Welfare

[Youch]

You speak as easily about the intentions and motives of others as you do when you promote the accolades of the Progressive Movement. Since you cannot do the former with any accuracy, should we assume you cannot affect proper judgment on the latter? Seems to me....

My terminology was well-chosen, and I have no problem with how I spelled it out. Interpretation being what it is....

I am "confronted" with charitable solicitations daily, mostly in both my daily personal and professional mail and email, but also from those who walk through our doors requesting "community partnership" etc., and meetings with individuals seeking support (from desperate vendor to alcoholic pretending to be homeless as he begs for change on your local off-ramp), and in both mainstream and the truthful media.

Good post. But the dude/chick below missed the point.

If you're "confronted with charitable solicitations" then you yourself don't think very highly of them at all, which is what kokigami was trying to say.

However, if you are "presented with charitable opportunities" then you DO think very highly of their needs, which is what you claim you were trying to present.

Interpretation being what it is.....

Our interpretations become even more skewed when you describe someone begging for change as "alcoholic pretending to be homeless." Our homeless population is huge in this country. I work with the homeless all the time, and do you know how many are faking being homeless? None. Some may have a home, are down on their luck, and come in for a meal, but they don't claim to be homeless.

You seem to think, as your posts indicate, that everyone's faking it.

Now, I agree that we as a people need to help each other out, and that SOME people do take advantage of that instead of paying it forward as they should. That means we need welfare reforms.

Your post isn't logical. Being confronted with need has no relation, at all, with what I think or feel of such solicitations.

I find your posts (the few I've read) to be rife with emotion. And that has never been interesting to me. On the contrary, I find it droll.

The topic and issue is welfare and it's efficacy. When you wish to discuss it, I'll be there.....

Edited July 30, 2014 by Youch

[Youch]

I cannot look into the hearts of other men. I must do what I believe to be right and not focus on what others are doing. If one breaks the law, then one should pay. I am not the law nor a mind reader. When I see things that I believe are not right I report it or let it go. I cannot make judgement on anyone who is on welfare or SSI or SSD or any other government supplemental program. I can only know for sure my own situation. For those who are interested, I worked until I was 62 and retired because I was not physically able to continue working. My only income is my Social Security and a very, very, very small pension.

Nobody here or elsewhere relevant has advocated the elimination of a certain level of social safety net.

That said, I should not have to pay for the misfortunes of others. Family should, friends should, local charity should, local religious organizations should (gasp!), and communities should. But I should NOT. I do NOT want you subsidizing my family, and nor should I subsidize your/yours.

But that isn't even the issue. The Federal Government, or most specifically the Progressive/Liberal movement, cares not AT ALL about you; they/it cares only about growing their power, the size of government. Aside from the oppressive nature of dependency, THAT is the issue about welfare......all you others who distract and pretend that it's about people are missing the entire issue and have fallen instead for the emotional propaganda. Federal functionaries far removed from your best interests care naught for your plight. If I've not been clear, or if you disagree, let's discuss.....

[Brother Kaman]

Nobody here or elsewhere relevant has advocated the elimination of a certain level of social safety net.

That said, I should not have to pay for the misfortunes of others. Family should, friends should, local charity should, local religious organizations should (gasp!), and communities should. But I should NOT. I do NOT want you subsidizing my family, and nor should I subsidize your/yours.

But that isn't even the issue. The Federal Government, or most specifically the Progressive/Liberal movement, cares not AT ALL about you; they/it cares only about growing their power, the size of government. Aside from the oppressive nature of dependency, THAT is the issue about welfare......all you others who distract and pretend that it's about people are missing the entire issue and have fallen instead for the emotional propaganda. Federal functionaries far removed from your best interests care naught for your plight. If I've not been clear, or if you disagree, let's discuss.....

I agree that it SHOULD be the responsibility of family, local government (city, county) and religious groups to provide the charity necessary to cover for the misfortunes of others. All to often and more and more each day, many families are saying, "Screw it. It is not my job to take care of my immediate family, much less mom and dad when they can't hold their water anymore." Even the more affluent families treat their children's school as a day care and abdicate all responsibility for them. There is much that SHOULD be. There is very little that IS.

[Atwater Vitki]

I agree that it SHOULD be the responsibility of family, local government (city, county) and religious groups to provide the charity necessary to cover for the misfortunes of others. All to often and more and more each day, many families are saying, "Screw it. It is not my job to take care of my immediate family, much less mom and dad when they can't hold their water anymore." Even the more affluent families treat their children's school as a day care and abdicate all responsibility for them. There is much that SHOULD be. There is very little that IS.

With a very watery eye, I have to agree with you..." There is much that SHOULD be. There is very little that IS." ....how we turn the corner to IS is the responsibility of everyone...not just those who think they are not involved in someone else's misfortune. The bottom line in this emerging global community is everyone is effected by everybody else.

Yeah, it sounds like the "hippie"mantra of the 60's, but the more headlines I read, the more it looks to me that we are all our brother's keeper...all 7+ billion of us. I could list many things from the environment, to food shortages to climate changes that metes this out...but I'm sure everyone here is well aware of the things that makes us all one brotherhood of man under one sun on one planet.

Blessings of Peace,

[panpareil]

When the free stuff is gone or hard to come by people will seek out alternatives. For example, when unemployment compensation runs out people go to work.

[Youch]

Nobody here or elsewhere relevant has advocated the elimination of a certain level of social safety net.

That said, I should not have to pay for the misfortunes of others. Family should, friends should, local charity should, local religious organizations should (gasp!), and communities should. But I should NOT. I do NOT want you subsidizing my family, and nor should I subsidize your/yours.

But that isn't even the issue. The Federal Government, or most specifically the Progressive/Liberal movement, cares not AT ALL about you; they/it cares only about growing their power, the size of government. Aside from the oppressive nature of dependency, THAT is the issue about welfare......all you others who distract and pretend that it's about people are missing the entire issue and have fallen instead for the emotional propaganda. Federal functionaries far removed from your best interests care naught for your plight. If I've not been clear, or if you disagree, let's discuss.....

I agree that it SHOULD be the responsibility of family, local government (city, county) and religious groups to provide the charity necessary to cover for the misfortunes of others. All to often and more and more each day, many families are saying, "Screw it. It is not my job to take care of my immediate family, much less mom and dad when they can't hold their water anymore." Even the more affluent families treat their children's school as a day care and abdicate all responsibility for them. There is much that SHOULD be. There is very little that IS.

With a very watery eye, I have to agree with you..." There is much that SHOULD be. There is very little that IS." ....how we turn the corner to IS is the responsibility of everyone...not just those who think they are not involved in someone else's misfortune. The bottom line in this emerging global community is everyone is effected by everybody else.

Yeah, it sounds like the "hippie"mantra of the 60's, but the more headlines I read, the more it looks to me that we are all our brother's keeper...all 7+ billion of us. I could list many things from the environment, to food shortages to climate changes that metes this out...but I'm sure everyone here is well aware of the things that makes us all one brotherhood of man under one sun on one planet.

Blessings of Peace,

I always like your posts.

It seems to me that you wish life and nature were something different than it is. And by extension, somehow self-serving functionaries far removed from our lives can/could/should "do something about that." And of course, that is a pile of mule fritters.

People don't always take care of themselves or their families. And sometimes, crap happens. That is what IS. Government mandates (which can only be carved out of the hide of individual freedom) cannot change that. It will only lead to oppression and dependency and the ruination of the greatest social contract ever devised. We are well on our way down that sad path. That is why I consider the progressive philosophy to be a danger to me, my family and the society I love and defend.

A FAR more natural way of looking at all this, which is supported 100% by the Constitution on one hand and the economic philosophy of free markets on the other, is that everyone should pursue their own best interests. Equality does NOT mean equal outcomes....which is contrary to the philosophy of our current and disastrous President.

[grateful]

let's talk about corporate welfare. same, different, irrelevant?

[Youch]

Different. But relevant. And both sides are guilty.

We're in big trouble folks. But most people don't give a rusty nickel. Apathy and ignorance are likely the biggest and primary root causes.

[Kingfisher]

let's talk about corporate welfare. same, different, irrelevant?

Corporations are people too, my friend. They'll take the easiest road and make use of whatever resources are available. I don't fault anyone (be they people or groups of people) for taking advantage of the system, whatever their reasons may be. It's just human nature to seek the path of least resistance. I merely disagree with some folks about how much assistance that system should provide. I don't really see a difference between corporate and private subsidies, both foster that sense of entitlement and sap motivation to put forth any real effort of our own. It not only hurts those who receive it and don't need it, it hurts those who could be providing it for those who do. Why reach out and care for my neighbors who are truly unable to fend for themselves? That's why I pay taxes. Why get off my tail and support that struggling corporation which is providing what I think society needs? That's why I pay taxes.

Here is an article I ran across the other day, and one quote struck me as very relevant to this discussion: "We think it is ugly too but if the leaders don’t ask us to change it, what are we supposed to do?” They're completely paralyzed, even when they know something needs to be changed. This is the kind of thing folks mean when they warn about the dangers of dependence on government. If you think ordering those who don't care to fix the problem for you is the answer, well, this is result you get. If you're waiting for someone else to step up and do what needs to be done, the world is going to remain a stagnant and inefficient mess. The problem isn't that we're not throwing enough money and government programs at the needy, the problem is that nobody gives a damn. If you think you can solve that issue with taxes, feel free to illuminate me. This ministry stuff is a real chore and I'd be happy to take the easy road.

[kokigami]

Nobody here or elsewhere relevant has advocated the elimination of a certain level of social safety net.

That said, I should not have to pay for the misfortunes of others. Family should, friends should, local charity should, local religious organizations should (gasp!), and communities should. But I should NOT. I do NOT want you subsidizing my family, and nor should I subsidize your/yours.

But that isn't even the issue. The Federal Government, or most specifically the Progressive/Liberal movement, cares not AT ALL about you; they/it cares only about growing their power, the size of government. Aside from the oppressive nature of dependency, THAT is the issue about welfare......all you others who distract and pretend that it's about people are missing the entire issue and have fallen instead for the emotional propaganda. Federal functionaries far removed from your best interests care naught for your plight. If I've not been clear, or if you disagree, let's discuss.....

kinda sad when you copy and endorse your own posts.. but, lets have at this..

More significantly, the last part. The idea that welfare is about creating dependency. Now, I agree, to some extent, that this is what it is doing. Probably for different reasons than you think.. but to claim it is the intent seems to beg some extraordinary evidence.

I tend to think it is a side effect of some very capitalist impulses that are at work in welfare design. For example, it is possible for the poor to get subsidies for rental costs, but not for mortgage costs. This is a system designed to move government money into the hands of those who already own real wealth in property. It appeals to those who think that welfare should be about keeping people afloat, but only barely so, as it doesn't help them get out of the debt traps.

[Kingfisher]

I tend to think it is a side effect of some very capitalist impulses that are at work in welfare design. For example, it is possible for the poor to get subsidies for rental costs, but not for mortgage costs. This is a system designed to move government money into the hands of those who already own real wealth in property. It appeals to those who think that welfare should be about keeping people afloat, but only barely so, as it doesn't help them get out of the debt traps.

I agree that this is part of the problem. There's isn't any system of government which can't be twisted to suit the desires of those who seek to abuse it. Capitalism enshrines greed and self-interest without placing any ethical checks on power, which is why Adams commented that our system was wholly inadequate for the government of immoral and irreligious people. There are those who witness the decay of society and think our system of government must then be changed, and those who think it should be addressed by restoring the character of the people. I tend to favor the latter approach (though the effort often seems to be impossibly difficult) because in centralized systems with heavy government influence ultimately the means of production are still controlled by the same corrupt aristocracy. Socialism addresses the symptoms of the problem while the disease runs unchecked. It whitewashes the issues a with pretty and noble façade, but the nation still rots from within. Government can't provide welfare for soul, and mandating certain behavior doesn't magically imbue the people with the spirit which would have inspired that behavior spontaneously. You're trying to feed the peasants, I'm trying to tear down the Bastille so that the peasants might feed themselves.

[cuchulain]

if it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people...and a majority wins in a democratic election, and we all elected these people to make these laws all along the way, then it seems logical to conclude that a majority of Americans want the government that they have. Even if at some point we were misled, we elected the politicians, who ran on platforms that apparently a majority of Americans wanted. Therefore, the laws are the laws that were supported by our democratic election process, and are the laws of the people, including welfare programs. Does the average American voter actually get educated about the platforms, candidates, etc...? Probably not. Does the average American voter actually pay attention to what the guy they helped get in office does after he gets there? Again, probably not. So in essence, we have the government, laws and welfare system we deserve for having a majority of Americans vote for it.

[panpareil]

They majority of Americans wanted slavery, the genocide of Amerinds, and the nuking of the Japanese. The majority is as vile as any other dictator. that is why Democracy is also called tyranny of the majority.

I see the world as a pan-monarchy. Everyone is a divinely appointed absolute monarch with no one above them but god.

[Youch]

kinda sad when you copy and endorse your own posts.. but, lets have at this..

More significantly, the last part. The idea that welfare is about creating dependency. Now, I agree, to some extent, that this is what it is doing. Probably for different reasons than you think.. but to claim it is the intent seems to beg some extraordinary evidence.

I tend to think it is a side effect of some very capitalist impulses that are at work in welfare design. For example, it is possible for the poor to get subsidies for rental costs, but not for mortgage costs. This is a system designed to move government money into the hands of those who already own real wealth in property. It appeals to those who think that welfare should be about keeping people afloat, but only barely so, as it doesn't help them get out of the debt traps.

No, reiterating my previous point is to underscore it. "Sad" is defending and excusing and advocating the welfare state.

If buying votes, thus creating dependents, ISN'T the purpose of welfare, then what is?? You honestly think politicians give a monkey's knuckle about your family or plight? Of course not. Your family and plight is YOUR business, but your vote, your sustained vote, now THAT is their business.

Why is this not obvious to you? Oh, that's right, you've already, here on this forum, admitted you are a socialist. Which means your allegiance isn't to my freedom, but to the power of the state.

This makes you a danger to my family.

[kokigami]

I have never claimed to be a socialist. I have admitted that socialism is not, for me, a bogey man that sends shivers down my spine, but a system of economics that has merit in some situations. Just the same view I have toward capitalism.

The purpose of welfare was to create a safety net for those who found themselves in need. But, as it is a compromise with other interests, it has been mis directed. That isn't an uncommon outcome in out system of laws. It has been stripped down to be sub subsistence support, with little to no provision for rebuilding the capacity for recipients to help themselves. That would require more funding. I think progressives would be happy to provide that funding and build a system that moves people off the welfare roles. I think conservatives work very hard to prevent it from being built. I don't think that is because conservatives want to make people dependent, just that they often aren't imaginative enough to see another system than the one they have.

[Youch]

I have never claimed to be a socialist. I have admitted that socialism is not, for me, a bogey man that sends shivers down my spine, but a system of economics that has merit in some situations. Just the same view I have toward capitalism.

The purpose of welfare was to create a safety net for those who found themselves in need. But, as it is a compromise with other interests, it has been mis directed. That isn't an uncommon outcome in out system of laws. It has been stripped down to be sub subsistence support, with little to no provision for rebuilding the capacity for recipients to help themselves. That would require more funding. I think progressives would be happy to provide that funding and build a system that moves people off the welfare roles. I think conservatives work very hard to prevent it from being built. I don't think that is because conservatives want to make people dependent, just that they often aren't imaginative enough to see another system than the one they have.

Yes, you have claimed it. Maybe you didn't mean it, but I remember it.

And the fact that you find kinship between two vastly opposing economic philosophies is evidence that you understand neither, or advocate one over the other and are lying about it just as the President and his acolytes do over and over again to achieve their ideological agenda.

Your lack of understanding of what conservative principles mean easily underscores and explains all of your posts, and also explains how and why you don't get so much that has been posted here and elsewhere.

Explaining it all for the umpteenth time will no good, obviously.....

[kokigami]

No, our history has been a repetition on the theme of you accusing me of being socialist, and my stating that I am not. This happens whenever I advance that socialism is not the great evil, and appears to be a reflex reaction on your part.

I have stated that I have socialistic tendencies.. But pure isms are inherently faulty. I avoid them, and have done so far longer than I have been here.

[panpareil]

No, our history has been a repetition on the theme of you accusing me of being socialist, and my stating that I am not. This happens whenever I advance that socialism is not the great evil, and appears to be a reflex reaction on your part.

I have stated that I have socialistic tendencies.. But pure isms are inherently faulty. I avoid them, and have done so far longer than I have been here.

Socialism is not the evil. The hubris to control other human beings and take their freedom is the evil. The avarice to take other peoples possessions is the evil. Voluntary socialism is a good if ineffective thing, to the same degree that crony capitalism and other government sponsored monopoly (the only kind) is an evil thing.

[revtimothybland]

if it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people...and a majority wins in a democratic election, and we all elected these people to make these laws all along the way, then it seems logical to conclude that a majority of Americans want the government that they have. Even if at some point we were misled, we elected the politicians, who ran on platforms that apparently a majority of Americans wanted. Therefore, the laws are the laws that were supported by our democratic election process, and are the laws of the people, including welfare programs. Does the average American voter actually get educated about the platforms, candidates, etc...? Probably not. Does the average American voter actually pay attention to what the guy they helped get in office does after he gets there? Again, probably not. So in essence, we have the government, laws and welfare system we deserve for having a majority of Americans vote for it.

No, the Electoral College chooses our winners. Popularity vote counts for exactly ca ca. The people's voice is slowly being taken away.

[cuchulain]

that is only the presidential election, revtim, which in my opinion is the least important of the elections because it is decided by the electoral college. The congress are the ones who are supposed to make the laws, and I do say "Supposed", since our current president seems to be writing a lot lately. Congress is elected by direct election, and they have control of our social systems regulations.