Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 29
53
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia
 


Its also a lack of trust in Americans, that we wouldn't care enough to help our neighbors.


No, i don't trust you would. I trust most of you would let others die if it increased the bottom line. I live in a country where a guy ate another guys face off. I don't have much faith in the inherent goodness of strangers.

Please, you can find stories about people selling their daughters for crack and you expect me to trust the inherent goodness of man? Laughable.


Move to Somalia if it is so bad..
I bet we could get a few ats posters
to buy a one way trip plane ticket..




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Their self righteousness is no different than the hypocrites Jesus warned about who prayed in the streets merely to be seen praying. They do not have any regard for charity and philanthropy because they have nothing to do with it, and when they are advocating government socialized "welfare" programs, its your money they want taxed, and while you and others who are now taxed continue to donate to private charities, they dismiss charities as being inadequate. It is the height of hypocrisy.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia
 


Its also a lack of trust in Americans, that we wouldn't care enough to help our neighbors.


No, i don't trust you would. I trust most of you would let others die if it increased the bottom line. I live in a country where a guy ate another guys face off. I don't have much faith in the inherent goodness of strangers.

Please, you can find stories about people selling their daughters for crack and you expect me to trust the inherent goodness of man? Laughable.


Well I hope you can deal with your supposed excuses for promoting the welfare state because it isn't going to be the same security blanket for much longer.
You sure could learn a lot from the women and children I worked with at a homeless shelter. They lived in there own type of hell from the hands of another person but I don't recall hearing them squalk like a brat, blaming everybody else for their hurts and pains!
The Welfare entitlement state-of-mind reacts almost as extreme as the naked man who was wasted on drugs when he was eating the face of another man.


They, (esp the children), welcomed our friendship and help. The women did what they had to do, which was to find a job and begin their life again.
This world is packed with good, caring people. I hope you can get over yourself long enough to see that one day.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 





They lived in there own type of hell from the hands of another person but I don't recall hearing them squalk like a brat, blaming everybody else for their hurts and pains!


When did I blame anyone for "my hurt and pain"? I don't remember mentioning it. I have a pretty good life actually.

My point is this: No, i don't trust you. I don't know you so why would I? I don't know the bulk of humanity so why would I trust they were inherently good? That's something called "Faith", which is something I don't really get. And really, what does any of your story have to do with what I said? I answered your point-No, I don't trust people and I've got that right. There is plenty of evidence to show that i probably shouldn't trust the "goodness" of human beings.
edit on 30-5-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

I was speaking about trust a few posts up. Then you come at me with "...daughters being sold for crack..."
On the trust issue..., I can tell you with a torn heart that I've seen some of those "daughters"...and sons!
Even through their hurt and pain, they accepted and began to trust the people around them. So for you to carelessly rant about trust like that when I've wittnessed for myself just how much those daughters have had to overcome and yet they accepted our help...
You just grabbed out of thin air, the sufferings of other people and tried to tie it in with your own selfish nonsensical reason just for the sake of argument.

If you're dead-set on promoting and embracing welfare, that's your choice but when it steals from one to give to another, who isn't elderly or severely handicapped, then who are you to judge the people who are forced to provide?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia
 

If you're dead-set on promoting and embracing welfare, that's your choice but when it steals from one to give to another, who isn't elderly or severely handicapped, then who are you to judge the people who are forced to provide?


I'm not judging people for providing charity. I'm stating I don't trust most people. This is a function of my personality. If you can't give a rational argument for why I should trust people I don't know then I think we are wasting our time.

As for "promoting" or "embracing" welfare, nope I don't do either one of these things. I have made the point that no rational argument beyond "charity can fix it" has been presented. There is no hard factual evidence presented here beside the amount people give to charity. That's all well and good, but it does not prove Welfare doesn't work or that private charity can replace the current Welfare system. I contend the problem is not "welfare" in and of itself, rather it is simply throwing money at the problem. You can't fix something by throwing money at it forever. I see these arguments as pointless however-Welfare is not going to end no matter how much people cry. Most Americans would not accept that, so what we really have here is ideological posturing.

edit on 30-5-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Sure, go on and keep pretending that "I don't trust people" is a rational argument. Go on and pretend that you've presented "rational" arguments in this thread.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by antonia
 


Sure, go on and keep pretending that "I don't trust people" is a rational argument.


And by that token you can't go on pretending faith in the inherent goodness of man is a rational argument. It is an entirely emotional argument. If you can show data proving private charity has the means, infrastructure and will to replace the entire government welfare system then I would be quite willing to listen. What I have seen so far doesn't prove that case.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


It is far more rational than arguing that government has to take care of the poor because you don't trust people. Somehow you manage to trust government, which is filled with people.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by antonia
 


Somehow you manage to trust government, which is filled with people.





When did I say I trusted the government? You make a lot of assumptions.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


You did not enter this thread to make any arguments that government should leave charity to the private sector, that's for goddamned sure. It is not an assumption to categorize you as a "welfare" state advocate, this is precisely what you've been doing in this thread.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by antonia
 


You did not enter this thread to make any arguments that government should leave charity to the private sector, that's for goddamned sure.


No I didn't, but that doesn't mean I trust "government". That is what you accused me of right?




It is not an assumption to categorize you as a "welfare" state advocate, this is precisely what you've been doing in this thread.


I don't think I'm an advocate-I'm a realist. I'm not going to make ideological arguments with little meaning in the real world. Welfare is not going away anytime soon so I choose to deal with it in a more functional manner.
edit on 30-5-2012 by antonia because: added a thought
edit on 30-5-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

To think welfare can continue to thrive like it is now is simply ignoring reality.

I've read on here from you and other posters who crush the idea of free market and creativity, just as Obama is doing.
If working, tax payers can't grow, thrive, then how are they suppose to provide for the non creators, non producers?
Remember when Obama said ATM's kill jobs?
You also posted something earlier that practially parrots the same nonsense. In other words, the tax payers are not only getting ripped off, their also being demonized, heavily regulated, and hampered because of invention...(which creates jobs and more tax payers).
Its not OK to bite the hand that feeds. One day that will be aparent to the control freaks.
I can't link to anything at this time or I would add the ATM kills jobs link, and the self driving autos you posted earlier.



edit on 30-5-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Of course it means you trust government! God knows what makes you think that you can make an argument that you don't believe private charity will do the job because you don't trust people, and by the way you don't trust government either but they can do the job.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia
 

To think welfare can continue to thrive like it is now is simply ignoring reality.


And to think you are just going to wholesale get rid of it isn't excatly realistic now is it?



I've read on here from you and other posters who crush the idea of free market

What free market?

and creativity,

I am an artist and vocalist, I am certainly not against creativity.



You also posted something earlier that practially parrots the same nonsense. In other words, the tax payers are not only getting ripped off, their also being demonized, heavily regulated, and hampered because of invention...(which creates jobs and more tax payers).


Right, when did I do that?



I can't link to anything at this time or I would add the ATM kills jobs link, and the self driving autos you posted earlier.


I never posted anything about ATM's. I did post about the Google driverless car which is a very real technology currently being deployed in test phase. What you are attempting to school me on is something called "structural unemployment". What you are trying to tell me is that I am arguing the Luddite Fallacy, this would be true if the technology we were discussing was on par with that of the Luddite's age. The technology being discussed can operate on the same level as a human being and is cheaper to use. If you want to read further on that you may check out this book:
www.amazon.com...



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by antonia
 


Of course it means you trust government! God knows what makes you think that you can make an argument that you don't believe private charity will do the job because you don't trust people, and by the way you don't trust government either but they can do the job.





I didn't say government was doing the job. It can certainly be argued they have not done the job well at all. I have said you have not proven your case though.

It is entirely possible to think both sides of this argument are full of crap believe it or not.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Let's just give you the benefit of the doubt and entertain that both sides are full of crap in terms of which is best suited to help the poor. The difference is that charities do not tax people in order to help the poor, and on that level, there ain't no full of crap about it!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by daskakik
 




You have just made the biggest argument for why welfare is needed.


Indeed. Technological progress bringing increased automatisation and growing productivity means that there will be less and less jobs available. But at the same time, those less people working would produce more than enough for all.

Ultimately, there is no way how to deal with this trend other than redistribution.



www.forbes.com...

Get ready for another massive wave of welfare leeches (sarcasm) in the next decade. The first to suffer will be taxi drivers and then the big rig drivers will be out of work. If i could automate everything possible at least 60% of all the people in this country would be out of work. And retraining them isn't going to help much, there are only so nmany skilled jobs to be had in this country.

This is the post I was referring to. If I'm reading this right, there seems to be an assumpion that unemployment, welfare will increase due to invention. The opposite is true. Sure, people will have to attend some training classes and there could be the elimation of some jobs but progress creates many more jobs than it destroys.
When people aren't harnessed, their imagination is allowed to thrive. These are the job creators.





top topics
 
53
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join