The Poor & Poverty: Is the Right right?

[WillowTree]

Poverty is a tricky problem for sure, but when it comes down to it the best social program will always be work. Helping people is very different from socialism and the great debate will always be where is the line drawn.

Well, capitalism has provided a lifestyle for the average person that is unattainable for about 80% of the rest of the world. Socialism has brought nothing but misery, poverty and death.
So it would seem obvious that if you want to help the poor you adopt more capitalist policies and fewer socialist policies.Of course if your real goal is personal power and gain so you can become another member of the nomenklatura then you rail against "the rich" and push for confiscating wealth.

So what policies does the capitalist want to institute to overcome all the social programs you want to get rid of??

JOBS JOBS JOBS. Hands up, not hands out. Social programs should be very short term at best. Personal responsibility. And btw. do you think hard working tax paying Americans should furnish Conyers and his ilk with Escalades with so many poor hungry people milling about? Doesn't that just look crappy to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Poverty is a tricky problem for sure, but when it comes down to it the best social program will always be work. Helping people is very different from socialism and the great debate will always be where is the line drawn.

Well, capitalism has provided a lifestyle for the average person that is unattainable for about 80% of the rest of the world. Socialism has brought nothing but misery, poverty and death.
So it would seem obvious that if you want to help the poor you adopt more capitalist policies and fewer socialist policies.Of course if your real goal is personal power and gain so you can become another member of the nomenklatura then you rail against "the rich" and push for confiscating wealth.

So what policies does the capitalist want to institute to overcome all the social programs you want to get rid of??

Have you really not been paying attention here? We want policies that reward hard work, ingenuity and enterprise. Currently we have the opposite.
Which social programs do I want to get rid of? This will be interesting since I've never posted any.

 

[Flopper]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

 

[shintao]

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

See this is the problem with Liberals. They are basically afraid of their fellow man and of citizens. SO they support high regulations because they don't trust people to do the right thing. They support invasive screening at airports because they suspect their fellow passengers of being terrorists. They support gun control because they are afraid of people with guns who don't also have uniforms on.
And now Shitnao tells us he's afraid of poor people.
Having worked with poor people I can say that if you cut off welfare payments and the like poor people woild find a way to cope, picking up extra work, making cooperatives with their churches, neighbors, friends and relatives. They would not become zombie hordes. That's a liberal fantasy.

Now here is an answer people!!! Pay attention. If we ended social programs the poor would cope and find ways to survive without violence in the equation. That is positive, that is thinking postive, an answer that could work. Americans could start helping Americans if we eliminated the social programs. There would be a crutch to take the place of government, taxes could go down for workers, the rich could get richer.

So thank you for contributing a means to solving the problem. I personally am not afraid of anybody however. I have guns, expert markmanship, and wouldn't mind blowing people off the front porch if they decided to unload my household. But I like your idea, it is possibly a way to go. I wonder though, someone mentioned the rich could never handle our poverty, so do you really think the common workers can, who get the least part of the pie? Just trying to figure how they would be able to support all these people. I guess they would have more tax dollars in their pocket if they were not being spent on social programs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Right is usually Wrong, so we had 911, two wars, the Gulf Slick, failed economy, etc.

My question is about poverty. Are the Right correct this time, that we should forget the poor and homeless, or is this just another Right being Wrong issue? What would happen to the poor and rich in America if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? Would it end up costing us more, or less?

I ask because the prisons are already filled with Americans who wanted more, not less out of life. And it is logical the poor are going to eat and have other human needs they want fulfilled.

On the other hand the rich would have more money in their pockets to invest in themselves, but not necessarily in jobs or products. They don't tell us why they want so much money they can never spend it in a lifetime or a thousand generations of their offspring. Perhaps if they did it would be easier to understand why dumping the poor is such a good idea afterall. And why the Right might be Right on this issue.

Exactly how can you blame any political party for a terrorist attack? Its ignorant for you to think you can just throw money at people whom often have little intelligent spending knowledge. Whether you give one dollar or all of your money to the poor, in the end you will still be the one sitting on your computer saying, "look at these helpless people lets help them. Its much easier said than done. Don't argue with ignorant statements, argue with facts.

This thread is just another example of a liberal throwing a handful of mud at the wall to see what will stick.
Notice the "all or nothing" straw man argument. If all social programs were eliminated? and then the class warfare "tax the rich" issue.
It's all nonsense.
The notion of "if we don't soak the rich with taxes, the poor will remain poor" just does not wash.
Taxes could be 99% and poverty would still exist.
A the end of the day, rich people would no longer be rich, the government would have an unlimited amount of money to burn and poor people would still be poor.
Liberals think a healthy economy starts and ends with government central planning.
Therefore, higher taxes will result in the poor being lifted upward.
We have seen since FDR enacted the "New Deal" and Johnson pushed through his "Great Society", nothing could be farther from the truth.
Johnson told the American people his Great Society would end poverty. He created a new gargantuan welfare state.
What was actually created was a permanent underclass of entitled people who are born raised and pro-create generation after generation of welfare recipients.
The Left realizes entitlements have never accomplished their goal of lifting the bottom.
However, the mere mention of cutbacks in entitlement spending brings howls of protest and cries of foul against those who wish to see at least some common sense in social spending.
Anyone who dares criticize the welfare state is labeled a greedy country club republican. We all know that's nonsense.
Social programs should be set up the same way taxation is arranged. With taxation, the focus is on "ability to pay". Higher earners pay a higher percentage of their earnings.
Based on that logic ,receipt of public assistance should focus on the "ability to work". n other words, the capability of a person to hold down a job is directly proportionate to the size of their public assistance check.
If it isn't already, I think all assistance should be taxed as income.
The prisons are filled with criminals. Rapists, murderers, white collar criminals, gang bangers, drug dealers. They get ZERO sympathy. Do not make excuses for criminal behavior. It won't wash here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?
The "wealthy" (whoever that is) pay taxes on income. So that comment is just class warfare bullshit.
You would see a reduction in consumption of 40oz beers and Black N Mild cigars. That's bad how?
We have plenty of food in this country. No one is going to starve.
But again we see the liberal mistrust of people as hordes of hungry zombies.

 

[shintao]

Well, capitalism has provided a lifestyle for the average person that is unattainable for about 80% of the rest of the world. Socialism has brought nothing but misery, poverty and death.
So it would seem obvious that if you want to help the poor you adopt more capitalist policies and fewer socialist policies.Of course if your real goal is personal power and gain so you can become another member of the nomenklatura then you rail against "the rich" and push for confiscating wealth.

So what policies does the capitalist want to institute to overcome all the social programs you want to get rid of??

Have you really not been paying attention here? We want policies that reward hard work, ingenuity and enterprise. Currently we have the opposite.
Which social programs do I want to get rid of? This will be interesting since I've never posted any.

Ok, a policy that rewards hard work. How does the policy do that? Does farmer Brown get rewarded for plowing the field? How does the policy work. If the corporation is already cut to bone, where does this reward come from? The government?

How does the ingenuity policy work? Is this a government funded reward of some kind? Having ingenuity is only a small part of production, the idea alone doesn't make it work. Where would the working capital come from if the corporation is already cut to the bone.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Right is usually Wrong, so we had 911, two wars, the Gulf Slick, failed economy, etc.

My question is about poverty. Are the Right correct this time, that we should forget the poor and homeless, or is this just another Right being Wrong issue? What would happen to the poor and rich in America if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? Would it end up costing us more, or less?

I ask because the prisons are already filled with Americans who wanted more, not less out of life. And it is logical the poor are going to eat and have other human needs they want fulfilled.

On the other hand the rich would have more money in their pockets to invest in themselves, but not necessarily in jobs or products. They don't tell us why they want so much money they can never spend it in a lifetime or a thousand generations of their offspring. Perhaps if they did it would be easier to understand why dumping the poor is such a good idea afterall. And why the Right might be Right on this issue.

And what do you do personally for the poor and poverty stricken? I have asked you this many times and you always ignore the question. Or do you just like to complain?

You must be thinking of someone else, because no-one here has ever asked me. I am not complaining now either. To begin with it is hard to help the poor, because you generally do not know what a particular poor person might need. I have given them shelter, fed them, clothed them, sobered them up, taken them off the streets and provided them livings and help them get employment, social benefits and medical care, worked with the mentally ill, entertained in rest homes for seniors, donate to FEED THE CHILDREN, local Women's shelter, local food distribution, donate needed items to veterans and counsel them in benefits, make visits at the VA hospital, donate to the Salvation Army, and donate to my local college to support programs. How about you? Do you work in the social system? Oh, I also support several family members and their children who find it hard to make ends meet. I am fortunate enough to be able do it, and in a manner they don't become dependent on me.


This isn't a diss thread. It is trying to answer a question about what to do about poverty, and what would the end results be if we listen to the rightys on the subject. What is the impact if we just cut off social programs in America? Will it make any difference? Will it cause riots? Will the rich be attacked and murdered? What do you think will happen, if anything. Well, go read the first post on this thread, and then answer. OK?

SO after all that giving and lending, have ANY of those people found their way to self sufficiency? Or have they become accustomed to their status as "those who need help"?
Obviously the best way to help a willing person out of poverty is to offer them an opportunity to do so.
Give a man a fish and he eat will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Right is usually Wrong, so we had 911, two wars, the Gulf Slick, failed economy, etc.

My question is about poverty. Are the Right correct this time, that we should forget the poor and homeless, or is this just another Right being Wrong issue? What would happen to the poor and rich in America if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? Would it end up costing us more, or less?

I ask because the prisons are already filled with Americans who wanted more, not less out of life. And it is logical the poor are going to eat and have other human needs they want fulfilled.

On the other hand the rich would have more money in their pockets to invest in themselves, but not necessarily in jobs or products. They don't tell us why they want so much money they can never spend it in a lifetime or a thousand generations of their offspring. Perhaps if they did it would be easier to understand why dumping the poor is such a good idea afterall. And why the Right might be Right on this issue.

Exactly how can you blame any political party for a terrorist attack? Its ignorant for you to think you can just throw money at people whom often have little intelligent spending knowledge. Whether you give one dollar or all of your money to the poor, in the end you will still be the one sitting on your computer saying, "look at these helpless people lets help them. Its much easier said than done. Don't argue with ignorant statements, argue with facts.

Well, if you want to use facts, bring them, whatever. I just asking a general question about what is going to happen in America when we shut down the social programs? And I am asking for your opinion of what will happen. Do you think the Right is right on this issue? What is it going to change if anything?

Who said anything about "shutting down" social programs?
No, you are not asking a general question. You are not interested in information. You started this thread to elicit a predetermined response from those of us on the political right.
You are looking for answers you want to see so you can stand up and yell, "see I told you so".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million.

Aside from the homeless, there are no Americans living in poverty.

Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income

Another myth. Nobody gets wealthy by banking their income.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So do you think we should abandon all social programs for the poor? You can't change the rich getting richer, or unions, or environmentalists, but you can change taking care of the poor, the unemployed and welfare social programs. You can end them, but what will be the result of that action?

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

We'll be just fine. There is no gun free zone in this home.

 

[shintao]

IMHO its a matter of fairness. The rich, those being the top 10% of incomes that own 90% of everything generally only worry about getting richer, and how to fuck the other 90% over to get richer. The latest outrage is moving 14,000 factories overseas, AND building another 100,000 or so new factories overseas instead of here in the US. Its easier than dealing with the unions and environmentalists. So the 90% of have-nots get smaller buckets of rice, and the rich still sell their foreign made products, which the rest of us need to buy, since thats all there is in stores...foreign made goods. Then the rich outsource other service jobs and their stocks keep making money as the poor lose their houses and dignity.
So the Right and Left are both wrong, since they don't help everyone by creating good jobs here, then tax revenue suffers and the pols look like morons (which they are).

So do you think we should abandon all social programs for the poor? You can't change the rich getting richer, or unions, or environmentalists, but you can change taking care of the poor, the unemployed and welfare social programs. You can end them, but what will be the result of that action? Will it make America richer or poorer, or what? Is the Right right??

Life isn't fair, Kyzr. If you made $500,000 a year and I made $5,000 a year - exactly what is it that's fair about you being forcefully made to give up, say, 20% of what you worked for and earned in order for me to have more money that I neither worked for nor earned? How is that justified or make life fair?

The rich own the big corporations that are regulated out the ass by government; they pay out the ass to union demands; the environmentalists are the cause of many more regulations that jack the price of business even higher. Minus any one of these causes, better yet, all of these causes, the rich and their big bad corporations could afford to cut down on costs, bring back work to Americans and compensate them for a job well done.

On the other hand, the rich bastards and big bad corporations are huge contributors to a vast number of charities from which the poor can draw. And, believe me, they do draw. Many of their wives and daughters who are debutantes belong to women's organizations such as Junior League who are active in making things affordable to the less fortunate.

And, yes, Shintao, we can and should get rid of some of our overseas work treaties, definitely get rid of unions and limit other causes which contribute to the economic problems.

My point is you can't get rid of unions anymore than you can get rid of corporations or environmentalist. People are allowed to organize and make money or be poor. There are things we do voluntarily however with the government, like foreign aid and social programs. If we end them there is some other negative impact we will have to accept.

Now I do think if we ended all social programs those working and the rich could feasibly take care of the poor and poverty, some how. If the care was maintained, or a way to put them to work, then that would be good. Like Rabbi noted. Mexico manages to take care of their poor, even though it makes it impossible to live above a parasites means. I think if we do go the way of mexico, we will end any progressive future, just as Mexico and India have done. There simply wouldn't have enough money to develope above where we are today.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So do you think we should abandon all social programs for the poor? You can't change the rich getting richer, or unions, or environmentalists, but you can change taking care of the poor, the unemployed and welfare social programs. You can end them, but what will be the result of that action?

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

This is fantastic.
So....Let me get this straight. We must continue, at great expense, to fund social welfare programs so that poor people, who are in your words far more prone to violence and criminal behavior, can be kept "in line"?
Holy shit!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

This is fantastic.
So....Let me get this straight. We must continue, at great expense, to fund social welfare programs so that poor people, who are in your words far more prone to violence and criminal behavior, can be kept "in line"?
Holy shit!

And of course we know he is talking about black people, which makes him a racist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

So you make this hideous generalization labeling the poor as being more inclined to criminal behavior as opposed to being potentially resourceful enough in the face of losing govt benefits would find an honest way to make a living?
That makes two libs on here who are in danger of losing their ACLU membership cards.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

We'll be just fine. There is no gun free zone in this home.

I'm with you. Break into my house and it's over.
BOOM! Stop or I'll shoot.

 

[shintao]

And what do you do personally for the poor and poverty stricken? I have asked you this many times and you always ignore the question. Or do you just like to complain?

You must be thinking of someone else, because no-one here has ever asked me. I am not complaining now either. To begin with it is hard to help the poor, because you generally do not know what a particular poor person might need. I have given them shelter, fed them, clothed them, sobered them up, taken them off the streets and provided them livings and help them get employment, social benefits and medical care, worked with the mentally ill, entertained in rest homes for seniors, donate to FEED THE CHILDREN, local Women's shelter, local food distribution, donate needed items to veterans and counsel them in benefits, make visits at the VA hospital, donate to the Salvation Army, and donate to my local college to support programs. How about you? Do you work in the social system? Oh, I also support several family members and their children who find it hard to make ends meet. I am fortunate enough to be able do it, and in a manner they don't become dependent on me.


This isn't a diss thread. It is trying to answer a question about what to do about poverty, and what would the end results be if we listen to the rightys on the subject. What is the impact if we just cut off social programs in America? Will it make any difference? Will it cause riots? Will the rich be attacked and murdered? What do you think will happen, if anything. Well, go read the first post on this thread, and then answer. OK?

Without digging here is one time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/142609-what-god-said.html


Has any country so far in civilization been able to solve the problem of poverty? I dont think it is right to take from the "rich" and force them to give to the "poor" No matter how "poor" we are in this country, there is always some worse off. Do you take from them and give it to someone else worse off?

That is a good point. No one should be forced to give anything reardless of status.

I do believe in personal responsibility. Poverty for some is having to do without a cell phone, a bit screen TV, and a play station. If you cant afford luxuries then sorry you're out of luck.

If you cant afford to feed a family then you have the personal responsibility of not having children.

There was a time in this country when didn't expect the government to care for you from birth to grave. I would have it that way again. I think social programs are what has put so many in the situation of needing social programs.

So you would cut the social programs and go the way of the Rabbi. And I think most people headed that way would eventually become frustrated at their failed efforts and give up. What do you think? Would you give up helping the poor, when it just becomes overwhelming? When everybody else just gives up? afterall, is it really your responsibility to care for the poor, or for family members? Someone said to leave your family and start your own. That must mean you have no one to turn back to for help. I myself realize that my efforts are so small they are insignificant in this universe, that I could do nothing and have the same impact on my fellow men. But I also know that if I had a billion dollars I would have no use for it, I would still be giving it away to those I feel need it most. I have a young relative that was a complete fuck up, and I worked with him trying to get him job oriented and taking responsibility for himself. My relatives are not the best people to be raising children. In any event I bought him a Camero, and gave him the keys, but told him if he wanted the cheese he had to keep insurance on the car and that meant getting a steady job. That snapped him, and he has been working ever since, has a good job in distributing warehouse. Sometimes it takes a big shove. Sometimes it takes putting a person in isolation from his old habits and giving him news ones, like good work ethics, a warm bed & shower & hot meals and clean clothes, etc. I have a ranch and a two bed farm house on it here in CA., and I have helped a few homeless put their lives back together out there. It is really not that hard to do. People just need a purpose in life, and there is nothing better than being self-sufficient and responsible for yourself, so the job is the means to self-esteem and personal worth. I bought some steel toed boots for guy who had a job at steel plant if he could just get the safety items he needed for the job. I don't know how that worked for him, but hopefully good. I retired in 1990 at 45 years old, so I have time to do things for people, that those working don't have. I just try to give back to society what it has given to me. And for that I am a Liberal and socialist and humanitarian, which seems to rake chalk on a board for rightys. LOL!

 

[shintao]

Afraid you'll stop receiving that check at the beginning of each month?

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

We'll be just fine. There is no gun free zone in this home.

I think along lines of the "Night of the living dead," and how they surround the house, and you have to board your windows and doors. Or the "Mad max" movie and groups of people who pirate and plunder. It is more likely desperate people will pack into crowds to overcome any obstacle. Did you know that domesticated home dogs will pack at night and go out killing horses, sheep, cattle?? I had a ranch up in the San Andreas mountains, and see that happen there, then years ago up in Alaska when the snows came, people abandoned their dogs, and food became scarce. Up there the air force goes out and mows them down in the winter time. Anyway, I imagine people would do that, something like Watts riots.

 

[shintao]

Nah, wondering what is going to happen to your kid when hungry crowds of people bust your door down for food and other items they need. Wondering if cutting off their benefits will have an impact on you and paying higher taxes when they build more prisons and hire more police, and your insurance skyrockets to a point you can't afford any. Wondering what will happen to markets when government cuts off the food stamps. What will happen to renters when government cuts off housing. Do a lil thinking and see if you can figure out if we should stop all social spending and what the impact will be to you and to the rich.

This is fantastic.
So....Let me get this straight. We must continue, at great expense, to fund social welfare programs so that poor people, who are in your words far more prone to violence and criminal behavior, can be kept "in line"?
Holy shit!

And of course we know he is talking about black people, which makes him a racist.

Nah, I don't think black people wouldn't be much of the problem. They have learned how to survive on the streets and lived in poverty. You are not thinking big enough Taz. Your problem is going to be millions of desperate white folks that have to eat, and have mouths to feed. The ones that haven't known being without yet. The desperate ones that have low paying jobs and government was subsiding their home and food bills.

And I don't think you need to keep social spending up, but I have a good idea what will happen if you don't. I said it at the start of this thread, People are going to eat, People are going to have their needs taken care of. Now the Rabbi thinks if government doesn't do it, you will. I am just saying if you don't, what is a possible logical outcome.

 

[syrenn]

You must be thinking of someone else, because no-one here has ever asked me. I am not complaining now either. To begin with it is hard to help the poor, because you generally do not know what a particular poor person might need. I have given them shelter, fed them, clothed them, sobered them up, taken them off the streets and provided them livings and help them get employment, social benefits and medical care, worked with the mentally ill, entertained in rest homes for seniors, donate to FEED THE CHILDREN, local Women's shelter, local food distribution, donate needed items to veterans and counsel them in benefits, make visits at the VA hospital, donate to the Salvation Army, and donate to my local college to support programs. How about you? Do you work in the social system? Oh, I also support several family members and their children who find it hard to make ends meet. I am fortunate enough to be able do it, and in a manner they don't become dependent on me.


This isn't a diss thread. It is trying to answer a question about what to do about poverty, and what would the end results be if we listen to the rightys on the subject. What is the impact if we just cut off social programs in America? Will it make any difference? Will it cause riots? Will the rich be attacked and murdered? What do you think will happen, if anything. Well, go read the first post on this thread, and then answer. OK?

Without digging here is one time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/142609-what-god-said.html


Has any country so far in civilization been able to solve the problem of poverty? I dont think it is right to take from the "rich" and force them to give to the "poor" No matter how "poor" we are in this country, there is always some worse off. Do you take from them and give it to someone else worse off?

That is a good point. No one should be forced to give anything reardless of status.

I do believe in personal responsibility. Poverty for some is having to do without a cell phone, a bit screen TV, and a play station. If you cant afford luxuries then sorry you're out of luck.

If you cant afford to feed a family then you have the personal responsibility of not having children.

There was a time in this country when didn't expect the government to care for you from birth to grave. I would have it that way again. I think social programs are what has put so many in the situation of needing social programs.

So you would cut the social programs and go the way of the Rabbi. And I think most people headed that way would eventually become frustrated at their failed efforts and give up. What do you think? Would you give up helping the poor, when it just becomes overwhelming? When everybody else just gives up? afterall, is it really your responsibility to care for the poor, or for family members? Someone said to leave your family and start your own. That must mean you have no one to turn back to for help. I myself realize that my efforts are so small they are insignificant in this universe, that I could do nothing and have the same impact on my fellow men. But I also know that if I had a billion dollars I would have no use for it, I would still be giving it away to those I feel need it most. I have a young relative that was a complete fuck up, and I worked with him trying to get him job oriented and taking responsibility for himself. My relatives are not the best people to be raising children. In any event I bought him a Camero, and gave him the keys, but told him if he wanted the cheese he had to keep insurance on the car and that meant getting a steady job. That snapped him, and he has been working ever since, has a good job in distributing warehouse. Sometimes it takes a big shove. Sometimes it takes putting a person in isolation from his old habits and giving him news ones, like good work ethics, a warm bed & shower & hot meals and clean clothes, etc. I have a ranch and a two bed farm house on it here in CA., and I have helped a few homeless put their lives back together out there. It is really not that hard to do. People just need a purpose in life, and there is nothing better than being self-sufficient and responsible for yourself, so the job is the means to self-esteem and personal worth. I bought some steel toed boots for guy who had a job at steel plant if he could just get the safety items he needed for the job. I don't know how that worked for him, but hopefully good. I retired in 1990 at 45 years old, so I have time to do things for people, that those working don't have. I just try to give back to society what it has given to me. And for that I am a Liberal and socialist and humanitarian, which seems to rake chalk on a board for rightys. LOL!

I would not totally cut off social programs. I would have them slash them all to the bone. I would also make it more appealing to work then not to work to "make a living" As far as i can see there are to many people institutionalized into social programs and there is NO incentive to get out. Those on social program hand outs need to be more accountable.

No help is insignificant. If people do what they can then that is enough.