vincegamer
Active member
But the Red Cross is not individual direct charity.
Individual direct charity is you walking down town, finding a homeless person, giving that person a meal, place to stay, job training....
Hey Americans! and for the rest too I guess
- Thread starter dougaderly
- Start date
Individual direct charity is you walking down town, finding a homeless person, giving that person a meal, place to stay, job training....
WeR138
New member
I\'m saying(and I don\'t have the clinical data to back this up yet) that it is 100% more efficient for me to buy a bag of groceries and take them to my neighbor down the street who I know needs them, than it is for Uncle Sam to withdraw money from my check, hire someone to handle said money, hire someone to sit in an office waiting for my neighbor to come in and ask for the groceries, and then send my neighbor her grocery money.
Now the argument can be made that if the government didn\'t force people to take care of the needy it wouldn\'t get done, but you can\'t argue that my way is not more efficient.
Now the argument can be made that if the government didn\'t force people to take care of the needy it wouldn\'t get done, but you can\'t argue that my way is not more efficient.
funnymouth
Active member
that was not a personal attack
it wasnt a personal attack, all i have to go on is what you tell me. you TOLD me that taking tax money for health services was like being robbed. hence my impression.
it wasnt a personal attack, all i have to go on is what you tell me. you TOLD me that taking tax money for health services was like being robbed. hence my impression.
It is certainly more efficient for feeding your neighbor. It is not more effeicient for handling endemic poverty or instances in which entire regions or ethnic groups are left in poverty. Nor will it suffice for major disasters, thouh private contributions can certainly help in such instances. There are real advantages to leaving a lot of charity to local control, and even to private. But there are also areas where that just doesn\'t work at all. I think it\'s a practical question, and I don\'t object at all to concerns about government corruption, pressure for reform, or preference for private aid when possible. What I object to is the assertion that as a matter of principle private aid is categorically more effective/fair than government aid.
funnymouth
Active member
is it more efficient, really, or does it just seem that way? the money makes jobs, and distributes resources to people who need them. people who you might not otherwise be able to help, but are just as deserving.
sure, you\'re willing to help the guy down the street, but what about down the block? across the state? in louisiana? what happens to them if you lose your job? what if someone more needy comes along? do you play favorites? do you want to take the time to do that every day? to drive your injured co-worker around until he feels better after an on-the-job injury? for how many years? what if they didnt share your beliefs? what if it was me?
claiming that you know better than a social worker is bold. they get a lot of shit, but the work they do is tough, and their not exactly living fat - visiting loonies and drug babies in trailor parks isnt glamorous, and doesnt pay as well as most people seem to think.
edit: wow what was i on???:drunk: love the edit button
No Such Agency
New member
Warning, long and off-topic.
====================
(Note that for the purposes of this post I will use the term \"poor\" to roughly mean \"lower-middle-class, working-class and poor\" - those who would generally struggle or be unable to afford decent health insurance under a private scheme)
As an ideological rant the \"Capitalism Magazine\" article is highly successful - it doesn\'t try to hide its basic philosophy that those who have abundant resources owe nothing to anyone who does not, and have somehow gained all their wealth solely through their own labour and none of anyone else\'s.
And nobody \"goes to the back of the line\" because they are rich. That\'s just idiotic. However, they will not get their minor ailment treated before some other patient\'s major problem is dealt with, just because they have more money. There\'s a huge difference between the two scenarios.
The rich benefit in numerous ways from the current economic-political system, even in Canada. From a perpetually big-business-friendly government, increased access to top politicians who tend to also be affluent businesspeople, to the simple fact that a good broker and a good accountant can work miracles with your money. In return, the taxes they pay demand far fewer sacrifices of them than those paid by working-class people who end up having to make tough decisions and juggle bills. The rich have zero leg to stand on when whining about the government \"stealing\" their money.
In short your link is a repellent screed written from a position of wealth and privilege, wishing to deny ordinary citizens of my country one of the great social triumphs that we have demanded and then paid for, which benefits us all in many ways. If it \"articulates the way you feel\" then I am sorry to hear that.
====================
I tried not to get too involved in this discussion, as I have read waaay too much political stuff on the internets lately... but since you ask me by name I will reply, albeit late.
(Note that for the purposes of this post I will use the term \"poor\" to roughly mean \"lower-middle-class, working-class and poor\" - those who would generally struggle or be unable to afford decent health insurance under a private scheme)
As an ideological rant the \"Capitalism Magazine\" article is highly successful - it doesn\'t try to hide its basic philosophy that those who have abundant resources owe nothing to anyone who does not, and have somehow gained all their wealth solely through their own labour and none of anyone else\'s.
The idea that the \"poor\" are not \"creative, productive and responsible\" is purely a conceit of the writer. I know many non-wealthy people, most of them are all of these things in varying degrees. This is an anecdotal statement of course, but I think virtually anyone could corroborate it with their own observations.
For example, the writer appears to believe that the wealthy automatically have \"deserved\" their affluence, despite the fact that the poor and working-class generally work a hell of a lot harder than the rich, and the main difference between the two is usually how they started off their lives - rich, or poor.
Here the writer seriously misstates how the wealthy are perceived and treated. In general, ordinary Canadians do not resent the wealthy very much, because they pay their share of taxes and mostly do not drive around spitting on us. And because most of us are not raving Marxists itching for a class war.
And nobody \"goes to the back of the line\" because they are rich. That\'s just idiotic. However, they will not get their minor ailment treated before some other patient\'s major problem is dealt with, just because they have more money. There\'s a huge difference between the two scenarios.
The writer condemns egalitarianism as \"irrational and impractical\", solely based on the premise that the rich are taxed more than the poor and then both groups benefit equally from the services provided. Note that it fails to clarify that if socialized medicine was abandoned, SOME Canadians - those who could readily afford to pay large health care/insurance bills - would experience an improved standard of care. The rest of us would be left paying our taxes AND hundreds of dollars a month for lousy health insurance.
The rich benefit in numerous ways from the current economic-political system, even in Canada. From a perpetually big-business-friendly government, increased access to top politicians who tend to also be affluent businesspeople, to the simple fact that a good broker and a good accountant can work miracles with your money. In return, the taxes they pay demand far fewer sacrifices of them than those paid by working-class people who end up having to make tough decisions and juggle bills. The rich have zero leg to stand on when whining about the government \"stealing\" their money.
In short your link is a repellent screed written from a position of wealth and privilege, wishing to deny ordinary citizens of my country one of the great social triumphs that we have demanded and then paid for, which benefits us all in many ways. If it \"articulates the way you feel\" then I am sorry to hear that.
What do you do when the poor decide to stay poor when they do not take advantage of the programs offered to them?
I know for a fact that it is much easier for a poor kid on his own to get into college, than it is for a middle class kid on his own.
The colleges go by your parent\'s income, until the age of 24 or 26, when determining student aid, regardless if your parents are helping you or not.
It is easier now, more than ever, to get a degree.
What about those that refuse to work?
New Orleans is being rebuilt by illegal Immigrants, we tried to get the evacuee\'s to do it offering them jobs($20+ an hour for unskilled labor), and housing, very few takers.
We\'ve offered free training in valuable rebuilding skills, such as carpentry, welding, HVAC electrical, and the programs are falling through because people aren\'t attending, even with free bussing.
What do you do for people who choose to do nothing but live off of our taxes?
I know for a fact that it is much easier for a poor kid on his own to get into college, than it is for a middle class kid on his own.
The colleges go by your parent\'s income, until the age of 24 or 26, when determining student aid, regardless if your parents are helping you or not.
It is easier now, more than ever, to get a degree.
What about those that refuse to work?
New Orleans is being rebuilt by illegal Immigrants, we tried to get the evacuee\'s to do it offering them jobs($20+ an hour for unskilled labor), and housing, very few takers.
We\'ve offered free training in valuable rebuilding skills, such as carpentry, welding, HVAC electrical, and the programs are falling through because people aren\'t attending, even with free bussing.
What do you do for people who choose to do nothing but live off of our taxes?
What do you want done about these things? Specifically, is this an argument for shutting down all aid, or is this an argument for some kind of reform?
We have several arguments on the table to the effect that government aid to the poor is by definition wrong (and/or inefficient). It is those that I object to. If these questions aren\'t advancing that point of view, then so be it. I don\'t disagree with you on the notion that abuse occurs or even that it is widespread.
WeR138
New member
Are you telling me that it is essential that we have poor people so that we can supply jobs to the government beauracracy(social workers)?
I don\'t pour sugar into my gas tank so that the local mechanics can have business, nor do I stick my finger into the garbage disposal so that the nurse at the hospital can draw a check. I know, I know.... these are outrageous examples, but so is the idea that without the poor social workers would be ruined(so would they provide their services to themselves)?
I don\'t pour sugar into my gas tank so that the local mechanics can have business, nor do I stick my finger into the garbage disposal so that the nurse at the hospital can draw a check. I know, I know.... these are outrageous examples, but so is the idea that without the poor social workers would be ruined(so would they provide their services to themselves)?
Oh, I\'m all for reform.
One of the ideas someoneone was tossing around down here was 40 hour community service type deal.
You have to work a 40 hour week, before picking up your check.
Now these jobs were like cleaning up the neighborhoods, cleaning government buildings so on and so forth. Easy jobs, that could even be custumized to the handicapped but aimed more at the able bodied who would not work.
The reasoning is if they actually have to work to get their meal, then they are far more likely to get a real job and make more money.
It never really went anywhere though.
One of the ideas someoneone was tossing around down here was 40 hour community service type deal.
You have to work a 40 hour week, before picking up your check.
Now these jobs were like cleaning up the neighborhoods, cleaning government buildings so on and so forth. Easy jobs, that could even be custumized to the handicapped but aimed more at the able bodied who would not work.
The reasoning is if they actually have to work to get their meal, then they are far more likely to get a real job and make more money.
It never really went anywhere though.
Interesting possibility. Of course you\'ll get people who say that can\'t even do that. And some will be telling the truth and some won\'t. And if you allow exceptions, then everyone manages to be one...
I just spent 10 years working on an Indian reservation, so please understand the sort of abuse you are talking about I am quite familiar with. I have had some students flunk virtually all their classes every semester for 5 years and still show up with a rather generous scholarship each new semester. Of course I\'ve also had people who really used the chance to get somewhere, and every time I was about to give up someone like that showed up in my classroom. If some were using aid to perpetuate bad habits, there were others who actually tried. And in that environment most would not have had a chance without some aid. How to help those who will put it to good use without simply giving someone a free ride? That\'s a question I\'ve struggled with every day for a rather long time now.
Anyway, I don\'t disagree that aid can be abused. I disagree that government aid is always bad or that it is by definition less efficient than private aid. These sorts of issues work themselves out in the details, not the sweeping battle cries of message board politics.
Actually, I am the one who asserted that all taxes are collected at gunpoint (not my words originally... I don\'t remember where I first heard that phrase.) Stop paying them for a demonstration. 
Acknowledging this does not condone anarchy, but rather it gives healthy perspective on what programs that you support mean to those who don\'t support them.
Irregardless of what I support (and I think it\'s easy to stereotype people by certain stances... you might be surprised at what I actually support) I feel very strongly about keeping that perspective. Whatever you believe the state should do (or prevent one from doing) remember that it will carry your will at gunpoint to those who think otherwise.
Acknowledging this does not condone anarchy, but rather it gives healthy perspective on what programs that you support mean to those who don\'t support them.Irregardless of what I support (and I think it\'s easy to stereotype people by certain stances... you might be surprised at what I actually support) I feel very strongly about keeping that perspective. Whatever you believe the state should do (or prevent one from doing) remember that it will carry your will at gunpoint to those who think otherwise.
AinuLainour
New member
There was a great political comment with Kerry saying how if you\'re not smart you\'ll end up in Iraq, and in the next panel it shows him smack dab in the middle of Baghdad lol
funnymouth
Active member
im fairly positive that income is not a factor in for admittance to the schools i have attended (or so they say). being poor makes it cheeper to attend, not a lower gpa sytandard, or easier test to get in. maybe its easier because they work harder......
huh? no, i realize my post was sloppy (ive edited it), but my arguement was simply that redistribution of wealth is a far more complex issue than \"charity\" to the guy down the street, or even privatized organizations (everyone has an angle). we need social workers because we have poor people, not the the other way around.
Allow me to rephrase: It is much easier for a poor kid to get financial aid to get into college.Originally posted by funnymouth
im fairly positive that income is not a factor in for admittance to the schools i have attended (or so they say). being poor makes it cheeper to attend, not a lower gpa sytandard, or easier test to get in. maybe its easier because they work harder......
No Such Agency
New member
Um... ya. Because they have less money. I don\'t quite understand this conversation ???
That is a logical fallacy, NSA.
While poor families may have less money than middle class families, more than a few middle class students have no more money than poor students.
Their parents have more money.
Both my wife and I, had to put our parent\'s incomes until the age of 24, when applying for financial aid for college.
It didn\'t matter that I hadn\'t spoken to my family for three years, and that I was working full time at Wal-mart to support myself, because my father made more than $60K a year at that time, I was unable to get any aid, resorting to student loans instead.
While poor families may have less money than middle class families, more than a few middle class students have no more money than poor students.
Their parents have more money.
Both my wife and I, had to put our parent\'s incomes until the age of 24, when applying for financial aid for college.
It didn\'t matter that I hadn\'t spoken to my family for three years, and that I was working full time at Wal-mart to support myself, because my father made more than $60K a year at that time, I was unable to get any aid, resorting to student loans instead.
No Such Agency
New member
Dave, I\'m pretty sure there are (here, at least) mechanisms for that scenario, I mean if someone was abused by their parents, or their parents are Moonies or whatever, the government doesn\'t make them go home and beg for college money. But there\'d be extra paperwork, of course.
