Well, that’s rather stating the obvious. Food, shelter, and clothing are the bare neccessities. The question is, why should the rest of us have to pay for it, through confiscatory taxes and bloated social programs?
I’d say it is as uneducated as ever.
It is a big mistake to delude oneself into believing one’s opponents are just stupid.
It is an even bigger mistake to tell oneself that one’s opponents are simply evil.
It is too easy to dismiss an opposing argument if you simply tell yourself the opposition is simply stupid, or that they are motivated by ill-will. It is more difficult – but far more valuable – to realise that where we are dealing with a large philosophical divide, where proponents are numerous on each side, that your opponent is just as likely as you to have properly thought the problem through; and they are just as likely to be driven by the same motivation as yourself: to do the most good.
I’m a moderate. In US terms, I’d perhaps be described as liberal. But I’ll never mistake of believing my conservative opponents are just stupid, or evil. That’s just too easy. We may have arrived at different viewpoints, but I’ll trust my enemies to have formed their opinions thoughtfully and with the right intentions.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
Because I believe that people who have have a duty, responsibility, and obligation to help people who have not.
Because there are places in where it is not uncommon for people to die of starvation and I don’t think my country should be one of them.
Because my country has more resources than it knows what to do with and I don’t see anything wrong with sending a few pennies to those less fortunate.
Because I do not believe that he who dies with the most toys wins.
Because I do not believe that “I got mine” is valid.
Because sometimes all people need is a little bit of help.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
So are my statements above based on emotion or fact? I don’t know. I read a lot of Dickens once upon a time, and I don’t think I (as a taxpaying, functioning member of society) would like to live in a place like his London. I don’t think I’d like to live in a place where women give birth on street corners. I’m more than happy to give my money away to organizations (be they private, non-profit, or governmental) that help to prevent such things. I think that is the big disconnect re “welfare”: Society didn’t necessarily come up with such programs to help people; society came up with those programs so those people wouldn’t offend nearly so much. Target doesn’t donate 100 million bucks to schools out of the goodness of their corporate heart; Target donates 100 million bucks to schools so that those schools produce employees and consumers.
I think that government should have primary responsibility for caring for those who have not, and I have what I think are logical reasons for that, too: I would bet that fewer than 10% of the people in this thread who have expressed anti-welfare sentiments have donated less than 10% of their collective time and money to support non-governmental organizations which support those in need. I further submit (although I have no actual proof; I’ll get back to you in a couple of years) that the actual tax dollars appropriated by my government for such relief is less than what people would give if they actually gave a shit.
I am not a pie-in-the-sky optimist. I know there are people out there who abuse social welfare. I also know there are slackers in the military who are living off of my tax dollar while they stay just to the right side of the rules to keep from getting an Article 15. My tax dollars support both.
My tax dollars also support the majority - the 75-year-old widows who can’t pay their heating bills and the petty officers (NCOs) who truly care about their jobs and work to make a difference.
But my short answer to “Why?” is still and will ever be “Because it’s the right thing to do.”
Varlosz
I didn’t take sides. You should have looked for a different meaning. As far as I’m concerned, they’re equally absurd — the liberal can’t take his mind off my wallet, and the conservative can’t take his mind off my zipper. Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
The first thing that I thought of when I read that was how well it describes the Bush Administration hawks.
It’s just not that simple.
And, as for welfare, isn’t it true that corporate welfare takes more of our taxes than social welfare?
Lib: Okay, fair enough.
Says you. But, what makes you right?
**
I’d agree, but how much and for how long? When does the obligation of the giver end and receiver begin?
**
I remember in Calgary a few years ago talking about the amount of people driving up to the food bank in SUV’s. Did they really need to use the food bank? I saw a piece on Sixty Minutes many years ago about homeless people actually getting fat on the amount of food they received from the shelters and soup kitchens in some city in the States. They even had food delivered to the hobo camp where some of them stayed. One of the shelters had an employment agency inside it. Just walk through the door from the main hall and ask for a job. The guy running the agency said he had jobs but few applicants. And yet the hall was full of people playing cards. So, where is this starvation happening of which you speak?
**
Your pennies, or someone elses? Do you assume that because you have extra pennies that I do, too? And that I should give them away just because you want me to? Maybe if I’m smart I can use my pennies to start a company and create some jobs. A far more effective way of doing things than just giving them away, IMO.
**
Do you believe in a magical sky pixie? If you do, do you think I should be forced to, also?
**
If ‘I got mine’ then anything else I’d get I could distribute freely. Or, are you saying I should never be allowed to ‘get mine’?
**
That is true. But, how much help should be given before someone decides to start helping themselves? Why should you determine for me how much I should give and for how long, or really have any say in it at all?
**
This statement really bothers me. It is something I picture wild-eyed fanatics saying after they’ve tied you to the stake and are lighting the wood around your feet.
What is right for you may not be for me. And while the democratic will requires me to comply with what the government of the day says, we both know that once a program gets into place it is nearly impossible to get rid of it again. And thus more money is wasted that could be used more effectively somewhere else, not the least of which is my pocket.
I guess the biggest issue I have is not having to pay, but being called, ‘mean, callous, evil’, for expecting MY money to be used responsibly and for thinking I’d do a better job of it than you would if it remained with me.
I guess the logic is that corporations employ people and money given to them will keep those people employed. While they are employed they at least produce something.
Social welfare recipients produce…what?
Whatever. If a company can’t make it on its own then let it sink. If you have the proper corporate environment in place ie, low taxes (not having corporate welfare in the first place helps that) and reasonable regulations, then another company will spring up to take its place if not buy it out.
This sentence pretty much pegs you as being as dumb as that program.
Absent of liberal/conservative distinctions, what you are accusing AD of is very obviously false. AD did not say he didn’t want to pay any taxes at all toward social programs; his point, quite clearly, was that in his opinion the level of taxation and program spending was excessive. Complaining about the AMOUNT of contribution you are expected to make is not the same as complaining about making any contribution at all. Why would you so blatantly misrepresent his position?
“I think the taxes I pay are excessive” is not the same as saying “I do not want to pay taxes at all.”
Ahhh! I am wounded. I’m as dumb as an award winning TV news show! Boo Hoo! Oh woe is me! Yes, I know I should have been watching Jerry Springer, Geraldo, and Oprah for accurate information, but I was young and ignorant at the time. Will I ever be able to live down the shame?!
On second thought, maybe I shouldn’t take to seriously a comment coming from a guy whose moniker sounds like he has a chicken bone stuck in his throat.
And yet, in and earlier post I asked some sincere questions so that my ignorance on Conservative thinking could be dispelled and they are being cheerfully ignored.
Yup. It’s won some awards. Doesn’t mean that its level of journalism doesn’t rise above “shit” most of the time. I think my summation of the show was particularly relevent, though, considering you were referencing one of the de rigeur bash-the-poor pieces that current affairs programs like to trot out every so often.
Oh and…
Zing! How can I hope to compete with such wit? When confronted with the stunning wordplay befitting a seasoned 60 Minutes viewer, I must concede defeat.
Binarydrone,
I would be happy to address some of your previous questions.
This conservative doesn’t want to eliminate social programs. What this conservative wants is limited social programs with built in audits and welfare recipient accountability. Currently many social programs are entitlements. In essence, provided you meet the programs requirements, you are “entitled” to the programs benefits. This places no absolute cap on the amount of money that could potentially be spent on the program without taking into account the level of benefit being delivered. Like all investments social programs can reach a point of diminishing returns. Spending more and more money does less and less for the recipient, the community, the economy or the nation.
I don’t think it would be better. I think we’d likely have much more social disruption (riots and such). In line with what I said before though I wouldn’t support a proposal to eliminate social programs in the first place. Place limits and measures on them yes. Eliminate, no.
I believe that when we allow the government greater power, money, and responsibility when addressing social ills there is a decline in the amount of private charity and volunteering. Take a look at France which has a much greater taxation rate but also whose citizens donate a much lower percentage of their money to charitable causes. Once the citizenry have been “conditioned” to not donate due less personal funds over a period of time IMO it would be difficult for the populace to suddenly become more giving. I believe the social economic forces on a person work more quickly to discourage charitable giving then they do to stimulate it once gone. In other words, a sudden decline in the taxation rate won’t necessarily cause a corresponding increase in private charitable efforts.
There is, however, something to be said for private involvement in social ills. IMO when people become personally involved (in greater amounts and with greater frequency) in the solution to social ills greater overall benefits are achieved (Compared with people who become less involved yet who have a greater taxation rate to support government programs).
Based on these opinions, if it was determined that a given program had outlived it’s usefulness or if it had progressed beyond a reasonable point (where the returns received by the program were minimal compared to the effort and money used to run the program) I wouldn’t necessarily recommend an immediate reduction in government taxes. The best solution, IMO, would be to gradually reduce the funds allocated to the program (while making good use of them elsewhere) while simultaneously studying why the program didn’t work, whether it’s original goals were feasible, and whether work should continue in this area (reformed of course).
Wow, Uzi, you did a great job arguing from your heart. How about now you spend the same amount of time and energy using your head to attack the next four paragraphs of my post? You know, use your mad reasoning skillz and point out where I’m illogical. While you’re at it, how about you use sound logic in pointing out the error of my ways by showing me that more of my tax dollar goes to, say, AFDC than the Army. Gather up some sites/cites that show how much of my money goes to corporate tax relief and how much goes to human relief. And I’d really appreciate it if you could provide some sound, logical reasons that it is against my nation’s interest to not provide a modicum of assistance to those who need it.
You seem to be a level-headed conservative (as opposed to a flaky liberal like me). Use your superior brain and logic to convince me of the error of my ways. Because, right now, if all you can come up with are heart-felt sentiments, you’re no better than a bleeding heart liberal.
Think about it for a moment. The army employs quite a few people. Many of those people join the army because they don’t have the education to do anything else. Some, like myself, joined because they lived in depressed regions of the country (Canada in my case). When you get in the army you learn things, many of which can help you when you go back to civilian life. Doesn’t that sound like a kind of social program in a way? Now the army is something pretty redundant during peaceful times, but come some emergency, it is something you don’t want to have to spend years unmothballing. So, you could cut the funds going to the army and loose the benefits of having a force capable of handling its country’s needs, like Canada for example. Yeah, it was great fun running through the woods yelling, “Bullets, bullets!”, because we didn’t have any blanks for training.
If these people weren’t, or couldn’t get, in the military, what would they be doing? At least if they are in there they are doing something that is beneficial to the country. A person sitting at home receiving welfare, does what for anyone?
**
Money shouldn’t go to corporate welfare. Tax relief, if universal, is creating an enviroment that promotes job creation. Thus less people requiring social programs. Thus less taxes are required from business and people, thus more money to be used to create jobs.
**
Take a look at Canada. What we don’t spend on the military goes into social programs. And we have higher tax rates on average. You can’t swing a dead cat in most Canadian cities without hitting a couple of panhandlers. Unemployment is usually about 50% higher in Canada than the US, social programs don’t seem to be able to change that number.
So, I’d ask you what do you hope to gain by increasing spending on social programs that normally could have stayed with indivuduals and corporations who would then use it to create jobs that would aleviate the amount you’d have to spend on same social programs? Or, go the other way like Canada and have higher unemployment, but better social programs.
No cites, my opinion, this is the pit after all.
I’m sure they must have digitally added the door between the main hall of the shelter and the employment agency. Yep, and added all those people in there playing cards and drinking coffee, while removing the lineup going into the employment agency, too. Just to bash the poor. Did they skew things in their reporting? Maybe. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, though.
I was active military. I was stationed in south Florida with Canadian military (um…you’re not Quebecois or PEI with a flair for languages and about 35ish, are you? Because that coincidence would be too weird for words).
Can you cut me some slack and let me get back to you dermain? Because this is the first night in about four weeks that I haven’t had to be responsible and the gin I’ve consumed is making me not. Like, a lot.
AFDC? Endless entitlements? Just FYI, these things have gone the way of the dodo in the U.S.
Info on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has been replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). “Welfare as we know it” is no more. The program is new, and the details vary from state to state, so a thorough and non-partisan evaluation of its results is hard to come by.