To the Party of God: When did American helping American become "socialism"?

[Lonestar_logic]

when in history has private charity ever met the needs of the needy?

NEVER is the answer which is why every country helps its people through government

Read the Cato essay I posted and educate your ignorant self.

Tell me, when did "welfare programs" start in this country? And what did poor people do before then?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

Why do liberals insist illegals be allowed to vote in our elections?

 

[Steelplate]

First off, I am generally conservative.

Second, I am not opposed to welfare or any other program designed to help the poor.

The problem is not the helping the poor but rather the usefulness of our methods. Our government demands that we undertake these great programs such as Welfare in order to feed the poor and by the way, this is where it becomes socialism. Then when all that money is collected they siphon off a very large percentage of those taxes leaving a pittance for the poor.

Not only that, what they do give to the poor is a "hand out". It should be a hand up instead of a hand out. Welfare should be designed in a manner to help a needy family to get back to work not encourage them to stay needy. For instance, one issue I hear is that it costs a single mother too much in the form of daycare to go back to work. I can see that as being true. So, we should have those nonworking single mothers pool their talents in supervised daycare centers a few times a month so those other mothers who have found jobs can go to work and not give 90% of their new wages to a daycare center.

We better the lives of the needy if we actually help them to get back up on their feet rather than encourage them to remain needy.

What bugs me about the liberal philosophy is that they have the nerve to blame the rich for the actions and attitudes of the needy. That is a crock of shit even with today's economic conditions. You have declared war against people who have money. You blame them for their success and for the problems of those who have not succeeded. You have made them the enemy when it is you who cry out for their help. Basically what you do is kick a man in the crotch while begging him to help you feed the poor. If it were me, I would have a two word answer for you the first word rhyming with tuck.

Conservatives need to put their money where their mouth is. Seems there is a lot of talk about giving to charities and supporting your neighbors through your church or other fine organizations, but do you realize that donations to such organizations are a) simply not doing the job and b) many charities/churches are actually struggling to survive themselves let alone fulfill their missions? We're talking a great game here and striking out on three pitches every time: twenty-seven batters up, eighty-one strikes thrown game over.

Conservatives seem to talk about letting charities do what the government claims (note claims not succeeds) to be doing, but it seems like those who talk the talk maybe are not walking the walk. It seems to be that there is a lot of preaching about charities but the feeling is to let others do the tithing so to speak. Then the excuse given is "well, if the government weren't taxing us so much, we would give more to charities". For some reason, call me doubtful on that one.

Immie

Look, in case you haven't noticed... stupid generalizations, accusations and blanket assumptions... not to mention finger pointing and blame are what is in style now... not working together, a sense of community or empathy. There is no room for compromise, no room for crossing across the aisle of partisanship.

I am weary... so I'm just spouting off like so many other partisans do... why not? No one really gives a shit. It's all about getting digs in.. not reality.

Actually, I am with you on your post. Like i said... I want to see a welfare system where people have to work for their benefits. It will give them a sense of empowerment, it will give taxpayers a return on their tax dollar, and it will give future employers a valid reference as to the person's work ethic and ability.

I don't know what else to say....

Not sure whether you are attacking me or what, but did you by chance notice that I pointed fingers in both directions (and at myself) with that post?

I, truthfully, think that the vast majority of us, both liberal and conservative, want to help others. The difference lies in methods. Liberals want to rely on the government and conservatives want to rely on the generosity of individuals. I have to admit that I fall in the conservative category in this case mostly because I think our governmental leaders are so damned corrupt that they can't be trusted to do what is right with our "entitlement" dollars. If they could be trusted, then I would think the government was the best method simply due to the scale of coverage.

Immie

No... I wasn't attacking you... in fact, it was a kind of half assed apology. Sorry about not being clear on that.

 

[Steelplate]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

Why do liberals insist illegals be allowed to vote in our elections?

Why do Conservatives beat their wives?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad the Repubs/Party of God are saddled w/ their 'base' many of which are poor and remain that way by voting against their own interests

I'm glad that everyone who votes Dem gets rich.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

Private charities do more than the government can ever possibly do in regards to helping the poor.

As a Cato essay on federal welfare explains, private charity is superior to government programs for several reasons:

"Private charities are able to individualize their approaches to the circumstances of poor people. By contrast, government programs are usually designed in a one-size-fits-all manner that treats all recipients alike. Most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

The eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances. Consequently, some people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. Surveys of people with low incomes generally indicate a higher level of satisfaction with private charities than with government welfare agencies.

Private charities also have a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients because they do not have as much administrative overhead, inefficiency, and waste as government programs. A lot of the money spent on federal and state social welfare programs never reaches recipients because it is consumed by fraud and bureaucracy…

Another advantage of private charity is that aid is much more likely to be targeted to short-term emergency assistance, not long-term dependency. Private charity provides a safety net, not a way of life. Moreover, private charities may demand that the poor change their behavior in exchange for assistance, such as stopping drug abuse, looking for a job, or avoiding pregnancy. Private charities are more likely than government programs to offer counseling and one-on-one follow-up, rather than simply providing a check."

For the most part I cannot and will not argue against that. I definitely agree that private charities are better at distributing larger portions of their funds to the needy than the government.

The one area that I would be concerned with is coverage. For instance, if we all decided that the victims of hurricanes in Florida this year needed our attention and we all sent our charity dollars to those victims, then the disabled person in Portland, Or would be left high and dry not to mention damned hungry.

Immie

You're assuming that if such a scenario happened that all charities would give all funds to Florida and leave nothing for the needs of the local people.

Do you honestly believe such a scenario would happen?

Common sense dictates that no it wouldn't.

No, not at all, I am thinking more on the line of all of us thinking, "damn! look what happened in Florida. Those people really need my help. Those people at helpflorida.com are providing for those victims in South Florida. I think I will send them my donation this month." In the meantime, the people that are helping the disabled in Oregon would see a severe drop in funding and that man will go hungry.

We tend to care about those who are in the news today and forget about those who are hungry in the slums of New Orleans because Katrina happened so long ago.

Immie

 

[theHawk]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

So you admit welfare is wrong?

 

[Vanquish]

Whether charity should be government-run or privatized depends, ultimately, on whether you believe people are generally interested in others or more self-interested. Unfortunately, I believe the latter.

While I agree that private charities run more efficiently, I believe they are rife with uncertainty, based on the whims of the donors.

And disability is a great landmine too. Assuming the disability is valid, do you really think that private charities are going to foot living expenses for disabled people? Highly doubtful.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For the most part I cannot and will not argue against that. I definitely agree that private charities are better at distributing larger portions of their funds to the needy than the government.

The one area that I would be concerned with is coverage. For instance, if we all decided that the victims of hurricanes in Florida this year needed our attention and we all sent our charity dollars to those victims, then the disabled person in Portland, Or would be left high and dry not to mention damned hungry.

Immie

You're assuming that if such a scenario happened that all charities would give all funds to Florida and leave nothing for the needs of the local people.

Do you honestly believe such a scenario would happen?

Common sense dictates that no it wouldn't.

No, not at all, I am thinking more on the line of all of us thinking, "damn! look what happened in Florida. Those people really need my help. Those people at helpflorida.com are providing for those victims in South Florida. I think I will send them my donation this month." In the meantime, the people that are helping the disabled in Oregon would see a severe drop in funding and that man will go hungry.

We tend to care about those who are in the news today and forget about those who are hungry in the slums of New Orleans because Katrina happened so long ago.

Immie

Nothing but speculation and assumptions.

Fisrt of all not all of us THINK the same way. Second, no one is starving in the slums of any American city and if they are, well then it's by choice. You do realize the the poor people in this country are also the fattest people in our society. So they are not missing any meals.

Either you believe the government can do a better job (which after many years and billions of dollars later proves they can't) or you believe private charities are better suited. You seem to be stuck on the fence.

 

[Jarhead]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

Why do liberals insist illegals be allowed to vote in our elections?

Why do Conservatives beat their wives?

Becuase they deserve it....of course!

 

[theHawk]

Unbelievable...The world could be falling apart and we sit here and point fingers and argue semantics.

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it), the problem with Conservatives is THEY want the power and the glory of saying "Look at me!, I give to charity!, I'm important... plus, I get to pick and choose who I give it to, I get to decided how much(if anything at at all) I give.

First.. on the liberal side... we are naive suckers. I'll admit it. However, I want to teach them to fish... That's why I want a working version of welfare like the CCC. Have them earn their money.

Ok.. Conservatives. You people are genuinely fucked up.. not naive.. but hateful little pricks. The whole reason you are railing against welfare is that you don't want to help... period. Sure.. you can make your claim that you do this and you do that.. Fuck it.. I don't believe you. How can I do that? Simple, I'll use the same principles you do when you talk about Democrats and liberals... none.

Liberals like to pretend they are charitable by voting to make someone else (much richer) pay for that charity. And thats what socialism boils down to- phoney charity. Seizing money out of people's pay checks to supposedly provide "charity" for someone in need. Only 9 times out of 10, it doesn't actually go to someone in need. It goes to some political group that helped elect an official. It goes to a welfare income redistribution system that rewards scammers and the lazy. In the end none of the people who actually need help are getting it, and then the solution is to just tax more and spend more. Then when there isn't enough wealth to tax from, borrow money to spend. Pretty soon your government is so much in debt they can't even afford to provide the basic services that government is supposed to provide first and foremost - law and order and national security.

 

[Steelplate]

Why do liberals insist illegals be allowed to vote in our elections?

Why do Conservatives beat their wives?

Becuase they deserve it....of course!

Thanks jarhead... you smelled what I was cooking.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

To the party of No God: When did wealth redistribution become "helping"?

To the party of fake plastic piousness: When did selfishness, materialism and greed become virtues?

 

[Jarhead]

Why do Conservatives beat their wives?

Becuase they deserve it....of course!

Thanks jarhead... you smelled what I was cooking.

Yes I did.

But I was thinking of asking "why are tea partyers racists"

And I think you would have seen what I was cooking as well.

 

[Jarhead]

To the party of No God: When did wealth redistribution become "helping"?

To the party of fake plastic piousness: When did selfishness, materialism and greed become virtues?

They are not virtues by any means.

I hate the greedy.; laugh at the materialistic; and loathe the selfish.

They come in all walks of life and political beliefs.

 

[WillowTree]

30 Million in Poverty Aren't as Poor as You Think, Says Heritage Foundation

Although the public equates poverty with physical deprivation, the overwhelming majority of poor households do not experience any form of physical deprivation. Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the past year, they were able to meet “all essential expenses,” including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care.

In their footnotes, the Heritage Foundation uses studies that say things like the following. I suspect they hope people won't read the "footnotes". "Feeding America estimated that 10.3 million households used food pantries in 2009, but this estimate is not scientific and is not based on a representative sample of the U.S. population. The report uses complex and subjective estimation techniques, which include arbitrarily adjusting some results upward." (do all right wing sites have to play these shenanigans?)

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Tens of millions of Americans are uninsured and 50 million suffer from insecure access to food. But nearly all poor households own a refrigerator, television, and microwave. Surprising? Not really. It's a snapshot of one of the most important trends of the U.S. economy: the productivity paradox.

30 Million in Poverty Aren't as Poor as You Think, Says Heritage Foundation - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

More than 19 million Americans, or just over 6% of the population, live on less than $5,400 a year, or close to $100 a week, an analysis of 2009 Census data reveals. $5,400 is half the official poverty rate, a value which the financial news website Insider Monkey, which compiled these figures, dubs "extreme poverty". In what should be a national disgrace, the "state" with the worst extreme poverty rate (EPR) was the nation's capital, with over 10% of the District of Columbia's citizens living in extreme poverty. All of the "top ten" had rates in excess of 7%.

19 Million Americans Live On $100 A Week

You can go to the alley behind where I live and pick up a TV or a refrigerator, but if you have no food, who cares? The answer here is education and jobs.
Remember, a lot of those poor are Republicans, or don't they care?

When did American helping American become "socialism"?

When it is forced upon us by the government.

Americans, especially conservatives are the most charitable in the world.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? don't we have free education even for the millions of illegals?? you dumb shit

 

[Immanuel]

You're assuming that if such a scenario happened that all charities would give all funds to Florida and leave nothing for the needs of the local people.

Do you honestly believe such a scenario would happen?

Common sense dictates that no it wouldn't.

No, not at all, I am thinking more on the line of all of us thinking, "damn! look what happened in Florida. Those people really need my help. Those people at helpflorida.com are providing for those victims in South Florida. I think I will send them my donation this month." In the meantime, the people that are helping the disabled in Oregon would see a severe drop in funding and that man will go hungry.

We tend to care about those who are in the news today and forget about those who are hungry in the slums of New Orleans because Katrina happened so long ago.

Immie

Nothing but speculation and assumptions.

Fisrt of all not all of us THINK the same way. Second, no one is starving in the slums of any American city and if they are, well then it's by choice. You do realize the the poor people in this country are also the fattest people in our society. So they are not missing any meals.

Either you believe the government can do a better job (which after many years and billions of dollars later proves they can't) or you believe private charities are better suited. You seem to be stuck on the fence.

No one is starving in the slums of the U.S.?

I can't think of anyone that is starving today, but, I have to ask is that because of the hearts of Americans and especially conservative Americans as those are about whom we speak or is it because of the government programs that feed them today?

If the governmental programs were removed would those people starve? Quite frankly, to hear the way many conservatives speak, I have to think without the government, I think those "lazy, good-for-nothing's" would starve in a month.

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

You're assuming that if such a scenario happened that all charities would give all funds to Florida and leave nothing for the needs of the local people.

Do you honestly believe such a scenario would happen?

Common sense dictates that no it wouldn't.

No, not at all, I am thinking more on the line of all of us thinking, "damn! look what happened in Florida. Those people really need my help. Those people at helpflorida.com are providing for those victims in South Florida. I think I will send them my donation this month." In the meantime, the people that are helping the disabled in Oregon would see a severe drop in funding and that man will go hungry.

We tend to care about those who are in the news today and forget about those who are hungry in the slums of New Orleans because Katrina happened so long ago.

Immie

Nothing but speculation and assumptions.

Fisrt of all not all of us THINK the same way. Second, no one is starving in the slums of any American city and if they are, well then it's by choice. You do realize the the poor people in this country are also the fattest people in our society. So they are not missing any meals.

Either you believe the government can do a better job (which after many years and billions of dollars later proves they can't) or you believe private charities are better suited. You seem to be stuck on the fence.

I'm really suppressing the inclination to insult you right now. Because it won't help.

But I will say this, you are entirely wrong. There are LOTS of people suffering from hunger in the United States. And it's not by choice. It's not because they are lazy bums who just want a handout. It's because DESPITE trying hard and wanting to lift themselves up, LIFE circumstances were out of their control.

Maybe a car accident that wasn't their fault (or maybe it was)...losing a job which led to losing a house which led to inability to pay insurance which led to tapping their savings account...

A comment that someone is starving or unemployed because they want to be...I'm sorry I can't hold back. It's arrogant, childish, and totally naive.

For Fucks Sake...this is the reason why we can't depend on charity alone....people like you who just want to say "lazy bums wont work! fuck em!"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They are not virtues by any means.

I hate the greedy.; laugh at the materialistic; and loathe the selfish.

They come in all walks of life and political beliefs.

Sorry, but the right seems to encompass the Lion's share of these traits. I truly don't understand how it meshes with their "christianity"? But, whatever...

 

[Jarhead]

No, not at all, I am thinking more on the line of all of us thinking, "damn! look what happened in Florida. Those people really need my help. Those people at helpflorida.com are providing for those victims in South Florida. I think I will send them my donation this month." In the meantime, the people that are helping the disabled in Oregon would see a severe drop in funding and that man will go hungry.

We tend to care about those who are in the news today and forget about those who are hungry in the slums of New Orleans because Katrina happened so long ago.

Immie

Nothing but speculation and assumptions.

Fisrt of all not all of us THINK the same way. Second, no one is starving in the slums of any American city and if they are, well then it's by choice. You do realize the the poor people in this country are also the fattest people in our society. So they are not missing any meals.

Either you believe the government can do a better job (which after many years and billions of dollars later proves they can't) or you believe private charities are better suited. You seem to be stuck on the fence.

I'm really suppressing the inclination to insult you right now. Because it won't help.

But I will say this, you are entirely wrong. There are LOTS of people suffering from hunger in the United States. And it's not by choice. It's not because they are lazy bums who just want a handout. It's because DESPITE trying hard and wanting to lift themselves up, LIFE circumstances were out of their control.

Maybe a car accident that wasn't their fault (or maybe it was)...losing a job which led to losing a house which led to inability to pay insurance which led to tapping their savings account...

A comment that someone is starving or unemployed because they want to be...I'm sorry I can't hold back. It's arrogant, childish, and totally naive.

For Fucks Sake...this is the reason why we can't depend on charity alone....people like you who just want to say "lazy bums wont work! fuck em!"

I need to say something....

You are putting the blame on the wrong people....

Truth is, most that need help, truly need help. They want to work..they want to do for themselves....but circumstances are such that they cant.

However.....we have become quite leery over the years. Many abuse the system for gain...a mjority? No. But many have and governments inability (or lack of interest) in preventing fraud has allowed us to become fed up....THOISE THAT COMMIT THE FRAUD are the ones to blame...and government ignoiring it are the ones to blame.

I have about 1/3 of all interviews I set up either cancelled or no show....that is a big nyumber as we set up over 100 a week.....these are all folks on unempoloyment.

We have abouyt 15% of the candidates say they can start a hjob AFTER the summer.....but collecting unemployment.

Heck.....government said they will eliminte half a billion of fraud from medicare...you mean they know it is there but they wont do anything about it unless it is part of a deal? Really?

Sorry...we, the top 5%ers that pay a majority of the taxes are sick and tired of this crap. We dont doubt people need it......but we are sick of those that abuse it.