Yes – those are examples. But compare the dollars spent on them, to the billions spent on other things, from welfare to agricultural price supports.Vern,
There are job training programs sponsored by the government. Wouldn’t these be social justice? What about classes to help adulst get their GED? Or tax credits for businesses hiring those who were on welfare or ex-cons?
There are – but one problem is that we have so much emphasis on welfare, so much propaganda that tells the poor that they can’t make it, that they are victims, that what little we put into true Social Justice has minimal effect.In the secular world, there are 501c3s that help women find appropriate (donated) interview and work training.
Yes - the vast majority of gov’t programs are “charity”-like, but there are a few rays of hope.
Go into the inner cities, or the poor rural areas and look around. You will find families who have been on welfare for generations. Families that now have no tradition of valuing education, hard work, thrift, and so on.
Along with that, you will find our worst schools, politicians and “leaders” who tell the poor they can’t make it (so why try?)
You will find in cities huge “projects” where the poor are concentrated – swamping the economic foundation, so there are very few jobs immediately available.
You will find large numbers of single parent families – created by the welfare system under the infamous “man in the house” rule. You will find a society where welfare is an economic strategy, and where out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a rite of passage.
Oh, ok. Liberalism. Sure, I agree. I am always curious that there is not one leader among them that “get’s it” and who will lead them out of poverty, welfare, and oppression. Not one. Instead, we get Affirmative Action, which directs that someone else will have to suffer in order for another to gain.We created this situation.
When I was in Michigan there was a debate on Affirmative Action – with a professor of the University of Michigan Law School on the panel. He defended the Law School’s policy and said, “Those students admitted under Affirmative Action do about as well as all other students.”vern humphrey;3636146]
Oh, ok. Liberalism. Sure, I agree. I am always curious that there is not one leader among them that “get’s it” and who will lead them out of poverty, welfare, and oppression. Not one. Instead, we get Affirmative Action, which directs that someone else will have to suffer in order for another to gain.
When I was in Michigan there was a debate on Affirmative Action – with a professor of the University of Michigan Law School on the panel. He defended the Law School’s policy and said, “Those students admitted under Affirmative Action do about as well as all other students.”
Whoa up there, Prof!! Let’s translate that into English:
- Your standards for law school admission don’t work! Candidates who can’t meet the standards do as well as those who can meet them.
- The standards obviously discriminate against minorities – why else would you need “Affirmative Action?”
Of course not! They are themselves racists! Look at Rev Wright! LOLHave you considered getting rid of your invalid, racist standards and replacing them with something fair and valid, and then admiting everyone who meets those standards, regardless of race?
I’ve said it before: Affirmative Action is aimed at bringing into the economic mainstream those who have previously been unfairly excluded. It consists of two steps:vern humphrey;3639742]
Of course not! They are themselves racists! Look at Rev Wright! LOL
There were also children working in factories, old people with no families to support them, a much lower life expectancy, people dying from treatable diseases (for the time), high infant mortality, continueing education for only a few.Swan;3634572]
I believe that state and local governments should help out those in desperate need, not the Feds. Don’t you think that there were needy people when our nation was founded? Of course there were, but private entities aided those people.
The problem is charity doesn’t guarantee any level of assistance. Right or wrong government can make sure everyone in the same situation receives the same. The needy will be receive the same amount of assistance, which won’t be dependant on how generous people in one part of the country are. Also the level of assistance is consistent and ongoing, which means someone injured at work will be able to pay their rent from week to week, and won’t have live in fear of the charity cheques drying up.Swan;3634572]
Families, strangers, friends, etc. Our government is supposed to be a limited one, where they stay OUT of our lives. The larger the government has become, the less private folks have stepped up to the plate.
If you’re quite happy for government to dictate morality (as evident in this post) why should government be prevented from moderate wealth redistribution, if it is in the long term interest of society? Why are individuals incomes sacred and untouchable (what you mean by freedom) but their private lives aren’t?Swan;3634572]
Yes, I am angry. I am angry when govenment tell people what to do, how to act, etc, all in the name of “caring”. I am angry that our society has become a greedy, selfish, rude, perverted, cesspool. And like it or not, but Liberalism, Feminism, and big government ARE responsible for it. I am mad as hell and I am gunna show likeminded people that it is GOOD to stand up and show a backbone. To not be afraid of THEIR beliefs! To show support of self reliance and responsibillity, not dependancy.
complete economic liberalism isn’t an extreme?Swan;3634572]
But as long as there is one extreme pushing it’s ideology,
How do you know things are worse?Loves Mary Wrote:
This data is four years old. Things have only gotten worse. .
So I did. From the study, it says 10.6 million people in this country are “Food Insecure With Hunger” Wow, 10M go hungry, right? Not really, you need to read the study definition and guidelines…I encourage you to poke around and find more information on your own so you won’t think I’m trying to lie to you:
2004 Information on Hunger in America .
lol that aint no lie!The flaw? Step 1 is the responsibility of Government, which runs the Public School system.
And Castro is great because he has taken care of all those issues. You have to give up your freedom, but…There were also children working in factories, old people with no families to support them, a much lower life expectancy, people dying from treatable diseases (for the time), high infant mortality, continueing education for only a few.
And we spend 1.5 trillion a year on that right now. Pretty soon, we will become slaves to the government to support all. Wait until the boomers retire, oye!The problem is charity doesn’t guarantee any level of assistance. Right or wrong government can make sure everyone in the same situation receives the same. The needy will be receive the same amount of assistance, which won’t be dependant on how generous people in one part of the country are. Also the level of assistance is consistent and ongoing, which means someone injured at work will be able to pay their rent from week to week, and won’t have live in fear of the charity cheques drying up.
I’m afraid you need to re read my comment. My intent was the exact opposite of how you read it.If you’re quite happy for government to dictate morality (as evident in this post) why should government be prevented from moderate wealth redistribution, if it is in the long term interest of society? Why are individuals incomes sacred and untouchable (what you mean by freedom) but their private lives aren’t?
I mean as long as there is one extreme, it must be countered with another equal, and opposite extreme. And I was primarily, but not limited to, social issues, not nesseccarily economic ones. For every social AND economic Liberal out there on a soap box, there must be a social AND economic Conservative on his. (but this nation was founded on economic freedom, not big government)complete economic liberalism isn’t an extreme?
I’ll ask a question… if the government did not take away that money from you… will you donate ALL of that money to charity?Also, the government takes about $25,000 a year from me. Over 30 years, that is $750,000, no interest. My grandfather has been retired for 20 years. He gets SS, which is $288,000 for the last 20 years. My father is still working. He has 1 million dollars of his own money that he saved and invested. And their incomes were comparable. Personal responsibillity.
No - but I would have used it better! The whole ‘rising tide’ argument. So if you’re being pragmatic, let’s look at the value gained from gov’t programs. If they were a charity, I wouldn’t donate to them!I’ll ask a question… if the government did not take away that money from you… will you donate ALL of that money to charity?
I am willing to bet that you might give a few thousand more, but you have to understand one reason why liberals do not want to rely on charity because they know it is not a reliable means to raise money for public welfare.
I do not want anything about whether charity is morally better, but I am interested in its pragmatic value.
Thought so… I knew most people do not act charitably, but instead seek to satisfy their selfish desires first.No - but I would have used it better! The whole ‘rising tide’ argument. So if you’re being pragmatic, let’s look at the value gained from gov’t programs. If they were a charity, I wouldn’t donate to them!
I’d almost rather take 3/4 of the $$ and have it given in cash to the people in need, and free of the govt workers for more productive labor.
No, but not all of our taxes go to charity to begin with. I would gladly pay some taxes as long as it did not spiral out of control as it is doing today.I’ll ask a question… if the government did not take away that money from you… will you donate ALL of that money to charity?
Forced charity is not the answer either. And it is NOT the responsibillity of Liberals to forcefully take the money that* I* earn and redistribute it as they see fit. And the politicians are using it as a voting tool as well. “Look what we will do for you, if only you vote for us” What happened to “Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Today, people are looking for government to give to them, what is not theirs to begin with.I am willing to bet that you might give a few thousand more, but you have to understand one reason why liberals do not want to rely on charity because they know it is not a reliable means to raise money for public welfare.
What do you mena? He said:Thought so… I knew most people do not act charitably, but instead seek to satisfy their selfish desires first.
Why don’t you get a job and start donating $25,000 a year to charity?I’ll ask a question… if the government did not take away that money from you… will you donate ALL of that money to charity?
I am willing to bet that you might give a few thousand more, but you have to understand one reason why liberals do not want to rely on charity because they know it is not a reliable means to raise money for public welfare.
I do not want anything about whether charity is morally better, but I am interested in its pragmatic value.
Indeed, I was being generous. I doubt overhead/admin is only 25%.ribozyme;3644832]
What do you mena? He said:
“I’d almost rather take 3/4 of the $$ and have it given in cash to the people in need, and free of the govt workers for more productive labor.”
He is actually giving 3/4 of his cash to those in real need, and saving 25% at the same time. Sounds pretty streamlined to me.
Yes, if we leave stockholders (and the desire to please them) out of the picture. In the US, our prevailing accountability is to the bottom line. We have lost the kind of accountability that was based on fair play, personal responsibility, and concern for our fellow man.ribozyme;3644724]
Private industry can do what the government does, in most cases, and they can do it better because there is accountabillity.
How is that different from what he said?Yes, if we leave stockholders (and the desire to please them) out of the picture. In the US, our prevailing accountability is to the bottom line. We have lost the kind of accountability that was based on fair play, personal responsibility, and concern for our fellow man.