Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Isn't Socialism Great
#21
Fredledingue Wrote:...The governement doesn't control that. It only gives money when conditions are met.
It is several layers removed from responsibility when either party doesn't hold up to their responsibilities. Take Valerie Jerrett, Obama's number one advisor and Rasputin, The Chicago Daley machine apparatchik, who got both Michelle and Barack out of lackluster college tracks and had them appointed to big name schools without prerequisite grades or accomplishments - and orchestrated their lives and careers after. She was a Chicago slumlord who was responsible for Grove Parc and over 100 real estate deals with Tony Rezko. The government paid the rent for most of her tenants and she neglected the upkeep which was her responsibility. Her big plan was to send Obama to the Olympic selection meeting to get Chicago picked whereupon she wanted the sweet deal of building the new Olympic facilities on the Grove Parc land, allowing its demolition, with no need to fix it up for the residents.

Even when Barack was appointed to the Chicago legislature to replace Alice Palmer when she stepped down to run for the Senate (orchestrated by Jerrett at Bill Ayers house), Jerrett received millions of dollars of government grant money from him which was supposed to be for her tenants, but somehow never made it that far.

No... government money paid to bypass the tenants is never a good idea. It can be rationalized as necessary because the people are not capable of handling their own money - but actually makes that fear a reality. I don't care if it is Belgium or the U.S. - when government intrudes in what should be a normal function of the free market it is never optimal.
Reply
#22
Yes, but social welfare is never a normal function of the free market. It's not part of it.
The goal of this system in Belgium is to allow poeple on the dole with the survival minimum to rent a private owned flat. Otherwize nobody would ever agree to lent them.
Reply
#23
The unintended consequences is reliance on the dole and gaming the system. Someone always figures out how living without getting married, or having a dozen out-of-wedlock children will get them a comfortable income.

I think charity is better than government welfare, in general. Having a safety net is a good idea - but most safety nets have turned into hammocks.
Reply
#24
Fredledingue Wrote:Yes, but social welfare is never a normal function of the free market. It's not part of it.
The goal of this system in Belgium is to allow poeple on the dolSe with the survival minimum to rent a private owned flat. Otherwize nobody would ever agree to lent them.
Social welfare was (and to some extent still is - at least in the US) the purview of religion and individuals. Thus it was for centuries.

Where does "social welfare" end and buying votes begin?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#25
Private charities donations don't come even close to what is needed.
They can distribut free soup in the streets, toys for orphans, wheelchairs for disabled, but that's about it.
Nobody is going to give money to poeple who lose their job. Not voluntarily. Never.

Secondly, charities are unjust from the donator side: When poeple donate what they want, the system relies on the few generous and good hearted poeple while most of the others never give anything.
Wealthy poeple will be regarded as generous while they give a tiny percentage of their incomes, while modest poeple will be insignificant eventhought they make bigger efforts to give something.

The gov based system is not perfect but at least everybody participate.
Reply
#26
my opinion is that wealthy people don't want to be annoyed with charities, but dedicate their time to running their businesses. outsourcing the needy to the government has been proven of value. what we really want is no welfare at all, let them starve to death if they don't work for a pittance, isn't it? while the government can afford to gradually do away with welfare because it's omnipotent and bad, no wealthy christian could do this in good conscience.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#27
quadrat Wrote:my opinion is that wealthy people don't want to be annoyed with charities, but dedicate their time to running their businesses. outsourcing the needy to the government has been proven of value. what we really want is no welfare at all, let them starve to death if they don't work for a pittance, isn't it? while the government can afford to gradually do away with welfare because it's omnipotent and bad, no wealthy christian could do this in good conscience.

"Q" that is priceless. I am going to promote you to "Journeyman", because you have pretty much taken the position of Contrary and made it an established art form. All it will take is a little more time, and effort, before you achieve the distinction of being a "Master" Contrary/Heyoka. The Souix and Cheyenne would be extremely proud of your abilities.

Congratulations on your promotion. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#28
Fredledingue Wrote:The gov based system is not perfect but at least everybody participate.

In other words, you take the choice out of it and force everyone to do your bidding. How enlightened!

btw, studies have shown that Small Government people give far more to charities than leftists.
Reply
#29
Pixiest Wrote:In other words, you take the choice out of it and force everyone to do your bidding. How enlightened!
Yes. Because if you leave the choice open to everyone's discretion, most of the poeple won't ever give anything anymore.
Somehow the human need some sort of obligation when we want money from him. Wether it's to sell or to help the poorests, when human beings have to pay they can't do it in anyway but under the threat of penalty.
It's like that.

Poeple gives to charities in extremely small amounts. Most poeple would give when they see kids starving in the street. Not before.

Pixiest Wrote:studies have shown that Small Government people give far more to charities than leftists.
Small Governement Poeple! LOL!
You mean wealthy poeple who give to charities only to the extent that they can they can make tax deduction on it.

You must know that tax deduced donation are not charity, only another way to pay taxes.
Remove the tax deducion factor, and your charity group budget will collapse.

You realy think poeple give money to help the others???
Reply
#30
Helping others wasn't the point, and if it benefits someone to give charity, they are more likely to do it and help many in the end. Another way to pay taxes without paying the IRS? I'd rather pay for something I like than to have bureaucrats do it all for me.

Compared to taxing them to death with an oppressive gov't and forcing their money away from them (STEALING) to pay for what usually ends up being stupid or a giant failure of a scheme.

What are they putting in the water over there in Europe?

Just stupid.
Reply
#31
And what's the difference with an oppressive governement forcing you to give to charities else you must pay taxes?
And you can't even give to what you like because it must be a certified charty. Goes without saying that all that is political.

It's only a semblance of freedom.

G4 Wrote:Helping others wasn't the point
'Course not. The point is to keep as much money as possible for oneself.
Reply
#32
Fredledingue Wrote:And what's the difference with an oppressive governement forcing you to give to charities else you must pay taxes?
And you can't even give to what you like because it must be a certified charty. Goes without saying that all that is political.

It's only a semblance of freedom.

Gov't isn't *charity* and you'll probably benefit more from the latter than the former. And no, charities are not political in who gets to be tax exempt.

Quote:Course not. The point is to keep as much money as possible for oneself.

Yea, if I donate a certain amount to charity, I get it back as a credit on my tax refund. So basically, it's an investment.
Reply
#33
G4 Wrote:And no, charities are not political in who gets to be tax exempt.
Yeah, sure. 8)
Reply
#34
Brother, I've seen all sorts of charities of all stripes exempt. Tell me that there is deliberate politicking with the East African Six-Toed Giant's fund.

The rest of my argument is fact. That is all.
Reply
#35
Actually, no I don't mean rich people. I mean poor southerners give to charity a lot more than rich yankees. and poor southerners tend to be small government types.

Your ignorance is astounding, Fred.
Reply
#36
Pixiest Wrote:Actually, no I don't mean rich people. I mean poor southerners give to charity a lot more than rich yankees. and poor southerners tend to be small government types.

Your ignorance is astounding, Fred.

"P", he is a European, not from here. So he is not familiar with how much charity work Americans participate in. He is also from the Balkans, which were under Soviet control until its breakup in 1991. Charity from individuals, in a big way, are not something they are accustomed to.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#37
You mean the Baltic, not Balkans. He is European, that much is obvious from what he posts.
Reply
#38
Gunnen4u Wrote:You mean the Baltic, not Balkans. He is European, that much is obvious from what he posts.

Damn, you're right. Where have I been keeping my head lately? S6 Shock
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#39
I'll put in a plug for east Tennesseans in the Knoxville area in the charity discussion EX government.

Back under Reagan,the left constantly brought up the homeless and why wasn't the state doing something about it. Reagan left and we don't hear about that issue so much,but,it sure does exist.

In Knoxville,we have a couple of outfits who seek out the homeless and provide space to live,food to eat and training for a job.

Darn thing works,course the people have to want to help themselves as always.

I know of more than one junkie who has gotten squared away and is working,self supporting because of this work,then they often return and assist others.

All private donations,all private individuals working with these folks.

It's a lot of people being helped,not a small amount because the derelicts of east Tennessee all end up in Knoxville,even from 100 miles away.

Even many of our prominent types help out,doing golf tourneys and such to raise cabbage for this.
Reply
#40
Fredledingue Wrote:And what's the difference with an oppressive governement forcing you to give to charities else you must pay taxes?
And you can't even give to what you like because it must be a certified charty. Goes without saying that all that is political.

It's only a semblance of freedom.

G4 Wrote:Helping others wasn't the point
'Course not. The point is to keep as much money as possible for oneself.
first i also tought you are from latvia, but tend to belgium now. you don't understand the american system, which point is to make it as ineffective, intransparent, and corrupt as possible. it's a business feeding many more people than the government, and the founders of a charity regularly make more money than say the president of the us. read about a charity concert of a world famous band in the us recently, and although the band played for free, a mere 10% of the money collected went to the charity, 90% to employed staff, rent for the venue, etc. you are european, deciding by intellect. you are not so vulnerable to stuff like peer pressure, or emotional blackmail, and you don't have to believe in their lies.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)