An interesting conversation...

[BoutDone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Yeah, you're a ****ing saint, aren't you?

I feel very, very sorry for you.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I agree with you completely. No one in this country should be hungry... By the same token, the government is not required to provide any of these neccessities for you. They are required to stop others from attempting to stop you from trying. Charity is a wonderful thing. I have given freely of my time and my money on numerous occasions, and will probably continue to do so in the future. But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. When the govt provides for someone that has not provided for themselves, the only way they can do that, is via all of our taxes that we pay. The govt has no money of it's own. My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. Schools, roads, libraries all qualify. What can I gain from my money going into another mans pocket? It makes me feel good that I can help someone who truly needs it. But that gets back to the whole charity thing again. Taking money from me for charity in my opinion goes against the whole point of the charitable donation, and that point is that it is voluntary. Once it is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.

Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities. And it makes economic sense, from a purely self-interest perspective (and I know that appeals to you) that Government do this, not charities.I read an article the other day discussing a hunger study by a prominent expert that says it would take the Government $12 billion to eliminate hunger in America, as opposed to the $14.5 billion charities currently expend to fight hunger and the $90 billion in costs in "hunger related problems" paid by all of us. So, it seems that this private charity thing is sometimes inefficient to address some social issues.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone I feel very, very sorry for you.

Screw you and the piglet horse you rode in on.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities.

"Ideology aside" I'd make three points:
1) Making charitable work a government responsibilty deprives us all of a very important opportunity: The ability to voluntarily help others by giving money to charitable agencies. I think everyone likes to feel good about themselves by giving in this way. I get no feeling of having helped others when my money is forcibly taken by the government.

2) I do not believe that government efficiency in doling out assistance is anywhere close to the efficiency of private charities.

3) Hunger has been eliminated in America, at least as far as it is possible to do so with money. That doesn't mean that there aren't many hungry children with absent fathers and drug-dependent mothers, but this isn't an issue of money/food/resources. I do not believe any person with the mental capacity and will to look after himself/herself/their dependents need ever be hungry given the present safety net(s). What is today considered "poverty" in America bears no resemblance to poverty in most of the world. That's a good thing.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

You describe your uncle as a person who is caught up in his own "feelings", and doesn't seem to be able to deal with a rational discussion.

This post seems to be a simple assertion of your feelings (or values). Can anything here be proved or disproved by a rational method? Or do you consider it "self-evident truth"?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Not buying it, so keep the far right auto-response to yourself.

This is not a board limited my one's political idelogies, and if you think I am a far right wing person you don't know me well.........oh well........

Quote:

For the record, I think the Soap Box board is a tremendously bad idea. It encourages far right, far left, and newguy bat excrement posts to go forth and multiply, which is really not what we have been all about. I watched the retire early home page board on TMF slide into the muck as it was colonized and eventually dominated by far right nutzoids (far left would have been no better) - that is why I left and spend my time on this boarrd. I really, really REALLY do not want to see that happen here.

I don't see how the OP is starting a flame war?? :confused::confused:

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Not buying it, so keep the far right auto-response to yourself. For the record, I think the Soap Box board is a tremendously bad idea. It encourages far right, far left, and newguy bat excrement posts to go forth and multiply, which is really not what we have been all about. I watched the retire early home page board on TMF slide into the muck as it was colonized and eventually dominated by far right nutzoids (far left would have been no better) - that is why I left and spend my time on this boarrd. I really, really REALLY do not want to see that happen here.

I think the soap box board is a fine idea. It allows people who want to talk about certain topics to do so without cluttering up other discussions. Each of us can choose how much time, if any, to spend here. I'm sure that I will check in to see if there is a discussion that interests me.

I think these topics tend to get emotional pretty quickly. Because of that, it's best if people avoid language like "bat excrement", and "nutziods".

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 2) I do not believe that government efficiency in doling out assistance is anywhere close to the efficiency of private charities.

That's not true - working in the nonprofit sector - i know that most service charities have a very limited reach and cannot serve everyone in need because they have to spend all their time and too many resources on fundraising! There are many many many people who are not reached by charities - and aside from that the government is the one supporting most of them anyway...many of them are supported in large part by government grants...

what charity can provide babies medicine, food and care as efficiently as the government has?

[brewer12345]

NM

[BoutDone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 NM

Thank you for removing your post. I found it quite offensive.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed That's not true - working in the nonprofit sector - i know that most service charities have a very limited reach and cannot serve everyone in need because they have to spend all their time and too many resources on fundraising! There are many many many people who are not reached by charities - and aside from that the government is the one supporting most of them anyway...many of them are supported in large part by government grants... what charity can provide babies medicine, food and care as efficiently as the government has?

It's possible we are confusing "efficiency" with "effectiveness."

It seems to me that once the government steps into a charitable area, the private charities (and their contributors) figure that block is filled and they go find another area of need. If this is right, government is "crowding out" the charities that might otherwise be providing aid for sick children, etc.

If the government is so efficient at performing services (and more efficient than private charities), then they should not be directing my tax money to (less efficient) private charities. They should do this work in house. Whichever is the case (more efficient private charities or less efficient private charities) the fact that the government is giving them my money implies that government is either less efficient at actually performing the services or making a poor decision in using the money they took from me.

How much more money would be available for private charities if the government took less in taxes?

If tax rates were lower, I'd have more to give. If government placed more of the burden on private charities, I'd have more incentive to give. I suspect others feel the same.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone Thank you for removing your post. I found it quite offensive.

Glad you did.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself.

But they have a right to try within certain bounds, right? They can try to sell you something. They can hold you responsibile and liable for something you disagree you should be responsible and liable for and win a settlement in court nonetheless. They can use legal business tactics to compete with you and put you out of business. They can draft you and send you to fight a war that does no good for you personally (with reinactment of conscription legislation). They can take advantage of supply - demand situations and gouge you on prices for items you must have to live. And they can use the political system to create taxes that appear to take from you and redistribute to others........... The list is infinite.

You seem a little naive regarding the distinction between your personal life, your business life and your political life. Despite what we might like, they are not distinct but rather strongly interrelated. In the same way that a business competitor seeks to put you under and acquire what you have on favorable terms, political competitiors seek to create laws and codes which work to support them and their way of thinking rather than yours. You are free to fight against this and to the extent things are not as you would have them, you are losing the battle.

While you may learn from the discussion here, with your uncle and other places, eventually you need to roll up your sleeves and pitch in to make things the way you want them to be. Otherwise you're just stuck on the losing side just like if you fail in your career or in business or in some aspect of your personal life.

So...... yakkity yak here on the subject for a little while, then go get busy. Things are the way they are because you haven't done anything about it. Just like the welfare recipient who won't go get a job, you're guilty of not being active in the political system in a way that causes things to be the way you'd like to see them. Stop whining. Stop waiting for someone else to take care of things for you. Get up out of your desk chair and get to work!

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by myself I'm more of a centrist, but lean toward the conservative. Poverty CAN NOT be resolved. Once everyone has the basic necessities, the term "poverty" will change to mean not being able to afford cable, or a TV. And when every single person can afford cable or a TV, poverty will be redefined to not having the ability to have more than 2 children and still be able to survive, and on, and on, and on ... Of course, if we all went "Star Trek" overnight, then there would be no possibility of poverty unless the definition were changed to say "different levels of abilities to help mankind".

You must not have lived in NY city.... when I was there they had an article on the 'poor'... I think 70% had cable, cell phones, microwave oven (who knew it was for rich) and something else I can not remember... to me... if you are POOR, a cell phone is a luxury (or course, there is the Virgin or similar where you can get by for about $5 per month... so maybe not as much...)...

[DallasGuy]

I used to be extremely fiscally conservative....socially, always moderate to liberal. But as time has gone on and our government has seen fit to "waste" billions (approaching a trillion) on such things as wars that the right deems "worth it" (although more and more people are rejecting this idea), I figure if we're going to waste money on those things, instead why not waste it on things at home like handouts to the poor and yes, even handouts to those people that are lazy. At least it's staying here at home. It's extremely frustrating to hear arguments about how wasteful it is to give handouts to lazy people who don't deserve them but at the same time it's ok to waste billions on bombs being blown up in the middle east. The facts are that the US is wasting billions on wars that do little or nothing for the citizens of the US....and some people would argue that it's actually done us more harm. This money could be better spent on other things, both conservative AND liberal.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem "Ideology aside" I'd make three points: 1) Making charitable work a government responsibilty deprives us all of a very important opportunity: The ability to voluntarily help others by giving money to charitable agencies. I think everyone likes to feel good about themselves by giving in this way. I get no feeling of having helped others when my money is forcibly taken by the government. 2) I do not believe that government efficiency in doling out assistance is anywhere close to the efficiency of private charities. 3) Hunger has been eliminated in America, at least as far as it is possible to do so with money. That doesn't mean that there aren't many hungry children with absent fathers and drug-dependent mothers, but this isn't an issue of money/food/resources. I do not believe any person with the mental capacity and will to look after himself/herself/their dependents need ever be hungry given the present safety net(s). What is today considered "poverty" in America bears no resemblance to poverty in most of the world. That's a good thing.

In response, I say this:

1. No one is deprived of anything. The Government does not displace and disrupt the entire field of caring for people who occasionally fall off the trail; free and widely available public education at all levels hasn't stopped people from contribuing to private educational programs or systems. And there's a certain paradox involved in the public and private financing for the treatment of the hungry; it's because our politicians make hunger a "private giving" issue that it does not get adequately treated with public resources, which results in hunger continuing in our society. As stated by one commentator: "if the federal government paid $12 billion more to eliminate hunger, the cost would be borne by all taxpayers. The cost of running charities, by contrast, are borne by individual philanthropists and volunteers, and the indirect costs of hunger are borne largely by hungry people themselves. What our political leaders have done is opt to have charities feed the hungry -- it constitutes a hidden tax." "While it would be much cheaper to do it federally, by privatizing the response, political leaders avoid moral and fiscal responsibility."

2. Well, I think you're plainly wrong here when it comes to eliminating hunger in America. Soup kitchens and distribution of food by the charities was the primary means of feeding the hungry and poor before the Food Stamp, Child & Nutrional Care, and School Lunch programs eliminated most of the hunger in America. Undoubtedly, there are some charitable programs that have done better jobs than the Government, but even the Red Cross does poorly in some instances, like Katrina.

3. Hunger has not been eliminated in America, if we defined hunger as people who are in need of food, are hungry and cannot afford to fund that basic need on their own. Yes, our safety net programs eliminate most of the hunger in America, but lots of people, typically children and the homeless, go hungry every minute of the day and these safety net programs don't always reach them. Here are some fast facts from the Center for Hunger and Poverty:

• Nearly one in eight US households do not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Over 38 million people live in these food-insecure households, including 13.9 million children.
• More than ten million people live in households that go hungry; close to one-third of these are children.
• Over 40% of low-income children live in households that are hungry or at risk of hunger. One-third of female-headed households and more than 20% of Black and Hispanic households are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the basic needs of their members because of insufficient money to buy food.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Yeah, you're a ****ing saint, aren't you?

Tell us all exactly what that accomplished, or was intended to? You wonder what leads to the decline of forums...

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Tell us all exactly what that accomplished, or was intended to? You wonder what leads to the decline of forums...

I already know what leads to the decline of these forums: descent into pointless political bickering, which has commenced in earnest here. I am pissed about it and you should be too.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I already know what leads to the decline of these forums: descent into pointless political bickering, which has commenced in earnest here. I am pissed about it and you should be too.

No I shouldn't, I thought it could have been a worthwhile conversation. With all due respect, you've led the effort to turn it into a trainwreck, and that's what should be discouraged. You're welcome to the last word...

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

Well that makes you an anarchist because you refuse to accept the principle that the government is concerned about the "common good" and does not care about your individual circumstance.

I use the term anarchist pointedly because you do not want to pay any taxes and not get a direct benefit in return. I am thinking you are quite young. Most of us have experienced a different path where we contribute to others' benefits. Think of it like insurance. You pay for it every year and, fortunately, you have never had to make a claim. But one day you might have to and then you are really glad you had it.