Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[dairygirl4u2c]

so is the underlying reason inherent morality, or justice?

i take it that you say we live in a society where we give up certain things to mean inherent morality. if the reaons for helping were justice, they wouldn't have an argument they're losing something.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it's inherent morality you're arguing. how do you respond to the idea that it's not the government's role, but charity's?

morally, the poor would (or theretically would) be helped by charity. so, why are you adding government? if government is unneeded then it could be argued morality isn't key and you're stealing.

if you're wondering, i'm looking to see if you say charities often fail to act when they could and should, or that it's a matter of justice.

Edited November 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1422895' date='Nov 20 2007, 02:25 PM']if it's inherent morality you're arguing. how do you respond to the idea that it's not the government's role, but charity's?

morally, the poor would (or theretically would) be helped by charity. so, why are you adding government? if government is unneeded then it could be argued morality isn't key and you're stealing.

if you're wondering, i'm looking to see if you say charities often fail to act when they could and should, or that it's a matter of justice.[/quote]
This goes back to the idea that "government" isn't "them," it's "us." But, yes, you're right, ideally local problems would be dealt with by local solutions, whether through charity, community groups, or whatever you want to call it. That's the most effective means of a) delivering support to the needy, b) best preserving their dignity, and c) communicating their need to "shape up," [i]if applicable[/i]. Those who can't help themselves should be helped by us; those who can help themselves should, with a hand up if needed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

how do you respond to the idea that if charity knows the government will take care of it, that will simply entice charities to do nothing?

i have some responses to this, but i want to play devil's advocate and see what you say.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1422810' date='Nov 20 2007, 11:25 AM']As I said, I share your sense that we have become "spoiled." However, it's also a matter of expectations. Yes, we take for granted things our great-grandparents would have considered luxuries, including indoor plumbing, heated homes, a lower infant mortality rate, vaccination against diseases such as polio, and increased life expectancies. And while I agree that poverty for most people in the world is of an abject nature that most in the US would never even dream of, that's more to our shame than anything else: we are the richest country in the history of the world, and for [i]anyone[/i] to live in poverty in the US is an indictment against us.[/quote]
Christ said "the poor we will always have with us." This is not to say that we should ignore the problem of poverty, or not help the poor, but the idea that poverty can be totally eradicated by government activity is a false dream. Many of the social conditions which breed and perpetuate poverty have worsened in the decades since the U.S. government began drastically increasing welfare and "anti-poverty" spending, beginning with Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the '60s.

[quote]I don't agree with the Bush administration's policies but a) I don't have to, b) they don't need me to, and c) that's neither here nor there. Our government, the president and congress, were elected in free and fair elections, and is therefore legitimate. That's not "collectivist mentality," unless you consider living in a society in general in which there is civic give and take "collectivist."[/quote]
Then I don't see why I don't have an equal right to criticize the government. (or is that a special privilege of liberals?)
"The government isn't them; it's us" is a rather empty rhetorical non-argument against criticizing big government and the welfare state. Or, perhaps the government is only "us" when it does things you happen to approve of?

[quote]Sorry, but it's bogus.[/quote]
No, it raises legitimate points about a federal government beauracracy which often times in reality rewards irresponsibility and helps perpetuate poverty and dependency, rather than end it.
Such criticisms have led to welfare reforms in the '90s, which are at least a step in the right direction.

[quote]No, I'm talking about actual government subsidies. Check out the Cato Institute's [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230"]The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses[/url].[/quote]
Ok. I read the article, and I must say that I'm against such government subsidies of business too, which is yet another facet of big government. This does not follow that more should be spent on "normal" welfare, though. I'm against "Big Mama" government whether it's subsidizing corporations or "welfare queens."
This is not just a Democrat vs. Republican issue - both parties spend way too much and have let government get too big. Lately, Republicans have become as bad as the Dems, though for the liberal Dems, of course, the government is never spending enough domestically.

(And you realize that article's from an "Evil Conservative" thinktank, don't you? ;-) )

[dairygirl4u2c]

this conversation i'm witnesses between you two is so vague it's funny. you can always claim your position, as nothing is absolute. abuse occurs so socrtes does't change much. lack of abuse occurs so ken doesn't.
no one is getting philsophical. no one is breaking out figures or experience. it's just abstract nothingness.

i've heard that only 10% of welfare is abuse. i don't know where that stat comes from, just heard it from a prof once. at least i'm getting somewhere less vague. this is where you guys should be going if you don't want to get philsophical and answer my questions.

i'm still waiting for ken to reply to me. maybe i'm rushing him.

but i'll reply to myself. maybe it's the only real way to learn anything new. my reply to myself:

-homeless, and certain types of charity where charity doesn't happen when it could, like paying for someones medical bills pose an interesting problem. because charities more often than not do not address the problems. (of if the charities do feed some, it's often little and they don't teach the man to fish. from my experience, government helps more (the charities help up to the point of making themself feel less guilty but not enough) with food, but mostly teacheing to fish. charities are horrible at that. i've witnessed interactions of charities and governments firsthand, though i agree my observation may be different than others') so, it's better to have the government involved, as it's not like it's hard to say you're deterring charity when it's not doing anything anyway.
i've never heard of welfare to work as per charity but for government yes.
-one thing good about charities is it can detect slackers and better tell them to shape up without the red tape. it's easy as it requires little effort on the charities part. just becaues that's the case though doesn't mean they operate the best overall, or that they shold have the responsibiity.
-can we who so often don't do charity, say that government should not get involved? this is a tough issue that i don't feel like typing about right now but the point is made.
-also, if the charity is thinking that government will simply jump in and so the charity doesn't do its thing, that's their problem and their sin. it's tempting to foot the bill to government when you know you can, but it doesn't mean you have to. we shoudn't let the poor guy smell of elderberries it up, that's the bottomline.
-also, some things, like struggling when just starting out in life or being poor, usually means resources are being denied to you, analogous to being given a few square feet of land and then being told to pull yourself up from your boot straps. (even though you have little to no boot straps to pull yourself up from) these are cases of justice, where government involvement to equalize the equities is mandatory, in my mind. it's simply a burden to put on charities. not very consdierate to charities, unrealistice to put on them, naive to think they'd act, and unjust overall.
-some things like unemployment, in some situations, like when the person has had plenty of opportuinty and resoruces, can be a sole charity issue. government shouldn't get involved. we have to give charity it's change. maybe if charity does nothing, and the person falls from grace, then they are poor, and govenrment can help. they'd be in the poor category then. but, it all dpends on the situation, and i think regualtions would need created for this if government will be involved. (not sure how practical that would be. the current system of helping anyone who is down and out might be the best way)

i'm still waiting for soc to respond as to what to do with those cases where abuse doesn't occur and charity should and could do something but doesn't.
from ken, what to do if the assurance of government causes charities to skirt their responsibility.

i've stated more than just the typical rhetoric. i'm waiting for you guys to do the same.

Edited November 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe if government did less, conservatives would see what horrbile messes would occur. conservatives only see the situtaion is good so they think government will get involved in something it has no need. fact is, govenrment is inolved right now. (reminds me of how minimum wage is said to bring doom, hwen it's occuring now. plenty of jobs for everyone. no more bean paying jobs like back in the day. but that's another thread)

often times to be fair, if governent did less though, in some situations, liberals would see how charity could do its thing.

i know these are vague but they're worth pondering as i don't feel like expanding.

Edited November 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

know in orlando govenrment is giving food by the pallet load, cause of so much bad effects from the housing slump.
this might actually be akin to a hurricane hitting someone, that soc owuld allow for governent to be involved.
so this might not be that illustrative.
but, just thought i'd throw that out there.

[XIX]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1420126' date='Nov 15 2007, 11:24 PM']I'm a conservative, not an anarchist. (And yes kids, there is a distinction.)

As I've said on here many a time, if the law does not protect innocent human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.

It is the place of law and government to keep innocent people from being murdered, robbed, raped, and tortured.
(And yes, abortion is a form of murder, much as people try to make it to be something morally insignificant.)[/quote]
Cool.

[quote]It is [b]not[/b] the place of government to make sure we all "share our toys" and "are always safe" (other than legitimate national defense.)

American citizens are not helpless dependent little children in need of constant "mothering" by the government.
Whatever happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?[/quote]
I guess what I'd like to know is, why does the government get to step in at some points and not others? You could argue that poverty is a bigger threat to the US than terror. It seems like your stance is more "republican" than it is "small government." That said, I tend to agree that making us share our toys is a bit too socialist for my taste.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't really see the common thread among every conservative stance on an issue. GW has nothing to do with big or small government. Moral issues have to do with traditional values. National security seems disjointed from the other issues--I don't see how people who think that GW is a hoax would mostly tend to think tha abortion is wrong, and then naturally believe that we should not pull out of Iraq, and then think that we need lower taxes, and then say that we need to defend the second amendment. I don't see how any of those issues are related. Maybe if I had a better understanding of the term "conservative" I would get it, but as for right now, I don't really think that those are all a matter of "not changing" or of "keeping government small. Why are all of these conservative viewpoints all of the sudden?

Anyhoo, I have the exact same question about liberals. Or anybody who constantly takes the left or the right side.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1423406' date='Nov 21 2007, 10:16 PM']Christ said "the poor we will always have with us." This is not to say that we should ignore the problem of poverty, or not help the poor, but the idea that poverty can be totally eradicated by government activity is a false dream. Many of the social conditions which breed and perpetuate poverty have worsened in the decades since the U.S. government began drastically increasing welfare and "anti-poverty" spending, beginning with Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the '60s.[/quote]
I agree that poverty will never be totally eradicated. There are many causes for poverty, some systemic, some personal. I guess what I *really* object to is the sense that if someone is poor it's because of some moral failing on his or her part, and that we shouldn't be *forced* to help that person through government programs. Yes, sometimes poverty *is* the result of moral failings on the part of an individual, and ultimately they will have to deal with that at an individual level. I wonder what it does to us, though, when we speak about our fellow human beings in this way.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1423406' date='Nov 21 2007, 10:16 PM']Then I don't see why I don't have an equal right to criticize the government. (or is that a special privilege of liberals?)
"The government isn't them; it's us" is a rather empty rhetorical non-argument against criticizing big government and the welfare state. Or, perhaps the government is only "us" when it does things you happen to approve of?[/quote]
Criticize away, please do. From my perspective, the more criticism, the better. Goodness knows that the media isn't doing its job, and I love nothing better than watching some pol and, indeed, the whole system, getting justly skewered.

Anyway, my point is that when we talk about "them," we don't have to take any responsibility. Suddenly when it's "us," however, we actually have to do something.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1423406' date='Nov 21 2007, 10:16 PM']No, it raises legitimate points about a federal government bureaucracy which often times in reality rewards irresponsibility and helps perpetuate poverty and dependency, rather than end it.
Such criticisms have led to welfare reforms in the '90s, which are at least a step in the right direction.[/quote]
Look, of course bureaucracies are inefficient and can be "gamed." It's just that it's not endemic, and is the exception rather than the rule. The bottom line is that welfare provides a subsistence-level existence at best. No one really *wants* the life that welfare provides.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1423406' date='Nov 21 2007, 10:16 PM']Ok. I read the article, and I must say that I'm against such government subsidies of business too, which is yet another facet of big government. This does not follow that more should be spent on "normal" welfare, though. I'm against "Big Mama" government whether it's subsidizing corporations or "welfare queens."
This is not just a Democrat vs. Republican issue - both parties spend way too much and have let government get too big. Lately, Republicans have become as bad as the Dems, though for the liberal Dems, of course, the government is never spending enough domestically.

(And you realize that article's from an "Evil Conservative" thinktank, don't you? ;-) )[/quote]
That's fine, let's just be consistent. If we want to cut off the "welfare queen," we should cut off Archer Daniels Midland, too.

And I believe that the Cato Institute considers itself Libertarian

[Socrates]

[quote name='XIX' post='1423706' date='Nov 22 2007, 04:42 PM']Cool.
I guess what I'd like to know is, why does the government get to step in at some points and not others? You could argue that poverty is a bigger threat to the US than terror. It seems like your stance is more "republican" than it is "small government." That said, I tend to agree that making us share our toys is a bit too socialist for my taste.[/quote]
I think most people would agree that in a civilized society things like murder, rape, and theft should be illegal and subject to punishment under the law. The only alternative would be utter anarchy.
However, it does not follow from there that government should get involved in every aspect of a person's life. Even the most liberal (or ultraconservative) person would agree that there are some are some things that government should not meddle in.
Conservatism, in its true form, believes in limited government. The government exists to prosecute actual crime and keep the peace when necessary, but is out of its place telling citizens what they must do with their lawful property and lawfully earned money, or making restrictions our on our lawful property (such as gun control) in order to keep us "safe" from ourselves. Again, the government is not our "mommy."

As for the "poverty vs. terrorism" remark, it's a bit off-topic, but I'll just say that terrorist attacks murder people, while in the U.S. extremely few actually starve to death. And the evidence has been overwhelming that increasing federal money spent on "fighting poverty" has done nothing to end poverty in reality, so this comparison is quite bogus and irrelevent.
(It can be debated how much of a threat terrorism actually is to this country, and whether the "war on terror" is effective, but that's an entirely different topic, and really has nothing to do with what I was saying in this thread.)

[quote]Maybe I am missing something, but I don't really see the common thread among every conservative stance on an issue. GW has nothing to do with big or small government. Moral issues have to do with traditional values. National security seems disjointed from the other issues--I don't see how people who think that GW is a hoax would mostly tend to think tha abortion is wrong, and then naturally believe that we should not pull out of Iraq, and then think that we need lower taxes, and then say that we need to defend the second amendment. I don't see how any of those issues are related. Maybe if I had a better understanding of the term "conservative" I would get it, but as for right now, I don't really think that those are all a matter of "not changing" or of "keeping government small. Why are all of these conservative viewpoints all of the sudden?

Anyhoo, I have the exact same question about liberals. Or anybody who constantly takes the left or the right side.[/quote]
(Ok, you confused me there at first. Does "GW" stand for "global warming"? At first I thought you were talking about President G. W. Bush.)

It is apparent you have little knowlege of conservatives or conservatism.
First of all, conservatives are hardly a monolithic group. People calling themselves "conservative" often are in serious disagrement with one another on many issues. ("Neocons" vs. "paleocons," libertarians vs traditionalists, etc.) And even within these groups, different people believe different things.
For instance, some of the most adament critics of the Iraq war, war on terror, etc. are "paleocons" ("old-school" conservatives) such as Patrick Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and regard the expansionist "neocons" as not truly conservative at all.

American conservatism has traditionally been for preserving Constitutional limits on the federal government, and keeping within the philosphy of the Founding Fathers and their philsophy of limited government with checks and balances.
Our nation was founded in opposition to overbearing government and oppressive taxation, yet today our government taxes us far more oppressively than King George ever did.
Conservatives also believe in preserving traditional morality, and oppose radical secularism and using the courts to enforce immorality (as in Roe v. Wade and other rulings).
Conservatives are for preserving Constitutional rights, such as the second amendment, which promote freedom and keep government power in check.
A strong national defense has traditionally been a conservative principle, as if we are not able to stand up to foreign enemies, then all our American freedoms can be lost.

Many big government liberals use "global warming" as an excuse to promote oppressive government regulation of private individuals and businesses, and worse yet, regulation by international bureaucracies (as with Kyoto), so this issue often does boil down to big government vs. freedom, and is why many conservatives are skeptical of the global warming hysteria. And there are many positions in between saying global warming is a hoax, and saying it is an urgent threat to life on earth demanding radical government action.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1424043' date='Nov 23 2007, 06:17 PM']I agree that poverty will never be totally eradicated. There are many causes for poverty, some systemic, some personal. I guess what I *really* object to is the sense that if someone is poor it's because of some moral failing on his or her part, and that we shouldn't be *forced* to help that person through government programs. Yes, sometimes poverty *is* the result of moral failings on the part of an individual, and ultimately they will have to deal with that at an individual level. I wonder what it does to us, though, when we speak about our fellow human beings in this way.[/quote]
The basic problem is that the evidence has shown that increasing government spending on welfare does not actually help people out of poverty, but rather perpetuates it.
A 1995 Cato Institute study on the topic showed that in many states the tax-free welfare packages paid more than low paying jobs:
[quote]In 40 states, the study found, welfare paid more than an $8 per hour job; in 17 it paid more than a $10 per hour job; and in 6 states and the District of Columbia it paid more than a $12 per hour job.[/quote](Thomas E. Woods Jr., in [i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i], citing the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner)
[quote]In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states welfare pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor makes.[/quote](Michael Tanner, [i]The End of Welfare[/i])

[quote]It is revealing that when the Bureau of the Census asked the unemployed poor in 1990 why they were not working, only 4.1 percent gave as the reason the inability to find work. Likeise when Harvard economist Richard Freeman surveyed unemployed inner-city black youths in 1980, 70 percent of them told him they could easily find a job. By the end of the enormously prosperous 1980s, the fiure had risen to 75 percent. They simply refused to take the relatively low-paying jobs open tyo them, even though the interpersonal and other skills ones learns at such jobs have traditionally been the first step to proseperity for countless Americans.[/quote](Woods citing Tanner).

[url="http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=82&ra_id=6"]Here's some more recent studies and articles concerning the effects of welfare and welfare reform from the Cato Institute.[/url]

The bottom line is that federal bureaucracies do a poor job of ending poverty, and help perpetuate a cycle of dependency, illegitimacy, crime, and poverty.

Does handing the problem of poverty over to government bureacrats really help us look on our fellow human beings in a more charitable manner, or does it simply help us feel absolved of the duties of personal charity?


[quote]Criticize away, please do. From my perspective, the more criticism, the better. Goodness knows that the media isn't doing its job, and I love nothing better than watching some pol and, indeed, the whole system, getting justly skewered.

Anyway, my point is that when we talk about "them," we don't have to take any responsibility. Suddenly when it's "us," however, we actually have to do something.
Look, of course bureaucracies are inefficient and can be "gamed." It's just that it's not endemic, and is the exception rather than the rule. The bottom line is that welfare provides a subsistence-level existence at best. No one really *wants* the life that welfare provides.
That's fine, let's just be consistent. If we want to cut off the "welfare queen," we should cut off Archer Daniels Midland, too.

And I believe that the Cato Institute considers itself Libertarian [/quote]
As the sources I have cited above show, the problem of the welfare state is more serious than you make it to be. Welfare reforms have been a step in the right direction, but much of the problem still remains. (See [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1332"][i]Welfare Reform: Less Than Meets the Eye[/i], by Michael D. Tanner[/url], a Cato Institute policy report)
While nobody aspires to a life on welfare, the truth is that many inner-city people prefer to stay on welfare than take "cheap" jobs.
Nothing has shown that throwing more government money at the problem of poverty will end it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting article soc.
props for going beyond rhetoric. seriously.

the article advocated eradicating welfare. but i don't see how it got to the conclusion, given that it almost completely talked about reforming it, and pointing out the abuse.

give no interest loans, don't pay more than minimum wage, don't give disincentives to work etc etc. all good ideas everyone should espouse.

but, at the end of the article, it said that they'd not be able to get out of welfare until the economy improves. first of all, they had no basis in that other than speculation as if simply a way to make an assertion, to imply we need to cut taxes etc etc (though if you cut taxes and improve the economy, it's only going to expand to the limits of the new set up and the poor will again be with us) second of all, they are actually saying that welfare, or something, is needed if those people can't get out of the welfare until the economy improves.

the article actually showed that the people in welfare are hardluck cases. moms who have too many kids and no edecuation and job coaching won't work. the article apparently is concluding that the current reforms aren't doing anything, but hasn't shown proof, and assumes that charity would work better.

in reality, i think more studies need done that focus on the hard luck cases, where abuse doesn't seem prevalent.
and the limits or lack thereof of charity. otherwise, the article has no reason to assume that that'd work very well.

it's not a very coherent article when you consider what it's not addressing and not addressing that it's not addressing.

logic of the article. people are in hard luck cases. welfare reform is making improvements to prevent abuse. we have not menetioned whether those reforms have worked, but we hint that they're getting people to work and helping them in crisis and better than the old way of doing things. charity should take over.
how does the article reach the conclusion? your guess is as good as mine. given that the reforms haven't been critiqued other than an apparent unsubstantiated assumption that charity would be even better than the reforms.

Edited November 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

and you have things like WIC, where single moms get decent food for their kids. it's important program, to ensure the kid gets something good to eat. they can charge the mom, of course, as long as its not so much that it's pointless to ahve the program.
i doubt charities would care much about paying the monthly bill to ensure the kids get decent nutrition at their vulnerable stage of life as long as they're eating.
just an example of maybe good welfare, and to point out that it's most prob not so simple as to eradicate welfare.

btw, i haven't seen any articles showing that charity works when it's given the chance. maybe it's cause it never is given the chance i don't know. but from what i've seen in real life, i doubt it, at least some times.

i'm still waiting for soc to respond as to what to do with those cases where abuse doesn't occur. or when charity should and could do something but doesn't.
or to state that charity never fails, if that's his argument. or to admit he doesn't know, as i suspect to be the case but he won't admit. i'm sure he'll igore these points and not be humble in his arguments about the limits of charity. or say he doesn't care if the poor get no assistance from anyone if charity fails them when they could and should act but don't. (and resort to crime or something? to add another layer onto the complexity)
from ken, what to do if the assurance of government causes charities to skirt their responsibility.

Edited November 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Maybe I am missing something, but I don't really see the common thread among every conservative stance on an issue. GW has nothing to do with big or small government. Moral issues have to do with traditional values. National security seems disjointed from the other issues--I don't see how people who think that GW is a hoax would mostly tend to think tha abortion is wrong, and then naturally believe that we should not pull out of Iraq, and then think that we need lower taxes, and then say that we need to defend the second amendment. I don't see how any of those issues are related. Maybe if I had a better understanding of the term "conservative" I would get it, but as for right now, I don't really think that those are all a matter of "not changing" or of "keeping government small. Why are all of these conservative viewpoints all of the sudden?[/quote]

you're not missing anything.
it's because some people are status quo to their party line. when you come across someone who is all or nothing to conservatism or liberalism, you've met what i call a status quo.
no critical thinking other than enough to back up their party line.
sure, they may disagree on how to be conservative, for example, but it's always a conservative position with these people.

[quote]And the evidence has been overwhelming that increasing federal money spent on "fighting poverty" has done nothing to end poverty in reality, so this comparison is quite bogus and irrelevent.[/quote]
actually the article you're citing is mentioning all the new incentives that reformed welfare has given the people to work. the gov gave assistance when it was needed, and then inticed them to get off welfare.

also, just because people are not dying doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped out of their cycle of poverty. as long as you're not dying i doubt most charities would do a whole lot more to help you out too much.

Edited November 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c