Charity: private sector, not gov't.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by conntom, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    Charity belongs to the private sector and the population and not gov't where it can be used to control people and garner votes.

    Charity and control has been the Democrats method to power and it has worked well but it is time to end this non sense and perversion of the America people.

    Save a few, very rare exceptions, we need get gov't out of the business of charity.
     
  2. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    And what charity does the government do and do you partake in any of it?
     
  3. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    welfare gone wild....

    Have another kid, get more money.

    Free housing.

    Third generation on welfare families

    Food stamps

    Money to illegals

    People who pay no taxes.

    Bought to much house? Don;t worry we'll fix it for you....

    Name about any entitlement program you want.

    Social security - you pay into it to get a benefit - good thing.

    Unemployment for a period of time - good thing.

    Free medical care paid for by others....not a good thing.

    Getting to vote but having no stake in the cost of gov't - not a good thing.

    Democrats keep people stupid and on the take so they NEED and MUST keep voting for Democrats.
     
  4. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    And let me add....


    Run your bank into the ground? Don;t worry - we'll give ya some money.
     
  5. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    Wasn't that George W?
     
  6. D_Andreas Sukov

    D_Andreas Sukov Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    3
    Funny. Didnt No child left behind make kids stupid? Not a Dem policy. The whole Rep system keeps people stupid. No to gays, No to "socialism" (Thats your definition, not the correct one) Jesus was best, fuck Muslims bull just makes people scared and ignorant.
     
  7. Satsfakshun

    Satsfakshun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN

    Welfare gone wild? 80% on welfare, or more, are children. Are they supposed to starve? Sell their bodies on the street? Work in factories? What's your solution for the children who are here now?

    Food stamps? I know plenty of hard working people who have needed food stamps from time to time and for short periods, mostly for children. What is it about poor children eating the drives conservatives so crazy?

    Money for illegals? How? How much? Do you have figures? Programs? Please name them.

    Bought too much house? Who benefitted most from these arrangements? The people who lost these homes? Or the people who put them in these homes pocketing a larger commission as they did it? These aren't the people who invented fantastical investment instruments like derivatives. That's where all the money went. Shouldn't people who work a lot of hours, have a home and some food and some healthcare?

    Medical care not a good thing? Why does this drive conservatives so nutty? It works pretty darned well in other countries. It works so well in Canada that Palin's family hopped the border when they couldn't afford healthcare. The fact is, even people with some kind of coverage have pretty shitty coverage. Just about all of us are one doctor's visit away from the poorhouse. Health disasters are the main cause of bankrupcy. The rest of us pay for that and emergency room care. Wouldn't it make more sense to take that money and provide coverage at the front end rather at the back end when the bills are much higher? Your children are just one doctor visit away from not being covered if you change jobs. Oh, wait, just until September when a little hope and change comes.

    And I don't want to hear any of that constitutional/founder's nonsense. One of the first issues the first president and first congress faced was a revolt of farmer's in Western Mass. who didn't think they should pay a tax on whiskey passed by congress. What did our founders do? President Washington raised an army of state militias and led them into Mass. to put down the revolt. Next came the assumption issue. Congress decided the federal government would settle all states' bills for the revolution. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution allowing them to do this. Some states that had already retired their debt, South Carolina, for instance, objected strongly. "Why should we pay for someone else's poor policy?" It passed anyway. The founders knew the new country could not move forward if the states were saddled with oppressive debt. So all this constitutions talk and most of the items on your list are just ghost stories fed by yak radio and Fox news over and over again until they evolve into "facts."

    We've tried this conservative Valhalla, when the government let business alone and rarely taxed the public, between the Civil War and WWI. What was the result? No middle class. Cradle-to-grave poverty. Factories filled with children who were maimed and killed. People dying owing their employers more than they ever earned. Food not fit to eat and water not fit to drink. People routinely killed and maimed in their jobs, on railroads on ships. There was never any redress for their harm. On top of all this misery were a very tiny minority who lived like kings, building huge homes, dining on gold service and managing a federal government that did exactly what they instructed it to do. I don't think we want to return to a system like that.
     
  8. stratedude

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    No lemon. GWB gave poor kids vouchers to get the hell out of the hell hole you call public education to pay for private if their school wasn't up to standards. Thats called capitalism and freedom for parents and kids for the benefit of better education. It was a huge success. Barack wanted to end it. Parents were so outraged he was forced to extend it.
     
  9. stratedude

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Even the richest of the rich Americans did not have running water and had to shit outside in the freezing cold. They also died in train wrecks caused by exploding boilers. Its easy to point out how hard it was in the primitive days of the early industrial revolution and then try to make it sound like it was only the poor that had the hard life. Life was a lot harder for everybody back then. No need to cherry pick facts of history to skew the reality of the day.
     
  10. Satsfakshun

    Satsfakshun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    I've been to those houses. They used pots that servants carried out to the privy. John Adams house in Quincy has a boiler for hot water, indoors and a built in bathtub, a hundred years before the period I'm describing. Flush toilets were common from the 1880's on, in nicer homes. If they didn't have running water, they had people to haul it in. My great grandfather, a surgeon, had running water around 1900 in his office, so it wasn't that rare.

    I was speaking about industrial accidents, not boiler explosions, per se. There was no authoritiy in existence to force companies to operate safely. Go watch a video on the meat packing industry, from the time the cattle walks in one end and the packages of ground round come out the other. You'll be relieved to know that government inspectors are there every step of the way.

    Cherry picking, bah!
     
    #10 Satsfakshun, Apr 11, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  11. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Someone's feeling self centered today. Did you actually have an article to post and discuss, or did you figure your commentary was so awesome, that it's worthy of its own thread?

    And btw, you're wrong. Government doesn't need to get out of "the business of charity" as you call it... What it needs to get out of is the business of picking winners and losers. You want to talk about "charity"? How about all of the 'incentives' given to businesses, and in some cases, the outright corporate welfare? The sum of money given away to the owners of for-profit corporations (you know, rich people) every year is VASTLY greater the amount of money the fed govt spends on charity programs for the poor/needy.

    More importantly, there's one HUGE difference you left out of your whiny little rant... Ethics... The human beings receiving the benefits of corporate welfare are already well off in life. They have no personal need for the funds they receive. Its reception only stokes their ego by adding to their wealth... The people receiving 'charity', do so because lacking that 'charity', they would starve, or not have a house, or have to give kids up for adoption, or have no way to get to work or school, etc.

    And here's the most important detail that America's wealthy simply have forgotten over time... That 'charity' you loathe keeps crime down. ESPECIALLY crime against the wealthy. You want to see a shitty version of America? Try imagining a country where rightwingers succeed, and millions of people lose access to the govt programs that kept them at a basic standard of living, so that the taxes of the wealthy can go down a few percent (remember, almost half of the country already pays no fed income tax, so if the budget goes down, it's not like their taxes can go down. Only the taxes for the wealthy would go down. Even the upper middle class would get a couple hundred more a year, if that)... So, put all of those people out on the streets, competing for jobs that pay well enough to pay for all of the things they now have to pay for themselves... Make them compete for 'affordable housing' that now has 3x as many people bidding on it, and see how cheap it stays... Push the working poor and lower middle class into poverty, and see how peaceful and loving they become towards their fellow wealthy Americans... Make all of those people have to FIND A WAY TO GET MONEY OR LITERALLY DIE, and see how long it takes before every rich person and the businesses they own is a target of every crime that pays, plus some new ones nobody ever thought of before.
     
    #11 B_talltpaguy, Apr 11, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  12. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    If you haven't figured it out yet, conservatives are the lesser among us... That's why they're conservative; because they can't keep up with the natural pace society is evolving at, so they want to slow it down and dumb it down and do things their way, so that they aren't left in the dust.

    Well, I say tough shit. We slowed thing down for them for years, and LOOK where it has gotten this country! Nearly in the shitter.

    Republicans want to piss and moan about how the Dems are shitty leaders, and Republicans are the ones who should lead the country? All I can say is what fucking alternate reality are you people living in? Republicans lost the Korean War, lost the Vietnam War, screwed up the Persian Gulf War, and screwed up the two most recent wars. They gave us the Great Depression, the vast majority of our national debt, the Great Recession, and a housing bubble that is still gutting the wealth of the middle class. Republicans fought against, and continue to fight against worker's rights, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, religious diversity. In many ways, today's Republicans are the fundamental anti-thesis of what the founders of their party, and of this nation stood for in their time. Remember when Republicans went to war to stand up for the rights of slaves? Remember when they broke up corporate monopolies that hurt consumers? Today's Republicans have put self before EVERYTHING else, including the very honor of the good name they now piss on to profit from. Republicans have no ethos, only self.
     
  13. StormfrontFL

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,496
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Miami
    :You_Rock_Emoticon:
     
  14. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Dear Condom, "In modern usage, the practice of charity means the giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver".........................I think our definition of charity differs slightly.
     
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Give 'em hell, guys.
     
  16. Satsfakshun

    Satsfakshun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Oh yeah, I forgot this latest bit of alarmist right wing swill...

    Did you know...

    Surprisingly, the working poor get a break on state and federal income taxes because just about every penny of their income goes out the window the moment it comes through the door. They pay a higher percentage of their income in property and sales tax. Rent, gas and food pretty much sop up their paycheck each week, if they're lucky. Unfortunately, the pay usually doesn't stretch that far.

    Social security benefits are not taxed at all. If that's your primary source of income, then you pay no income tax either. We now have millions more people over the age of 65 than we've ever had at any point in our history.

    Add together the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the working poor, children and their primary caregivers and, yes, you end up with a huge chunk of the population that pay no taxes whatsoever.

    It's ALWAYS been like this, it's just skewing to a larger percentage because of the particular demographics at this moment in history.

    It's a good think there was no Fox News in 1775. They'd have had Paul Revere jumping on his horse crying, "The British are coming!" Every 15 minutes, until no one would pay attention to him. But then that's the whole point of Fox, Rush, Drudge and the daily RNC talking points: keep people alarmed, frightened and uninformed. Unfortunately, this is probably going to backfire on all of you one of these days and not in a good way.

    The headline about who does and doesn't pay taxes can be passed around 24/7. The truth behind it takes a whole lot longer to cycle through. With e-mail, blogs, talk radio and Faux News, the truth hardly has any chance of ever catching up.

    What really pisses me off are regurgitated laundry lists like yours that are totally impervious to any reason, rationale or reality.
     
  17. Sergeant_Torpedo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    If you do not know what charity really means then don't pontificate on it. To some (the orignator of this threat perhaps?) charity is buying social kudos with a donation to an art gallery or opera company. True charity is doing something for the unloved and unlovely. And that is what the American people mainly do, very generously too. They don't belittle the poor, they help them.
     
  18. TurkeyWithaSunburn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,543
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    While you're ranting, please have the Republicans eliminate corporate welfare while you're at it. Subsidies galore for corporations. And don't forget all of the farm subsidies since so many farmers would go out of business if they didn't receive agribusiness subsidies.

    "on the take" wow makes it sound like people are doing something CRIMINAL in exchange for money.

    From 2003 WELFARE SPENDING SHOWS HUGE SHIFT - NYTimes.com

    In 2005 2,000,000 people collected welfare How many people receive welfare? - Do You Know at GovSpot.com
    Now use your math skills and tell us what percentage of the population is that? For further credit please compare and contrast why the right wing talking point is always about welfare instead of increasing taxes on the richest, when the percentages of both sets of people are so small in comparison to the total US population.

    From 2000 Since Welfare Reform, States Spend Less On Poor

    As for not paying taxes, you're pretty much just wrong. State sales taxes are in 45 of 50 states, and some states tax FOOD purchases. There are also county and city sales taxes in some areas. The only way not to pay tax is to not buy anything, at all.

    Even if all direct welfare payments stopped it would still be a comparatively small amount in proportion to the total federal budget.

    Want to rewrite the Constitution? Voting is a RIGHT in America.
     
  19. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    For those who mentioned Corporate welfare - I'm against that too. I did make mentioned of the TARP funds. Yes that was started by W.

    This wasn;t a Dem vs. Repub rant. It is a rant against gov't. I'm sick of the gov't unsing my tax dollars to gain favor with anyone.


    Torpedo mentiond, "True charity is doing something for the unloved and unlovely. And that is what the American people mainly do, very generously too. They don't belittle the poor, they help them."

    He is right. Let's see the people of this country and the Bill Gate types help our country so the gov't can focus and what it needs to do. Proect and defend. Provide infrastructure. Govern international situations and manage business to avoid the evil that can and would otherwise come out of Capitalism.

    We the people can take care of the charity and most of the social welfare situations.

    I believe, once we actually became good at this we could talk to the world about how to run a country. Instead we have people in our own society, poor, broken, can;t afford to be sick or take care of a sick child, can;t afford medical coverage, jobless - don;t get me started on the condition of our cities and people that live in fear due to rampant crime. Drugs. How about the people in our country that live ass second class citizens?

    Yet here we are telling the world how they should act. We invade countries and tell them to adopt our system...

    Our system is all messed up.

    No I have no article. I didn't think that was a prereq. It's just one person's opinion.
     
  20. Northland

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Likes Received:
    4
    So, if it's something from which you will reap direct benefits- SS and unemployment, it's good, otherwise it's bad?

    Welfare, public housing and housing vouchers (Section8) and food stamps and Medicaid are means of assisting people, the same as unemployment benefits. Many of the programs which help people out, are in place to keep things from becoming worse.

    For example: If you eliminate food stamps to a recently widowed parent of 3, of which 1 or 2 are pre-school age, and therefore need daycare, the parent now has no way to provide meals for their children, or maybe they buy food; but don't pay the rent or the heating bill, because they were in a two-income household, and the departed spouse (either wife or husband) had been the primary wage earner.

    If you eliminate the free-lunch programs from schools (and breakfast in some schools), the child has trouble concentrating and learning, they drop out, and may become the next (3rd) generation on welfare. If the Welfare program exists, they are able to eat and thereby learn and get out of the projects or other subsidized housing and a new person in need will then be given that help as they attempt to get their life back on track.

    Take away Medicaid, a person opts not to go to the ER until their condition is at a crisis level, then they go into debt trying to pay their bills, maybe even lost their job due to an extended hospital stay.


    Pre-natal care for expectant mothers (all sorts- married, un-attached and in un-married relationships), this helps to keep the growing baby healthy, reduces odds of premature birth and difficulties associatied with premies and underweights. The WIC program helps the financially disadvantaged to edge forward and provide their little one with a healthy meal. The housing voucher allows them to keep a roof over their head.


    SSD and SSI exist to help men and women who for whatever reason are physically or mentally (or in some cases, both) unable to hold fulltime or long term employment. Take this away, they go to Welfare, take that away, they go to the shelter system or the street.

    All programs exist for a reason and the reason is to help those in need.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted