The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there? Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.



The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?


[QUOTE=CaptainHaplo;1852809]
So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.]/quote] You're the one that brought up the expanding ranks of poor.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.



You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.

I want to make it clear, I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of being contrary Yes, I am glad we are living in a country where the poor aren't dying in the streets, too. I would be even happier living in a country where people don't quit high school, form gangs, make rap music, and engage in organized crime. Unfortunately, people are free to choose those paths. I am glad we live in a country where (still) people are held accountable for their own choices.

We're a long way from Social Darwinism, and historically, America has been a country that provides opportunity and freedom, it does not guarantee food and medicine. I'm ok with people who want that to be a new part of the equation, but get used to being told that it is not American, because, historically, it is not.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose.

I have a friend who is part of Manna food bank. They provide food for a number of other charities, as well as direct to society. I asked him how many people he could feed if he got 10% of what is spent in foodstamp purchases in the area. Granted - we have no hard numbers - but his answer was quick and sure - 20% of the people getting foodstamps was what he could feed. That is with nutritious meals - not the crap that many snap recipients choose to purchase. Nothing the government does is efficient. Thus - it is wasteful.

When you can do more with less because its not government run, when you can do more with less because its done out of compassion and a desire to help, instead of compulsory by government, its foolish to not do so. Unless of course, you don't care about results......

Quite honestly - that is my biggest gripe with the left - results don't matter, only the "intent" when it comes to entitlements.

*edit - I also take exception to it being "their" foodstamps etc... They didn't pay for them - we of the working class did. It just shows how screwed up the thinking is - one person pays so another person can lay claim to something.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose

Nope. I already said that whether someone eats or not shouldn't depend on how generous another person feels that day.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there?

How much better would it be if those programs were not there? We have no way of knowing either way....

Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".