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

[Ame®icano]

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.

Give a man a welfare he will eat for a day. Teach him how to stay on welfare, he will eat for a lifetime.

 

[Stephanie]

Sheeesh, I thought when the Obama was elected there would BE NO more poor. I hold him RESPONSIBLE..

I hold him responsible too... And You... and Frank, and Boehner, and me, and this whole fucked up country.

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Problem is is that the government has been handing out fishes for 3 or 4 generations. It's high time the leeches take advantage of the education offered them and learn to fish for themselves
Perhaps if we hand out smaller fishes?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

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

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Many of the Republicans base IS POOR. So what is voting FOR their best interest. voting Democrat?
my gawd

At least, republican poor base is not crying about being poor and not asking for government charity.

 

[Steelplate]

Sheeesh, I thought when the Obama was elected there would BE NO more poor. I hold him RESPONSIBLE..

I hold him responsible too... And You... and Frank, and Boehner, and me, and this whole fucked up country.

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

Well, according to your side... jobs are the private sectors' responsibility... why are they derelicting their duty? Soo... you have proof to your assumptions of the housing, money, blackberries, etc? Or are you just quoting a right wing talking head?

 

[Claudette]

Charity is a personal choice.

When the Govt takes over and decides who your hardearned tax dollar should go to then it becomes something totally different.

I'm not interested in supporting every freeloader in this country and that includes people and companies.

If your able bodied then theres no reason you can't take care of yourself and your responsibilities. If you made poor choices in life then tough shit in my book.

Same goes for any company that gets tax dollars. If you can't make it on your own then tough shit.

I bust my ass to earn a living and nothing pisses me off more than to have someone else benefit from my hard work.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

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

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."

 

[Dot Com]

I hold him responsible too... And You... and Frank, and Boehner, and me, and this whole fucked up country.

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

Well, according to your side... jobs are the private sectors' responsibility... why are they derelicting their duty? Soo... you have proof to your assumptions of the housing, money, blackberries, etc? Or are you just quoting a right wing talking head?

prolly the latter knowing Stephie

 

[Steelplate]

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.

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....

 

[Stephanie]

I hold him responsible too... And You... and Frank, and Boehner, and me, and this whole fucked up country.

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

Well, according to your side... jobs are the private sectors' responsibility... why are they derelicting their duty? Soo... you have proof to your assumptions of the housing, money, blackberries, etc? Or are you just quoting a right wing talking head?

I'm sure you know what I meant, but you want to be a smart ass, have at it. And you should do some reading about what they GIVE the unemployed over in England. It's all that SOCIAL JUSTICE and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. but to you all, that is CHARITY.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

Well, according to your side... jobs are the private sectors' responsibility... why are they derelicting their duty? Soo... you have proof to your assumptions of the housing, money, blackberries, etc? Or are you just quoting a right wing talking head?

prolly the latter knowing Stephie

Benefits

 

[Steelplate]

you should move my dear. How about England, they did such a fine job taking care of their poor by giving them housing, money, blackberries, etc etc, they are now rioting and tearing the country apart. The only thing they forgot to give them WAS JOBS.

Well, according to your side... jobs are the private sectors' responsibility... why are they derelicting their duty? Soo... you have proof to your assumptions of the housing, money, blackberries, etc? Or are you just quoting a right wing talking head?

I'm sure you know what I meant, but you want to be a smart ass, have at it. And you should do some reading about what they GIVE the unemployed over in England. It's all that SOCIAL JUSTICE and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. but to you all, that is CHARITY.

Ok... here's a link to what they GIVE their unemployed... keep in mind that every British pound is the equivalent of $1.61.

Unemployment benefits explained | Consumer affairs | Times Online

Doesn't seem all that extreme to me...

 

[blastoff]

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.

Um...the way I heard it is, Teach a man to fish and...he will spend a considerable amount of the rest of his life in a boat drinking beer.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

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

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

 

[Truthmatters]

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Job bills, education grants and subsidies, targeted tax cuts, job corp, head start, free pubic education to all, pubic supported universities and colleges, internships, vista and Americorp, affirmative acton, GI bill, welfare to work etc. are all means to "teach a man to fish" and all under attack by 'conservatives'.

Q. Why are 'conservatives' myopic?

A. 'Cause greed, hate, fear and bias inhibit rational thought.

are all means to "teach a man to fish" and all under attack by 'conservatives'

The only ones I see attacked are the wasteful ones that don't work.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

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

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

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.

 

[Jarhead]

May have already been said, but I didnt feel like reading through pages to find out....

Americans heloing Americans is not socialism...it is American.

Government taking money from Americans and deciding what other Americans to give it to leans towards socialism.