It is the only compassionate way to structure the system.

Conservatives see making the rich pay a higher percentage as rewarding nonproductivity and punishing productivity and success which is counter productive to positive values and goals and contributes to a vanishing middle class. And they also see it as corrupting both for government and the beneficiaries of the policy.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. The problem is you enourage more and more people to be Paul.

This is a discussion worth having IMO. Let's use Buffet as an example (he's my favorite rich guy...as far as I know, not a breath of scandal has touched him in his whole long life). Buffet comes from a middle class background, not elite by any means. His extraordinary wealth is due to his uncanny ability to shepherd investments, and I'd characterize him as devoted to his shareholders (Buffet runs a mutual fund sort of thingie) but not ruthless. He hasn't made money off of splintering companies to get at pension funds, etc. as far as I know.

So, let's say Buffet grosses $1 Billion a year. How much has "he earned"?

Well, clearly the vast majority of it. He possesses a world class financial brain and should reap the rewards. I'm not gonna argue we should tax him into the middle class.

But did he earn it all? What about the people who work for him? The regulators (believe me, I gag as I write this, but bear with me) who assure him the stock market is fair?

Or to be more extreme, what if Buffet had been born in Guatamala? In other words, the whole "business of business" in the US allowed him to make his money -- shouldn't he pay a portion of those costs?

Now look at Buffet's personal life. Doubtless he has a secure neighborhood to live in. One reason it is secure is, it's not surrounded by ravaging hordes of starving people. Shouldn't he pay a portion of the costs of this security?

The point is, a rich man's gross receipts are NOT NOT NOT the measure of his "earnings". Those earnings would never be possible unless there were expensive and elaborate government services surrounding him, and it seems utterly selfish and short-sighted to me for the wealthy to claim the middle class and poor alone should underwrite those costs.

And I look at it from the viewpoint of Adam Smith who said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." And yet because they look to increase their own holdings or better themselves or provide more security for their family, they are knowingly or unknowingly providing means to others to do the same.

Milton Friedman expanded on that thought with his concept of "the possibility of cooperation without coercion."

The point is that free people operating legally and ethically in a free market will benefit the most simply by doing what benefits themselves most. We can appreciate and respect those who knowingly or unknowingly participate in our profits, but they are also profting as they choose. When you force people against their will to contribute to your wealth, power, prestige, influence, etc., the Conservative sees that as unethical and an infringement on unalienable rights.

But the fact that the guy who raises the pigs doesn't profit as much as the butcher who buys the pigs and sells the pork loins and ribs is not the responsibility of the butcher. Is it immoral for the butcher to become rich and the pig farmer to remain comparatively poor? Neither can profit without the other? Or is it the pig famer's responsibility to manage his affairs so that he increases his profits if that is his goal? It is not the butcher's responsibility to do that for him.

However, going back to CaliforniaGirl's illustration of her father who goes the second and third mile to benefit his employees and their families, he finds that profitable and personally satisfying to do and it no doubt increases his employees' loyalty and productivity. But regardless of his motives for doing that, it is HIS choice to do so and not that of the government.

The butcher might also find a way to help the pig farmer increase his profits rather than the pig farmer go out of business and the butcher not have the pigs to buy. But that would be in the interest of the butcher and his choice to do and not that of the government to decide.

The very rich were either lucky or more shrewd, more skilled, more capable, more innovative than the guy making the modest salary who works for him or the guy barely scraping by who provides the raw materials or whatever. But it is after all the rich who provides the means by which those other guys have income.

We will not ever increase the condition or situation of the poor man by tearing down the rich man. But by diminishing and weaking the rich, we do reduce the options and opportunities for the poorer person to become richer or rich if he has that ability and that is what he wants to do.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre wrote in part:

We will not ever increase the condition or situation of the poor man by tearing down the rich man. But by diminishing and weaking the rich, we do reduce the options and opportunities for the poorer person to become richer or rich if he has that ability and that is what he wants to do.

This doesn't help answer the question I asked, foxfyre.

To use the butcher and farmer analogy, consider:

Whether either of them could make any money if private property rights were not protected?

If a skilled and unskilled labor force were not available?

If there were no roads to transport goods?

If the market for meat were suddenly flooded by cheap foreign meat or poisonous pork?

Money cannot be generated in the US without the use of government services. Great wealth cannot be accumulated without a disproportionate share of these services.

I ask you again...who should pay, if not (to a proportionate degree) the wealthy?

 

[Foxfyre]

foxfyre wrote in part:

We will not ever increase the condition or situation of the poor man by tearing down the rich man. But by diminishing and weaking the rich, we do reduce the options and opportunities for the poorer person to become richer or rich if he has that ability and that is what he wants to do.

This doesn't help answer the question I asked, foxfyre.

To use the butcher and farmer analogy, consider:

Whether either of them could make any money if private property rights were not protected?

The Founders considered property rights among unalienable rights and wrote protection for those into the Constitution. Such rights benefit EVERY citizen, not only the rich. EVERY citizen has responsibility to contribute what is necessary for the Federal government to secure and protect our rights.

If a skilled and unskilled labor force were not available?

There is no labor force at all if there is not work for it to do. The poor man does not provide opportunity to work for wages to another poor man. The rich man does. So the rich man is obligated to strike a fair deal with those who work for him and to pay them the wages and benefits as agreed. The worker is obligated to provide fair value of work to the employer as agreed in return for the wages and benefits provided.

I can't see how you would not see one as equally as important as the other in order for commerce and productivity to happen. If there are no workers, the rich man would not have become rich in the first place. But take the rich man out of the equation, and the worker has no job. Each mutually benefits the other.

If there were no roads to transport goods?

Roads fall within the Constitutional goal of promoting the general welfare. Government does not prudently build infrastructure to promote industry. It prudently provides infrastructure to support developing industry. Infrastructure is included in the social contract by which the people form a society that meets the needs of the whole. And yes, as all will benefit from it, all should contribute toward the cost of it. Not just the rich man.

If the market for meat were suddenly flooded by cheap foreign meat or poisonous pork?

I don't know what poisonous pork has to do with it, but I do see protecting the food supply and protecting people from hazardous food to be a component of promoting the general welfare and securing our rights. Cheap foreign meat would likely benefit the butcher and harm the pig farmer but it is not the butcher's problem as a butcher. He might well make it his problem as a concerned citizen for the welfare of the economy as a whole.

Probably the issue of tariffs and imports should be looked at. But regulation of that is the responsibility of government and not the butcher.

Money cannot be generated in the US without the use of government services. Great wealth cannot be accumulated without a disproportionate share of these services.

But a good conservative government makes the same services available to all citizens. Not a favored few. No sweetheart deals. No targeted benevolence, etc. etc. And since in America there is no restrictions of class or opportunity, everybody has the same shot to put himself or herself into a position of needing government services. The rich man who provides a living wage for hundreds or thousands of others should not be punished because he uses more government services than the janitor.

Look at it this way. The rich guy probably pays more in taxes of all types than all or most of the combined taxes of his employees. And he provides jobs to many others who are also paying taxes. Why should he be more liable to pay for government services he uses than anybody else?

I ask you again...who should pay, if not (to a proportionate degree) the wealthy?

There is no sensible way to do it other than to treat all citizens equally under the law. Yes the rich guy may consume more, but he also contributes more and produces more and adds more to the economy and the national treasury. All that has to be factored into the equation of who owes what. The only fair way to do it is to treat everybody proportionately the same. If the tax rate is set at 10% everybody, rich and poor, pays 10%. The rich will pay a huge amount more than the poor, of course, but every citizen will have a stake in the process, every citizen will be affected by government policy, regulation, etc. and every citizen will have motive to demand the most equitable, efficient, effective government possible rather than a government who benefits them and to hell with the other guy.

Interesting stuff Maddie. I gotta get to bed now. But tomorrow is another day.

Good night my friend. And all.

 

[daveman]

You folks are complicating a very simple answer.

Conservatives Watch Fox, liberals do not.

I expect you watch more Fox than I do, so you can get your daily dose of outrage.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my thoughts regarding Maddie and my discussion, it seems more and more apparent to me that if the government would just stay out of it other than to secure and protect our rights so that we do not do violence to each other, the American businessman has always known how to manufacture a superior product at an attractive price.

Consider these three 'cures' for unemployment in a recent WSJ:

"It's an economy that hasn't been growing fast enough for a long time," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist who advised Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

The debate over short-term fixes is familiar by now: Is stimulus spending helpful or not? Are tax cuts better than sending aid to the states? Is it better to spend federal dollars to juice the economy or to attack the deficit?

But solutions to long-term job lethargy are equally important. There are plenty of ideas.

Liberal economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, says the key is attacking America's long-term trade imbalance. That requires expanding manufacturing, which, in turn, argues for pushing the value of the dollar down to make American exports cheaper. That isn't politically easy, because driving down the dollar also would drive up the cost of all those imports Americans love. Mr. Baker argues that it's a long-term job creator.

The more conservative Mr. Holtz-Eakin suggests a three-pronged attack. First, he would stop using the tax system to achieve social goals and change it to focus, almost obsessively, on fostering economic growth. Second, he would liberate corporations to devote more capital to jobs by curbing the use of them as "vessels for social benefits" such as health insurance, which would be provided in other ways. And third, he would radically improve the American education system, which is "failing to a remarkable degree in delivering to the labor force people with the skills needed to compete."

Centrist Democrat Robert Shapiro, chairman of the economic advisory firm Sonecon, says the job-creation problem arises because a globalized economy has brought an explosion of competition for American firms, limiting their ability to raise prices precisely when their fixed costs have started soaring in the areas of health, energy and pensions.

"This is a deep structural problem," Mr. Shapiro says. Its solution, he says, lies in public policies to help the private sector address those three big cost drivers.
It's Not Just the Jobs. It's the Jobs Machine. - WSJ.com

So here you have the liberal proposal which would be still more government dickering and manipulation which is apparent, at least to conservatives, has not yet produced much in the way of sustainable benefit.

You have the conservative proposal that gets government out of it entirely except to create a tax and regulatory structure that frees American business to do what it does best--put people to work and make things.

And you have the 'moderate view' which as most moderate views are is to identify the problem without taking a stand on how to solve it. Evenso, unwittingly, he identifies government mandates/initiatives/legislation that is limiting American business to do its thing.

So Conservative vs Liberal here is:

Conservative: get the government out of it as much as possible short of allow the trampling of Constitution rights vs the

Liberal: still more government involvement.

I think history comes down on the side of the Conservative.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not really fair to consider "liberals" and "conservatives" because the Democratic Party is so "diverse". Not only are there people of many races, but they also come in a wide spectrum of "liberal" and "conservative".

As do the Republicans. Which is why I have been quite intentional in not framing any part of this debate in Republican or Democrat terms. The topic is conservatism vs liberalism or identification and/or defense of either/or.

One of the main differences between conservatives in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is the Democrats aren't racist and they respect the differences of others even if they don't accept those differences.

It's much more difficult in the Republican Party because they are 90% white and don't respect the differences of others. Worse, they are proud of that fact.

I usually try to avoid personal characterizations in these things, but honestly Rdean, you should be able to see how stupid this comment is. Too stupid to give any credence whatsoever. But perhaps if you prefer a food fight to a serious discussion, that could have been your intent. You'll understand if I don't want to play that game or even include it for consideration.

I will respectfully ask you to join in the serious discussion or find something else to do. That goes for US Citizen as well who may or may not have actually read the OP and saw that it has absolutely nothing to do with poltiical parties or Fox News or Glenn Beck or any other national figure.

 

[DiamondDave]

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.

Children can become wards of the state.. We veterans are all adults, and what we do to support ourselves is our personal business and personal responsibility.... And as in every case, I believe in voluntary charity to voluntarily help those in need... not some forced charity that only some contribute to for the dispersion of generous feelings to those who actually contributed nothing

Hell.. I donate to several types of charities and would donate MUCH more if I were not having huge chunks of my paycheck stripped and abused in the government red-tape system... and we all know the government is not an efficient user of funds, with the many levels of red tape putting very little into the actual help and very much into greasing it's own gears

The care and (if need be) shelter of our vets is not CHARITY, Dave. It's an obligation we, as a nation, fell down on. We've sat back and allowed the VA to deny Agent Orange claims, etc. We tolerate substandard medical care at VA hospitals. Etc.

As for kids, I dunno what you mean "children can become wards of the state". Are you suggesting the poor should lose custody? Not only is that hugely economically inefficient and completely unconstitutional, it's borderline evil.

Yes, government is inefficient at delivery of care of (almost) any sort. Yes, we could do better (most of the time) if we went private. But here's the thing, Dave. I don't think any American child, vet or elderly person should go hungry. And I think they have a right to food security. So no, I don't think that's charity either.

As for private efforts, all I can tell ya is there are only two food pantries in the Cleveland area. No family can get more than 48 hours' worth of food in any month. Things are even worse downstate, in the rural counties. If that sounds efficient or adequate to you, then you sound like a monster to me.

Compensation claims for exposure to things like asbestos or lead pipes or agent orange is not the same for providing housing to vets who are down on their luck....

If you don't think anyone should go hungry, that is on you to donate what you will to a charity then... your feeling or want to help, even if I agree with you in helping hungry children or vets, still does not make it any involuntary obligation of others

If there are only 2 good pantries in Cleveland... start a 3rd...