Yes, it was all a conspiracy! Nothing to do with a lack of oversight and co-ordination, with gaps, with the problems clearly not being solved.

I was not intending to make a point about religion, clearly you are.

No comment about who gives? Perhaps that might be some of the problem? It comes down to whether the Government should help or people should help. Here we have a definite disagreement at the base level. Your initial point about "If you are the right religion" brought religion into it. Now you back off of that... Fine.

Oversight: Problem with both government and charitable organizations
Coordination: Problem with both government and charitable organizations
Gaps: Problem with both government and charitable organizations
Poverty cure: Problem with both government and charitable organizations

I do not think that every charitable organization is perfect anymore than I think that every government agency is perfect. I do think it is not the government's responsibility to care for people's financial needs. I think we need to care for one another. That is what charity is.

No comment on who gives and who volunteers?

bbauska why is it that govenrment got into the social care business? Look at the historical record and you'll find that there has always been religious charity. Sometimes genuinely free of prostelytizing. Sometimes tied closely.
But my point is that if the religious charity had efficiently managed to provide for the poorest amongst us, govenrment wouldn't have gotten into the business ....
There was an unmet need.
I also think human dignity is given a boost when people have a right to basic medical care and a right to help to achieve a basic subsistence without having to have it called charity. There's more value given to the person who has a right to help because of his citizenship and isn't labelled a charity case dependent on the kindness of strangers to define what they will eat or where they will sleep every day.

No comment about who gives?

I'd guess Mormons give the most...Trying to earn that private planet.

rickyp wrote:bbauska why is it that govenrment got into the social care business?

A determination by progressives and socialists to push government to the center of our lives.

Look at the historical record and you'll find that there has always been religious charity. Sometimes genuinely free of prostelytizing. Sometimes tied closely.

So what?

But my point is that if the religious charity had efficiently managed to provide for the poorest amongst us, govenrment wouldn't have gotten into the business ....

Absolutely unprovable.

Furthermore, if the goal was not to increase reliance on government but to help individuals become more self-reliant, Social Security would not resemble what it is. We would all pay into a 401K-like structure, determine how the money would be invested, retire when we wanted, and structure the payments however we wanted. We would also have to live with the results.

There was an unmet need.

Prove it.

We have no idea what "unmet need" you are talking about, so I expect you to justify every government handout as being a previously unmet need.

I also think human dignity is given a boost when people have a right to basic medical care and a right to help to achieve a basic subsistence without having to have it called charity.

Rubbish. There is no "dignity" that can be bestowed by government. "Dignity" is earned by the individual. Look at government housing. Does it give "dignity" or does it create dependence? Successive generations being born and remaining in housing projects give us our answer. For further evidence, look at the lousy conditions in many of them. Is that dignity?

I'd guess Mormons give the most...Trying to earn that private planet.

One thing we know for certain: it's not the Bidens.

Doctor Fate wrote:A determination by progressives and socialists to push government to the center of our lives.

Exactly. Nothing whatever to do with the massive social problems that existed beforehand.

Look at the historical record and you'll find that there has always been religious charity. Sometimes genuinely free of prostelytizing. Sometimes tied closely.

So what?

Emotional blackmail is not cool. That's what.

But my point is that if the religious charity had efficiently managed to provide for the poorest amongst us, govenrment wouldn't have gotten into the business ....

Absolutely unprovable.

Surely there would have been no niche for government to use? There would not have been large problems that people would see and go "Hmm. perhaps we need to fix this?"

Furthermore, if the goal was not to increase reliance on government but to help individuals become more self-reliant, Social Security would not resemble what it is. We would all pay into a 401K-like structure, determine how the money would be invested, retire when we wanted, and structure the payments however we wanted. We would also have to live with the results.

The goal was to create a safety net, not to instil 'self-reliance'. However the presence of a safety net allows one to take risks. To use the actual analogy, trapeze artists don't try out a new trick without one.

There was an unmet need.

Prove it.

We have no idea what "unmet need" you are talking about, so I expect you to justify every government handout as being a previously unmet need.

So, how did these socialists persuade majorities to vote for them and impose these systems, and how did they prevent majorities from removing them, if there weren't at least a perceived need?

Rubbish. There is no "dignity" that can be bestowed by government. "Dignity" is earned by the individual. Look at government housing. Does it give "dignity" or does it create dependence? Successive generations being born and remaining in housing projects give us our answer. For further evidence, look at the lousy conditions in many of them. Is that dignity?

Where did they live before then? US projects are bad (generally due to scrimping and lack of infrastructure), but where did people of limited reside prior to that? could it have been tenement blocks in slums? shacks? Or do you think they lived in nice detached suburban homes with white picket fences before the eevul gubmint came along and done stole their dignity?

bbauska wrote:No comment about who gives? Perhaps that might be some of the problem? It comes down to whether the Government should help or people should help. Here we have a definite disagreement at the base level. Your initial point about "If you are the right religion" brought religion into it. Now you back off of that... Fine.

Actually, it comes down to what the problems are and what the best solutions to them are. Then you figure out the best mode of delivery. You can boil it down to the ideological principle of whether 'government' should do it or not, I prefer to consider what 'it' is first and work up. We tried charity for many decades, and it didn't help.

And I'm sorry, but I've seen enough examples of help from religious charities with strings attached to realise that it's not something you can ignore just because people intend to help.

i saw this story recently:

http://open.salon.com/blog/tellingtosca ... nancy_cult

The woman was being dishonest (claiming to consider abortion so that the anti-abortion agency would give her free stuff), but when a different issue came out - that her partner was abusive to her, they didn't help at all - instead they told her to stay because that's what a woman's role is, apparently. Using biblical quotes too.

Ok, it's one anecdote. But it's an example of religiously inspired charity doing more to harm than to help.

Oversight: Problem with both government and charitable organizations

Except that the ulitmate oversight in a democracy is the People. In a patchwork of charities, its... what?

Coordination: Problem with both government and charitable organizations

But easier to solve with government if you stop thinking that it will always be the problem. Volunteers are harder to organise because they can just voluntarily abstain.

Gaps: Problem with both government and charitable organizations

True, but constitution and law means that those gaps can be legally challenged at the top level and made publicly accountable. When it's patchwork of charities, it's a lot harder.

Poverty cure: Problem with both government and charitable organizations

True enough. Safety nets are not a cure for poverty, that takes other things.

I do not think that every charitable organization is perfect anymore than I think that every government agency is perfect. I do think it is not the government's responsibility to care for people's financial needs. I think we need to care for one another. That is what charity is.

What about people's health needs? Or their safety needs? Or their hunger needs?

No comment on who gives and who volunteers?

Here's my comment. Lots of people give and volunteer. You can 'guess' at who is more generous, but without facts it's just a guess. Basing your argument on a guess is not viable. I have a different guess (based on my observation of UK statistics) - the poorest in society give to charity a larger proportion of their total income than the richest, on average.

Disagreement at the basic level.

My facts provided in the link show who give. The link also credits the groups providing the study. It is not my guess. My argument is viable based upon facts.

I can provide evidence of government waste. Ray Jay has provided a link to some above. You point to one instance (an egregious instance (unsubstantiated) that sounds similar to the Acorn and Planned Parenthood sting operations) where a group supposedly acts terribly. Then you use that example to paint with a wide brush.

The poorest do give more as a percentage. I agree. They also are more religious than the rich. Are you saying they give because of the wealth level or because of their religiosity. I would say the latter. Does Government provide some services well? Yes, but they are not the end all for provision. Do you think the deficit can take all the spending the US is doing?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:A determination by progressives and socialists to push government to the center of our lives.

Exactly. Nothing whatever to do with the massive social problems that existed beforehand.

Massive social problems? You mean like racism?

I'm being just as sarcastic as you are. Government programs don't solve "social problems." The put band-aids on sucking chest wounds.

Look at the historical record and you'll find that there has always been religious charity. Sometimes genuinely free of prostelytizing. Sometimes tied closely.

So what?

Emotional blackmail is not cool. That's what.

So, government "aid," which is actually forced wealth redistribution, is "cool?"

I'd rather be emotionally blackmailed--yes, even by religious groups with whom I disagree.

Surely there would have been no niche for government to use? There would not have been large problems that people would see and go "Hmm. perhaps we need to fix this?"

How long did America exist before we got into entitlements? Once that began, it was like a tidal wave, with little consideration for actual outcomes. I mentioned the debacle of public housing. How about "The War on Poverty" in general? Declared in the 1960's and how's that going? Shouldn't we just surrender? Trillions spent and no progress. Man, it's almost like if you give people something you're teaching them to be leeches instead of productive members of society.

The goal was to create a safety net, not to instil 'self-reliance'. However the presence of a safety net allows one to take risks. To use the actual analogy, trapeze artists don't try out a new trick without one.

A safety net is for those who have fallen, not for those who have not arisen from the couch.

So, how did these socialists persuade majorities to vote for them and impose these systems, and how did they prevent majorities from removing them, if there weren't at least a perceived need?

In part, because we've been brow-beaten into believing we are "heartless" if we reduce aid to those who "need" them.

Where did they live before then? US projects are bad (generally due to scrimping and lack of infrastructure), but where did people of limited reside prior to that?

Here's a shocker: with their families.

could it have been tenement blocks in slums? shacks? Or do you think they lived in nice detached suburban homes with white picket fences before the eevul gubmint came along and done stole their dignity?

No, that was done by putting them in sub-standard slums owned by Uncle Sam.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares- ... 0465008216

A good place to start ...

bbauska wrote:The poorest do give more as a percentage. I agree. They also are more religious than the rich. Are you saying they give because of the wealth level or because of their religiosity. I would say the latter.

I'd say that all we've come to is a point where there are two correlating factors, but you are going to guess that one is more causative than the other. I'm not.

Maybe the poor are poor because they are religious? I'm sure you'd deny it, but you agree that there's a correlation. So why not a causation?

Does Government provide some services well? Yes, but they are not the end all for provision. Do you think the deficit can take all the spending the US is doing?

If I was saying "ban charities", you would have a point. I'm not. I'm saying that you can't rely on on or the other. You think we can take the state out and that charities and voluntarism will 'fill the gaps' and be no worse. I disagree. Removing government (or removing charities) would cause many problems to arise, in my opinion.

Like I say, my position is not absolutist or ideological. Perhaps we can reduce the amount of work that the State does (on behalf of the taxpayers), but to take it out completely seems more ideological than pragmatic.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:A determination by progressives and socialists to push government to the center of our lives.

Exactly. Nothing whatever to do with the massive social problems that existed beforehand.

Massive social problems? You mean like racism?

That wasn't the only problem, and you know it. Poor whites were only marginally better off than their black counterparts even in the most egregiously racist states.

So, how did these socialists persuade majorities to vote for them and impose these systems, and how did they prevent majorities from removing them, if there weren't at least a perceived need?

In part, because we've been brow-beaten into believing we are "heartless" if we reduce aid to those who "need" them.

Well, I think there was someone who said something about that around 2000 years ago. I forget the guys name. Some bearded hippie, I guess.

Where did they live before then? US projects are bad (generally due to scrimping and lack of infrastructure), but where did people of limited reside prior to that?

Here's a shocker: with their families.

In what kind of accommodation?

could it have been tenement blocks in slums? shacks? Or do you think they lived in nice detached suburban homes with white picket fences before the eevul gubmint came along and done stole their dignity?

No, that was done by putting them in sub-standard slums owned by Uncle Sam.

Avoid the question again, Steve, I know you can do it. What were they living in before being put into substandard slums? Proper slums, perhaps?

danivon wrote:Well, I think there was someone who said something about that around 2000 years ago. I forget the guys name. Some bearded hippie, I guess.

Oh yeah, you mean John 12:8 "For the poor you always have with you." Good point.

However, I think you'll strain to find Jesus endorsing redistributing the wealth.

In what kind of accommodation?

In whatever accommodation the family could afford. I'm sure it was better than Nickerson Gardens.

Avoid the question again, Steve, I know you can do it. What were they living in before being put into substandard slums? Proper slums, perhaps?

Dan, there are a variety of answers--or do you suppose all such people were living in the same area and under the same conditions? You are asking an overly broad question and I am giving it all the attention it is due.

Is there a difference between a safety net and a socialist state? I think there is and I think we are over the line. When a man can claim a disability and live like a baby (even making his own "baby furniture"), then the 'safety net' is too big. Period.

Btw, back to the budget. You have to love the President's leadership on the matter. CBO Director, Elmendorf, testifying today:

Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked Elmendorf whether the CBO had attempted to estimate the budgetary effects of the framework Obama outlined in April, which was based on a 12-year budget window instead of the usual 10 years.

“We don’t estimate speeches," Elmendorf shot back. "We need much more specificity then was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis."

Right. So, still no budget from "the Great One."

But, Biden's making progress, right? Ah, not exactly. The GOP left the talks on account of demands from Democrats for tax hikes.

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh yeah, you mean John 12:8 "For the poor you always have with you." Good point.

I don't read that as suggesting we shouldn't do what we can to alleviate their problems though. Where does he say that?

However, I think you'll strain to find Jesus endorsing redistributing the wealth.

No, I remember that the apostles did it in Acts though. To each according to need, even.

Oh, wait, what was that thing about some preaching on a hillock?

In what kind of accommodation?

In whatever accommodation the family could afford. I'm sure it was better than Nickerson Gardens.

Maybe. What were Hoovervilles like?

Dan, there are a variety of answers--or do you suppose all such people were living in the same area and under the same conditions? You are asking an overly broad question and I am giving it all the attention it is due.

I'm asking what kind of housing conditions the poorest in America lived in before the post-war projects were built. Perhaps the existence of slums in that period is news to you, or too hard to consider. Perhaps you don't know whether generations ended up staying in those slums, for them to be cleared and then replaced.

Is there a difference between a safety net and a socialist state? I think there is and I think we are over the line. When a man can claim a disability and live like a baby (even making his own "baby furniture"), then the 'safety net' is too big. Period.

Is that a real example? How do you know that (assuming it's real) they are not disabled? Mental disability is a disability, even if you can't see it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh yeah, you mean John 12:8 "For the poor you always have with you." Good point.

I don't read that as suggesting we shouldn't do what we can to alleviate their problems though. Where does he say that?

Where does he place that responsibility on government?

However, I think you'll strain to find Jesus endorsing redistributing the wealth.

No, I remember that the apostles did it in Acts though. To each according to need, even.

No, they didn't endorse this--especially not as a government-forced program. What happened is that members of the church willingly shared with one another. Here, have some context:

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.
44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common.
45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
(Act 2:36-47 ESV)

Oh, wait, what was that thing about some preaching on a hillock?

It's really great when you choose to wage battle on ground you do not understand. It's called the "Sermon on the Mount." You should read it ALL:

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Mat 7:13-14 ESV)

Really. We can argue the Bible all you want. It makes as much sense as me arguing Das Kapital with you.

Maybe. What were Hoovervilles like?

Why do we still have homelessness? What has Obama done about that? He and his family are jetting all over the world (including the ladies shamelessly going to South Africa on an "official visit" which is nothing more than a vacation). How many homeless people could he help? What if he just took care of his illegal immigrant aunt, thus freeing up government housing?

Your point is weak, in any event. Is government housing helping people or ensnaring them? If 3 or 4 or 5 successive generations of a given family dwell in government housing, is it helping them?

I'm asking what kind of housing conditions the poorest in America lived in before the post-war projects were built. Perhaps the existence of slums in that period is news to you, or too hard to consider. Perhaps you don't know whether generations ended up staying in those slums, for them to be cleared and then replaced.

I'm asking if government slums are better than private slums?

Is that a real example? How do you know that (assuming it's real) they are not disabled? Mental disability is a disability, even if you can't see it.

Oh, it's real. Is it a mental disability? That's not what he claims.

Here's the thing: once upon a time, a guy like this would have to work. Not any longer.

For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good.
14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thess 3:11-14 ESV)