Going to college? The US government wants to keep tabs on you...

You know what... they can have all the information about my college education they want....
when they pay for it.

Until they foot the entire bill for my degree, they can live with what I feel like giving them.
 
It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO. There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.
 
Why don't these people spend money on keeping track of terrorist?

I want to get married, or go to college the government should stay the fuck out.
 
[quote name='David85']Why don't these people spend money on keeping track of terrorist?[/quote]

Because keeping track of terrorists is dangerous. Keeping a big-brotherly eye on law-abiding citizens risks papercuts, at most.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO. There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.[/quote]

I wish we could just set up an experiment and run a country like you want us to. For one we'd have no way to even run our military, public schools, libraries, welfare etc. Without taxes there would be no way for the poor to improve themselves since they would never be able to afford schooling, or maybe some would get extremely poor quality, likely religious, charity schooling run by organizations such as the salvation army. You need something to help poor families, and if you believe that everyone is poor because it's their fault (I don't believe it's always their fault), you can't blame a 6 year old kid, who was born into that situation, who will have nothing even remotely resembling what your or I get, they would never get the tools they need to succeed, even if they did everything right. The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to. You always want to cut taxes, and now you're saying get rid of taxes, without taxes there is no way for the government to operate, and it would effectively collapse.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Canada is looking better and better, and everytime I see things like this I'm glad I decided to go to university there.[/quote]

University of Toronto?

I am deciding between that and Virginia Tech.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Canada is looking better and better, and everytime I see things like this I'm glad I decided to go to university there.[/quote]

University of Toronto?

I am deciding between that and Virginia Tech.[/quote]

No, york university. Much nicer school, more things to do. They even recently signed a deal with the toronto argonauts (cfl team that just won the championship) to build their stadium on their campus (they do have a professional tennis stadium already there), and have recently been stealing alot of contracts away from UOT. They're kind of new (early 60's), but rapidly improving. Forbes linkranks schulich business school (part of york) in the top 6 non u.s. business schools in the world (oxford got no. 4, mcgill no. 13, 2 other canadian schools made the top 18, UOT didn't), and another business mag (forget the name) ranked it among the top 6 in the world (up there with yale and stanford) for producing quality students. UOT has more prestige, but has gone downhill lately and, except for medical, I'd say york is equal or better in most departments in terms of actual quality. Basically, except for business where york (schulich) looks better, UOT looks better on a job app. UOT is also harder to get into. Basically, since I'm studying psychology (their psychology department is huge, largest in canada), it's a good fit too. As far as the actual school life, I'd much rather go to york. If you want business, definately go to York, and stay there. Also, you haven't seen a diverse school until you've seen uot or york, what we have in the u.s. just doesn't compare. Toronto being the most multicultural city in the world also helps with the diversity. Basically if you actually want to go to toronto (and not just for UOT) I'd suggest looking at york as well as UOT. Also, if you don't get into UOT, it would probably make it easier to transfer. There are different requirements for basic courses in canadian schools it seems (no required math, foreign language, or english at york, and you have to take 3 separate courses in certain fields but you have dozens of different courses, within those fields, to choose from) Here's their website if you want
http://www.yorku.ca/
 
Oh no! It's not like oh... they have your birth certificate and social security information and public schooling history and tax information already on hand.

Now of course, we're so behind in our payments to The Man (read: deficit), why isn't it a smart move to make sure students are working hard in schools where we pay them to be? Alot of loans for students are issued by the government (I've seen anywhere from 55-75%, not sure about the exact data). That or we could just stop helping kids get through college and do whatever the want. The key is making sure we're not wasting our money with people that won't work hard.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Oh no! It's not like oh... they have your birth certificate and social security information and public schooling history and tax information already on hand.

Now of course, we're so behind in our payments to The Man (read: deficit), why isn't it a smart move to make sure students are working hard in schools where we pay them to be? Alot of loans for students are issued by the government (I've seen anywhere from 55-75%, not sure about the exact data). That or we could just stop helping kids get through college and do whatever the want. The key is making sure we're not wasting our money with people that won't work hard.[/quote]

Yes. We have to monitor students' lives to make sure we're building a strong proletariat base. If they're not going to work hard for the state it's the gulag for them!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO. There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.[/quote]

Agreed. The federal government has no business being involved in local educational decisions.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO. There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.[/quote]

I wish we could just set up an experiment and run a country like you want us to. For one we'd have no way to even run our military, public schools, libraries, welfare etc. Without taxes there would be no way for the poor to improve themselves since they would never be able to afford schooling, or maybe some would get extremely poor quality, likely religious, charity schooling run by organizations such as the salvation army. You need something to help poor families, and if you believe that everyone is poor because it's their fault (I don't believe it's always their fault), you can't blame a 6 year old kid, who was born into that situation, who will have nothing even remotely resembling what your or I get, they would never get the tools they need to succeed, even if they did everything right. The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to. You always want to cut taxes, and now you're saying get rid of taxes, without taxes there is no way for the government to operate, and it would effectively collapse.[/quote]

Blah, blah,blah. Do you even hear yourself talking while you type or do you just spout off at the hand at random intervals? Wait, don't answer that, I don't want to know...

I said NOTHING about eliminating taxes. I mentioned eliminating the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION because of programs like the OP cited, and the fact that the Dep of Ed. does NOTHING of value for school districts except strongarm them into complying with ridiculous programs in order to get the money they're entitled to receive. Lets give them the money directly instead of giving a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington $100,000 jobs to sit around and come up with idiotic programs. Read my fucking OP again, please.

The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

It's really not the noobs who are lowering the intelligence level of the boards, it's obviouly the fault of private school education. My violin is playing in the background because your parents CAN afford the extra 10 grand to send your sub-simian ass to private school. Since this experiment has failed in your case so you should convince your parents to send you to regular public school, and adopt some poor children who are more worthy of an education than yourself. This is after you move to Canade, of course, which sounds like the perfect socialist utopia for you and yours.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO. There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.[/quote]

I wish we could just set up an experiment and run a country like you want us to. For one we'd have no way to even run our military, public schools, libraries, welfare etc. Without taxes there would be no way for the poor to improve themselves since they would never be able to afford schooling, or maybe some would get extremely poor quality, likely religious, charity schooling run by organizations such as the salvation army. You need something to help poor families, and if you believe that everyone is poor because it's their fault (I don't believe it's always their fault), you can't blame a 6 year old kid, who was born into that situation, who will have nothing even remotely resembling what your or I get, they would never get the tools they need to succeed, even if they did everything right. The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to. You always want to cut taxes, and now you're saying get rid of taxes, without taxes there is no way for the government to operate, and it would effectively collapse.[/quote]

Blah, blah,blah. Do you even hear yourself talking while you type or do you just spout off at the hand at random intervals? Wait, don't answer that, I don't want to know...

I said NOTHING about eliminating taxes. I mentioned eliminating the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION because of programs like the OP cited, and the fact that the Dep of Ed. does NOTHING of value for school districts except strongarm them into complying with ridiculous programs in order to get the money they're entitled to receive. Lets give them the money directly instead of giving a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington $100,000 jobs to sit around and come up with idiotic programs. Read my shaq-fuing OP again, please.

The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

It's really not the noobs who are lowering the intelligence level of the boards, it's obviouly the fault of private school education. My violin is playing in the background because your parents CAN afford the extra 10 grand to send your sub-simian ass to private school. Since this experiment has failed in your case so you should convince your parents to send you to regular public school, and adopt some poor children who are more worthy of an education than yourself. This is after you move to Canade, of course, which sounds like the perfect socialist utopia for you and yours.[/quote]

Uh-oh. Spelling errors. In a post ranking on someone else's education level...
 
The cheapest private school in my area was 4,000 a year (mine was 9,000), and I knew many families who never would have been able to afford the 4,000 even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

It's really not the noobs who are lowering the intelligence level of the boards, it's obviouly the fault of private school education. My violin is playing in the background because your parents CAN afford the extra 10 grand to send your sub-simian ass to private school. Since this experiment has failed in your case so you should convince your parents to send you to regular public school, and adopt some poor children who are more worthy of an education than yourself. This is after you move to Canade, of course, which sounds like the perfect socialist utopia for you and yours.[/quote]

Heh, and I'm the one spouting off. It's funny though, you look at your life and say everythings great, that's about as far as you seem to go. I'm middle class, I don't judge the success of social policy on it's effect on the middle class. The poor, who will be affected most by these policies, are the ones you don't care about. Though I didn't know canada was a socialist utopia, guess all those problems I see here don't really exist.
 
There is no reason we should be taxed by the federal government, then forced to comply with their demands in order to receive a portion of our money back. We should just stop letting them collect it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Whether you meant it that way or not, that did look you wanted to end taxes. That is all consistent with other comments I've read by you.
 
But never have I said ALL taxes should be eliminated along with the Federal Government. You seem to enjoy hyperbole for effect while glossing over the actual content.

Government is a necessary evil. The framers of the Constitution believed it, I believe it. I have more faith in poor people than in the government's ability to help anyone.

you look at your life and say everythings great, that's about as far as you seem to go. I'm middle class, I don't judge the success of social policy on it's effect on the middle class. The poor, who will be affected most by these policies, are the ones you don't care about.
Click to expand...

Everything is not flowery in the state of Denmark. And your middle class ass should judge the success of social policy on the poor. Look at it and tell me it's working. Giving men fish feeds them for a day. Don't presume that I do not care for those less fortunate than I. I respect them, you presume they are incapable of helping themselves which is an insult to their humanity, to say the least.

It's good to know there are guilty souls like you who help others because of your contempt for the poor as helpless invalids who need you to survive. It must feel good to be wanted.

(Disclaimer: spelling errors made in haste are not a reflection of educational level in this case. Spelling errors can be forgiven in the heat of battle as long as they are not combined with geek speek leet.)

So, fuck off jmcc :wink:
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But never have I said ALL taxes should be eliminated along with the Federal Government. You seem to enjoy hyperbole for effect while glossing over the actual content. [/quote]

That statement seems to imply that you wanted them eliminated, and I haven't seen you say anything (until now) that would have made me doubt that.



Everything is not flowery in the state of Denmark. And your middle class ass should judge the success of social policy on the poor. Look at it and tell me it's working. Giving men fish feeds them for a day. Don't presume that I do not care for those less fortunate than I. I respect them, you presume they are incapable of helping themselves which is an insult to their humanity, to say the least.

It's good to know there are guilty souls like you who help others because of your contempt for the poor as helpless invalids who need you to survive. It must feel good to be wanted.
Click to expand...

If you're going to complain when I assumed you wanted to stop all taxation, don't start going on about something I never even brought up. Personally I find the government of denmark and many of its people, especially lately, to be racist. Though I would like you to explain how the model of many western european nations is worse for the poor than the model of the u.s., or canada (which is somewhat better in that regard). Though I find it interesting that the eternal optimism of the old liberal has now been adopted by conservatives, that's not to say the policies have switched (though some have, conservatives do spend more than liberals now, and on worse things), but the reasoning has in many cases. Like it or not, it is much more difficult to improve yourself when poor as it currently is, even harder if you're a kid and that's all you have ever known. Removing these programs to help the poor will only make the situation worse, and no one has ever explained to me how depriving children of many of these benefits that you or I recieve (that a poor parent cannot afford) will help society in the long run.
 
Whatever happened to the thinking that Republicans like small government?

That probably went out the window like all the other bullshit lies Bush said.
 
[quote name='David85']Whatever happened to the thinking that Republicans like small government?

That probably went out the window like all the other bullshit lies Bush said.[/quote]

Gee what a difference from his father, old "read-my-lips".
 
[quote name='David85']Whatever happened to the thinking that Republicans like small government?

That probably went out the window like all the other bullshit lies Bush said.[/quote]

Actually, they pretty much gave up on it when they won both houses of Congress and decided the best way to ensure reelection was to spend, spend, spend and bribe people with their own tax money to vote for them. And it worked :!:
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan']But never have I said ALL taxes should be eliminated along with the Federal Government. You seem to enjoy hyperbole for effect while glossing over the actual content. [/quote]

That statement seems to imply that you wanted them eliminated, and I haven't seen you say anything (until now) that would have made me doubt that.



Everything is not flowery in the state of Denmark. And your middle class ass should judge the success of social policy on the poor. Look at it and tell me it's working. Giving men fish feeds them for a day. Don't presume that I do not care for those less fortunate than I. I respect them, you presume they are incapable of helping themselves which is an insult to their humanity, to say the least.

It's good to know there are guilty souls like you who help others because of your contempt for the poor as helpless invalids who need you to survive. It must feel good to be wanted.
Click to expand...

If you're going to complain when I assumed you wanted to stop all taxation, don't start going on about something I never even brought up. Personally I find the government of denmark and many of its people, especially lately, to be racist. Though I would like you to explain how the model of many western european nations is worse for the poor than the model of the u.s., or canada (which is somewhat better in that regard). Though I find it interesting that the eternal optimism of the old liberal has now been adopted by conservatives, that's not to say the policies have switched (though some have, conservatives do spend more than liberals now, and on worse things), but the reasoning has in many cases. Like it or not, it is much more difficult to improve yourself when poor as it currently is, even harder if you're a kid and that's all you have ever known. Removing these programs to help the poor will only make the situation worse, and no one has ever explained to me how depriving children of many of these benefits that you or I recieve (that a poor parent cannot afford) will help society in the long run.[/quote]

The denmark comment was a Shakespearian reference. Don't they read any in highschool anymore? Regardless, you still place your faith in the government to help poor people instead of his fellow man? I ask again, why? They are incapable of eliminating the problem or even reducing it. It continues to grow. Have more faith in churches, temples, mosques, and the Salvation army than your favorite bureaucrat. Perhaps if the government wasn't so confiscatory in collection, we would all consider being more generous to charities. Perhaps if we did't give up more than a thrid of our incomes, we could have more time to volunteer. Perhaps if there were't a nameless, faceless money machine like Uncle Sam, there might be some incentive to get one's self off the government dole. Welfare programs are the easy way out for lazy people who would rather have the government do their dirty work for them. Compassion by proxy, isn't.
 
I wonder why you find it necessary to begn every response with an insult, doesn't seem to do much besides boost your own ego. Anyway, my fellow man will do more to help him/herself than anyone else. There needs to be some formal institution that the poor can go to for help, health care, schooling etc. A high school run by a charity would be worse than the public schools we have now, and by segregating the middle and upper classes from the poor it will only widen the divide. And faith in religious institutions? That will work real well in a supposedly secular society. The only one of the groups you mentioned that would even look at an atheist is the salvation army, but they are hardly a model due to the fact that they practice religious discrimination among their employees. And in some situations relying on religious organizations can be devastating, such as in helping aid's victims. Abstinance, the very solution those organizations preach, does not work because it cannot win against human nature. Obviously, while aids is a concern here, it is THE concern in countries in places such as africa. Though I don't have a problem with secular charities, or religious charities who help everyone without attempting to win converts. The standard of living in europe has increased since the institution of the welfare state, charities are good with helping provide food, clothing etc. to the poor (and are even more important in places like sudan where there is no government aid), but they are not sufficient, and would be even worse off if they recieved no government aid.

What you're suggesting is the removal of these social services and replacing them with charities, now in rich countries this has not been done (obviously you can see what happens in poor countries), but you would be betting the entire poor population on the hope that your belief holds true, that charities can provide better services to the poor, regardless of race/religion/ethnicity, services that would exceed what is currently in place for allowing the poor to clime to the middle class. Besides your complaints about the government, you have suggested no reason why the charities are better, just that the government does a poor job. I'm not happy with much of what the government does, they do too little, and what they do is often not what I would want them to do (ie. increasing spending to educate students about, not safe sex, but abstinence). But as for my common man, it never ceases to amaze me that now matter how little credit I give them, no matter how little confidence I have in them, I always overestimate them. That's not so much the individuals, but the species as a whole.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO.[/quote]

I try to stay out of politics as much as possible, but I actually agree with them doing that. That was more a safety thing.

This = The sucks.
 
[quote name='SS4Brolly'][quote name='bmulligan']It's just like 20 years ago when the Feds withheld highway improvement $$ unless states complied with the 55 mph speed limit. Another reason to get rid of the Federal department of education, IMO.[/quote]

I try to stay out of politics as much as possible, but I actually agree with them doing that. That was more a safety thing.[/quote]

Nope, it was in response to the oil embargo as it was found that as you go over 55mph fuel economy decreased. Safety has nothing to do with it. In fact, the interstate highway system is designed to be safe at somewhere around 75-90mph IIRC (that's why the turns can't be too tight, etc.).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning']I wonder why you find it necessary to begn every response with an insult, doesn't seem to do much besides boost your own ego. [/quote]

Sorry if you were offended. It was not meant as an insult, more of a commentarty on the public school system. You should really read some Shakspeare, though.

There needs to be some formal institution that the poor can go to for help, health care, schooling etc. A high school run by a charity would be worse than the public schools we have now, and by segregating the middle and upper classes from the poor it will only widen the divide.
Click to expand...

No,no,no. You are still confusing the issue. No one said anything about eliminating all government from all aspects of life. Schools should be run by local governments, not held hostage by Federal and State governments. Other industries have advisory boards, like the American medical association, the ESRB, and other professional and industrial policing groups that discuss ideas and help the direction of their industries. We don't need the Federal and State government witholding funds from our schools when ever they feel like it.

And faith in religious institutions? That will work real well in a supposedly secular society. The only one of the groups you mentioned that would even look at an atheist is the salvation army, but they are hardly a model due to the fact that they practice religious discrimination among their employees.
Click to expand...

What country are you living in? Athiets are a very small minority here in a country that overwhelmingly believes in god and activly practices a religion of some sort. All of your other tangential musings about africa and aids, and europe escape me. If you're that concerned about africa, join the peace corp.

Besides your complaints about the government, you have suggested no reason why the charities are better, just that the government does a poor job.
Click to expand...

Charities are better. Getting government welfare is like being treated as cattle. There is a nameless, faceless donor, who give you a check and some food stamps and tells you to come back next week for another ration. There is no personal involvement or commitment except to remain poor so that you can continue to receive assistance. Private charities off so much more. Asking for a hand out from the government is like going to an atm, if you punch in the right code, money spits out. Face to face charity is more personal, and demands a deeper level of commitment by BOTH parties involved.

Ask youself this question, if you borrored money from a government program or from a friend, which would you feel obliged to pay back? Obviously you'd want to pay back the friend right? If you were to move in with a friend to get yourself back on your feet, the friend might kick you out unless you actually start doing something to improve yourself. The government will just keep giving, and has no feedback relationship to coerce you into improving your condition.

I'm not happy with much of what the government does, they do too little
Click to expand...

I believe they try to do too much, and have no business trying.

But as for my common man, it never ceases to amaze me that now matter how little credit I give them, no matter how little confidence I have in them, I always overestimate them. That's not so much the individuals, but the species as a whole.
Click to expand...

This is the difference between you and me. I have faith in my fellow man. We are not all animals. I have faith in one's ability to better himself and live with self-respect. You seem to think this is impossible, and that the poor are incapable of it. I disagree.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

Sorry if you were offended. It was not meant as an insult, more of a commentarty on the public school system. You should really read some Shakspeare, though. [/quote]

You take yourself too seriously, I simply find it childish. And you really have no knowledge of what I have, haven't read.

No,no,no. You are still confusing the issue. No one said anything about eliminating all government from all aspects of life. Schools should be run by local governments, not held hostage by Federal and State governments. Other industries have advisory boards, like the American medical association, the ESRB, and other professional and industrial policing groups that discuss ideas and help the direction of their industries. We don't need the Federal and State government witholding funds from our schools when ever they feel like it.
Click to expand...

I'm simply going by what you have said, I'm not confusing the issue if you have failed to elaborate on it. The federal and state should withold money in some cases, such as when schools are breaking laws.

What country are you living in? Athiets are a very small minority here in a country that overwhelmingly believes in god and activly practices a religion of some sort. All of your other tangential musings about africa and aids, and europe escape me. If you're that concerned about africa, join the peace corp.
Click to expand...

Well, religious discrimination by groups such as the salvation army would simply include non christians. But, our charities and policies affect other countries, and I find africas situation more dire and therefore more important than ours, since simple shifts in policy can kill thousands. But, if you count atheists, agnostics and non religious/secular it comes to around 15% of the population. I'm not denying the majority are christian, but the statistics I've seen suggest only 40-50 regularly attend church, that doesn't exactly support the statement they are overwhelmingly active in their religion. The u.s. is a very religious nation, too much in my mind, but you seem to overstate that. Discrimination is discrimination, no organization that practices discrimination should recieve government aid.

Besides your complaints about the government, you have suggested no reason why the charities are better, just that the government does a poor job.
Click to expand...

Charities are better. Getting government welfare is like being treated as cattle. There is a nameless, faceless donor, who give you a check and some food stamps and tells you to come back next week for another ration. There is no personal involvement or commitment except to remain poor so that you can continue to receive assistance. Private charities off so much more. Asking for a hand out from the government is like going to an atm, if you punch in the right code, money spits out. Face to face charity is more personal, and demands a deeper level of commitment by BOTH parties involved.
Click to expand...

I don't see how getting college aid through government, housing assistance through government, food assistance etc. is more demeaning than having to personally go to an individual for these things. I also would like you to find me a charity that could even begin to find that kind of money, they are often stretched as it is.

This is the difference between you and me. I have faith in my fellow man. We are not all animals. I have faith in one's ability to better himself and live with self-respect. You seem to think this is impossible, and that the poor are incapable of it. I disagree.
Click to expand...

You keep doing the very thing you accuse me of. I never said it is impossible, but very difficult. To expect a poor child, without the advantages of the middle class, and with the obvious social stigma of having to personally go to charities to get aid (instead of quietly through the government), I fail to see why I should expect that child to perform on an equal footing with everyone else. Assistance is needed to help them get to where they, hopefully, can function equally and independently as those who were born with more. I don't see how personally going down to a face to face charity is going to give me more self respect than going to the government, and I've seen many charities, they treat people as cattle as well except they put a smile on their face, sometimes. My comment expanded a bit beyond this topic, but you seem to think that no matter how, where a person was raised, what social and economic situation they grew up in, that they should, and indeed do when pushed, function equally with those who have recieved more. I still want to know of a society that used anything even closely resembling your model, and as a result, the poor improved.
 
You take yourself too seriously, I simply find it childish. And you really have no knowledge of what I have, haven't read.
Click to expand...

No, I'm the one with the sense of humor, you are the one who takes himself too seriously. I may not know the extent of your library, but obviously Hamlet's been checked out.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The federal and state should withold money in some cases, such as when schools are breaking laws.[/quote]

So, the government should deny these helpless poor people because a local entity is going against a suggested federal policy? That's discrimination, isn't it? Isn't that the very thing you clammor against? They don't have to break laws to be denied money. In fact, they could reject a federal policy for the exact opposite reason- the federal policy could be WRONG ! These local entities behavior is coerced into compliance because of ther dependancy on aid in the first place.

Well, religious discrimination by groups such as the salvation army would simply include non christians. But, our charities and policies affect other countries, and I find africas situation more dire and therefore more important than ours, since simple shifts in policy can kill thousands.
Click to expand...

Then I will repeat myself: YOU should go to Africa. Don't expect others to be forced into donating to your perceived causes' importance.

...but you seem to think that no matter how, where a person was raised, what social and economic situation they grew up in, that they should, and indeed do when pushed, function equally with those who have recieved more.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about that? No one expects everyone to perform equally. Yet you seem to think that everyone deserves equally. Further, you believe everyone CAN function equally if we give them more so that everyone has equally. From each his ability, to each his need, right? Isn't that your motivating principle? Do you know what this really means?


I still want to know of a society that used anything even closely resembling your model, and as a result, the poor improved.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to give you a model? YOUR model is the one that doesn't work. You haven't proven otherwise. It doesn't work here, it's not working for the Canadians, it didn't work for the soviets, and it's not working for Europe and the other 3d world nations who are already bankrupt or going to be. Apparently, throwing money at people doesn't solve anything except create more people with their hands out waiting for their share.

I never said it is impossible, but very difficult. To expect a poor child, without the advantages of the middle class, and with the obvious social stigma of having to personally go to charities to get aid (instead of quietly through the government)
Click to expand...

You seem to have some deep seeded guilt of your inherrited position in life. That's great if you want to help other people less fortunate than yourself. Just stop making excuses like "negative social stigma" and other poppycock as to the reason for there being poor people. Life sucks, it's unfair sometimes, has 'negative stigmas' , and no matter what you do you cannot account for and neutralize everything bad that happens to people. The beautiful thing about human beings is that we can adapt, overcome, and become more than what is expected of us. And we don't require your help to do it. Being poor is a label people like you create and attactch a 'negative stigma'. Many poor people are proud of what they DO have, are indebted to no one for their lives, and can keep their heads lifted in equality with your own. Until you degrade their position and label them as disinfranchised, or underprivlidged.
 
So, the government should deny these helpless poor people because a local entity is going against a suggested federal policy? That's discrimination, isn't it? Isn't that the very thing you clammor against? They don't have to break laws to be denied money. In fact, they could reject a federal policy for the exact opposite reason- the federal policy could be WRONG ! These local entities behavior is coerced into compliance because of ther dependancy on aid in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, the ones that do not practice discrimination should get that money, the other should be left to survive or fall on their own, and if fall the donations will then be directed (since if you want to donate to the poor, you now have to give it to someone else) towards other non discriminatory charities. Also, directing people to churchs will have a social cost, a negative impact on freedom, at least in how I see it. More people relying on churchs will mean more opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, sex education and contraception (ie. more sexually transmitted diseases), heavier integration of religion and government. Whether you care about those things or not, many do.

Then I will repeat myself: YOU should go to Africa. Don't expect others to be forced into donating to your perceived causes' importance.
Click to expand...

Funny, I only brought up africa since OUR policies affect them. I wasn't asking you to do anything me. We already give them aid, our charities go over there, I was complaining about what we require or do (charities often attempt to convert, government aid refusing to give money to those who teach about contraception instead of abstinence). Though many of these policies that harm those countries we force on our own, such as removing funding for sex ed that teaches about safe sex. We have high school students who believe condoms offer little to no protection against STD's, classes that teach everything that can go wrong with condoms (usually due to improper use). This is not a good thing when we are dealing with diseases such as AIDS. Granted this is outside the conversation, but the more power religious charities have, the more conservative our social policy will be. But also, to suggest that aids is only MY "percieved" cause, a disease which in some countries affects over 20% of the population (and eventually will kill them), really goes to prove my point, that you don't give a damn about anything outside your own little world. Maybe you do care about what goes on in a country of 270 million out of 6 billion worldwide, but I'm not sure, it seems like your only concern is what affects you personally.

Why should I have to give you a model? YOUR model is the one that doesn't work. You haven't proven otherwise. It doesn't work here, it's not working for the Canadians, it didn't work for the soviets, and it's not working for Europe and the other 3d world nations who are already bankrupt or going to be. Apparently, throwing money at people doesn't solve anything except create more people with their hands out waiting for their share.
Click to expand...

You complain when the government tries to direct the money. It's not just throwing money at them if you provide housing, food and education assistance. Also, I didn't realize there was a higher percentage of people in poverty now than before welfare programs began, as you've suggested, this seems to run counter to the statistics I've seen. Most of those 3rd world nations do not have these welfare programs, most could not afford them if they wanted to anyway. The countries where people are at their most destitute are generally the ones with corrupt governments and/or ones that lack basic infrastructure. You're also suggesting a different system than what we use now. You're suggesting our system doesn't work, that's not something I agree with. Usually when you suggest replacing an old model with a new one people expect you to show them where it has worked, or why their system is in such disarray they should gamble on adopting an entirely new one. The system in place in much of the west is suffering from some problems, one is as the baby boomer generation ages and the younger generations has less children, there is an imbalance that is making it harder and harder to support some of these services. There are simply more older non working age people compared to working age people than there were before. Another is that it isn't run effectively, that is a problem with government though, not the actual system.




You seem to have some deep seeded guilt of your inherrited position in life. That's great if you want to help other people less fortunate than yourself. Just stop making excuses like "negative social stigma" and other poppycock as to the reason for there being poor people. Life sucks, it's unfair sometimes, has 'negative stigmas' , and no matter what you do you cannot account for and neutralize everything bad that happens to people. The beautiful thing about human beings is that we can adapt, overcome, and become more than what is expected of us. And we don't require your help to do it. Being poor is a label people like you create and attactch a 'negative stigma'. Many poor people are proud of what they DO have, are indebted to no one for their lives, and can keep their heads lifted in equality with your own. Until you degrade their position and label them as disinfranchised, or underprivlidged.
Click to expand...

I simply want to provide services, to those who want them, so that people will be able to improve their lives. There isn't much movement between economic classes as it is, removing government aid in these areas and replacing it with charities, many of which are stretched thin already, will only make it worse. And poor can have a negative stigma, the idea that the poor are only poor because it's their own fault seems to create that stigma more than anything else. To me though, if someone can barely afford, or can't afford, housing they're poor. If someone can't feed their kids breakfast in the morning, they're poor. If you can't afford heat in the winter, you're poor. Social stigma? Perhaps. But it seems like simple reality to me.
 
But also, to suggest that aids is only MY "percieved" cause, a disease which in some countries affects over 20% of the population (and eventually will kill them), really goes to prove my point, that you don't give a damn about anything outside your own little world. Maybe you do care about what goes on in a country of 270 million out of 6 billion worldwide, but I'm not sure, it seems like your only concern is what affects you personally.
Click to expand...

You are really going to hate this one, but, it seems to me that if these peiople really cared about their own survival, they would stop having indiscriminant sex with each other. Why should the whole world give a damn about people who don't choose to live with the consequences of their actions. Now before you start giving me the raping and unprovoked attack scenarios and other various vignettes let me just say that such an epidemic cannot solely be caused by non-consenting people. These people are irresponsible and no amount of "aid" is going to get them to stop such behavior. Sometimes people just have to learn for themselves that certain behaviours are going to KILL them.


Which brings me to your earlier statement. When reversed, it paints an errie picture:
directing people to churchs will have a social cost, a negative impact on freedom, at least in how I see it. More people relying on churchs will mean more opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, sex education and contraception
Click to expand...

So directing people to government instead of churches will cost society in the following ways:
They will have more freedom to live without consequences, They will be more insensitive to killing or aborting human life, and more prone to deviant and hazardous sexual behavior while using contraception which is not 100% effective and run the risk of having more unwanted babies and aborted fetuses.

You want more freedom, yet there is a COST to that freedom. And you would rather have all of us pay that price instead of those that choose to excercise it. The cost of their freedom is the claim on MY freedom. My freedom is based on My life, my property, and my money. You would have anyone make a claim on it based on their right to do whatever the hell they want to. Sorry, it's not supposed to work like that. Freedom also means the freedom to fail, the freedom to feel pain, and the freedom to live with the effects of your own behavior and not seek repayment from everyone else.

You forget that everything starts with "you own little world". This is the basis of our society. We OWN our freedom and it should only be taken from us if we have transgressed on the freedom of someone else. You want to help your AIDS people and your POOR people at MY expense and that's wrong.

You're suggesting our system doesn't work, that's not something I agree with. Usually when you suggest replacing an old model with a new one people expect you to show them where it has worked, or why their system is in such disarray they should gamble on adopting an entirely new one.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting, look around you. The whole reason for this argument is the fact that YOUR system of helping people has failed. If it were working we would be arguing, would we?

In addition, how can you show a model of a system that has never been tried before? They said the same thing to the founding fathers: Self-rule? You're crazy !! It's never been done before, it'll never work. Guess what? We're here 230 years later with the freedom to argue crap like this on a freaking electronic message board !!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
You are really going to hate this one, but, it seems to me that if these peiople really cared about their own survival, they would stop having indiscriminant sex with each other. Why should the whole world give a damn about people who don't choose to live with the consequences of their actions. Now before you start giving me the raping and unprovoked attack scenarios and other various vignettes let me just say that such an epidemic cannot solely be caused by non-consenting people. These people are irresponsible and no amount of "aid" is going to get them to stop such behavior. Sometimes people just have to learn for themselves that certain behaviours are going to KILL them. [/quote]

It isn't indiscriminate sex, we have indiscriminate sex. It is unprotected sex that's the problem. Education and empowerment of women can help this. Some in africa believe, being told by the church, that condoms actually cause aids (the disease is put into the condom). Many don't even know how you get aids. Groups that our government funds are not even allowed to instruct them to use condoms, or they risk losing their funding (and having to close down). And aids is more common in poorer, rural areas, where women have less control over their body. Women often don't have the authority to tell a man (such as her husband) to put on a condom or resist sex even if she wanted to (or could get condoms), this is in normal circumstances (not classified as rape by them, though it may be by us). You aren't going to win against human nature, safe sex is the key.



So directing people to government instead of churches will cost society in the following ways:
They will have more freedom to live without consequences, They will be more insensitive to killing or aborting human life, and more prone to deviant and hazardous sexual behavior while using contraception which is not 100% effective and run the risk of having more unwanted babies and aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...

Right now you have the freedom to go to a charity or the government (you want to remove the freedom to go to the government), you have the freedom to oppose (which in turn removes the freedom for a woman to control her body) or support abortion. The contraception argument is ridiculous, do you honestly believe there is a chance in hell that people will stop having sex outside marriage? It won't happen, condoms are highly effective, especially if used properly (more often than not when something goes wrong it's because they were put on wrong), and the only realistic solution. By not teaching them about contraception you will create more babies, you will create more std's, that is true no matter what country you go to. In sweden for example, the kids are more sexually active than in the u.s., but have less std's, and less pregnancies. The government even publishes a magazine designed for teenagers teaching sex ed and safe sex. If you want to teach them about both then go right ahead. Humans are animals, we are not something biologically separate from nature, we are sexual beings. If you want to deal with some unattainable ideal fine, but you are playing with peoples lives for a goal you will never accomplish.

You want more freedom, yet there is a COST to that freedom. And you would rather have all of us pay that price instead of those that choose to excercise it. The cost of their freedom is the claim on MY freedom. My freedom is based on My life, my property, and my money. You would have anyone make a claim on it based on their right to do whatever the hell they want to. Sorry, it's not supposed to work like that. Freedom also means the freedom to fail, the freedom to feel pain, and the freedom to live with the effects of your own behavior and not seek repayment from everyone else.
Click to expand...

Yes, but any child who has grown up poor, in a ghetto etc. is not living with the effects of their own behavior, even if you argue that all poor are poor because it's their fault, they would then be suffering for someone elses behavior. Wealthy people believe that they give their children more advantages to succeed, private schools, etc. But when people without the advantages fail to perform as the same as wealthier children, they often argue that their is no reason for that other than their own incompetence. It's often as if when given those advantages help greatly, but there is no difference when those advantages aren't there. It doesn't make sense.

You forget that everything starts with "you own little world". This is the basis of our society. We OWN our freedom and it should only be taken from us if we have transgressed on the freedom of someone else. You want to help your AIDS people and your POOR people at MY expense and that's wrong.
Click to expand...

Our society is not a truly free society, those do not exist, and for good reason. I'm not very concerned with economic freedom (within reason of course, a modern western european democracy is within reason), social freedom is what is really important. I don't like giving money to a giant military, I hate that as much as you hate helping people, but I know it is within the governments right. But with your argument (whether you take it that far or not) taxation is wrong because it takes away some economic freedoms, the freedom to keep all the money you have earned. Social freedom is far more important in my mind. Taking away a little of your tax money or letting a family live on the street, your tax money vs teaching people how to stay safe, if I have to make those decisions, I don't give a damn about your tax dollars. So what? You have to buy a toyata instead of a lexus, I don't care. No just society should.

I'm not suggesting, look around you. The whole reason for this argument is the fact that YOUR system of helping people has failed. If it were working we would be arguing, would we?

In addition, how can you show a model of a system that has never been tried before? They said the same thing to the founding fathers: Self-rule? You're crazy !! It's never been done before, it'll never work. Guess what? We're here 230 years later with the freedom to argue crap like this on a freaking electronic message board !!
Click to expand...

Well, democracy is not an american invention, as you seem to be suggesting. And the idea that we are only discussing it because the system has failed, look around you, we discuss foreign policy all the time. Countries may have completely opposite foreign policies, yet debate over whether they are succesful does not mean they have failed, it is simply debate over whether it has failed, needs some work but on the right track (my argument) , or is fine as is. And I think your policy would be a disaster, and I don't believe our system has failed, so what would make me want to even think of supporting a radical (I'm not using that in a negative sense, but compared to what is normally suggested and what is actually done, that is what it is) system such as that. Because we are arguing over whether the system has failed, that means the system has failed. That's your argument, think about that, does that make sense?
 
Our society is not a truly free society, those do not exist, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Your positions all make perfect sense to me now. You don't believe that people can be responsible for their own freedom.

I don't like giving money to a giant military
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, because you do not understand that this is the PRIMARY function of government.

I hate that as much as you hate helping people
Click to expand...

You presume too much. I derive pleasure from helping people. What I hate is other people telling me I MUST help certain people. I hate people insisting we send money to Africa to put bandaids on mortal wounds. I hate that you have the audacity to demand that I relinquish MY freedom to champion causes YOU deem worthy of a claim on MY life. It's unfortunate that you cannot realize the tyrannous nature of your philosophy. That freedom should only exist if it is used to perform acts of kindness that YOU judge necessary.

But with your argument (whether you take it that far or not) taxation is wrong because it takes away some economic freedoms, the freedom to keep all the money you have earned.
Click to expand...

Stop beating this dead horse. I have NEVER said all taxation is wrong. It's very nature is confiscatory, yes, but also necessary to protect our freedoms. Government is instituted among men for this purpose. A necessary evil, to be reigned and kept in check from usurping too much power, to be curtailed by a document called the Constitution.

Taking away a little of your tax money or letting a family live on the street, your tax money vs teaching people how to stay safe, if I have to make those decisions, I don't give a damn about your tax dollars. So what? You have to buy a toyata instead of a lexus, I don't care. No just society should.
Click to expand...

This pretty much says it all, we don't need to continue. If you choose to, I will not be as nice as I have been being. The above statement of yours is a culmination of your belief system, telling me just about everything I need to know. It is the most insulting, reprehensible, and evil thing a person can say, much less truly believe. And it's practicality amounts to nothing less than slavery.
 
Most evil things to say:
3. Blacks should be enslaved
2. We need a final solution for the jewish question.

And the no 1. most evil thing to say is..............
..........
..........
1. You have to buy a toyota instead of a lexus?

Honestly, this is probably the closest to agreeing to disagree as we're going to get. Neither one of us can stand the others view of government and as interesting as some debates can be, this one hasn't been interesting for a while.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most evil things to say:
3. Blacks should be enslaved
2. We need a final solution for the jewish question.

And the no 1. most evil thing to say is..............
..........
..........
1. You have to buy a toyota instead of a lexus?

Honestly, this is probably the closest to agreeing to disagree as we're going to get. Neither one of us can stand the others view of government and as interesting as some debates can be, this one hasn't been interesting for a while.[/quote]

You're right, let's just put it in writing.

You believe in stealing the private property of individuals to redistribute to your chosen people. However noble in intent, this is the same thing Hitler did to the Jews before he chose to exterminate them.

You believe one group of people has a claim on another's life. That your 'donors' are beholdent to their masters' unconditionally and exist for the purpose of the masters' well being. However noble your perceived intent to help people, this is invouluntary servitude and tantamount to enslavement.

I believe governments' primary purpose is to protect one's individual rights from enemies foreign and domestic, and mediate disputes between individuals based on the rule of law. You believe governments' primary function is to help people by the redistribution of wealth.

You do understand what your type of government is called, right ?
 
Whoop. That's Godwin's Law invoked there. Sorry, Bmulligan, you lose this argument automatically.
 
Where did I say steal private property to redistribute wealth? I simply said tax people, I think Communism involves a little more than that. Whatever though, call it what you want. I do agree with what you said the, the governments role is to protect individual rights, mediate disputes, and protect (which our army is well beyond) its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. One of the main differences is what you and I call rights, since you view taxation as infringing on those rights. Though, in addition to that I also believe a governments duty is to help those who need it within the country, they are their citizens after all. And responsible, wealthy (key word) governments should also help those in need, when possible, outside the country, or at least not make things worse.
 
Where did I say steal private property to redistribute wealth? I simply said tax people, I think Communism involves a little more than that.
Click to expand...

No, communism doesn't require more than that. It's all a matter of degree. Taxation istelf is not wrong, but excessive taxation is stealing. and giving money from people who earn it to people who don't earn it amounts to stealing. Just like musicians who create music for sale deserve to be compensated for their product and not have it stolen from them and distributed for free, why should money be any different than music?

Your system of redistribution all depends on who is doing the judging. Who decides which family is needy and which is not? Should we all be given internet access as a right? A new car ? 3 meals a day and a roof for every citizen? Would you trust ME to do the judging? Obviouly not, as I would not trust YOU to be the judge. Then how an earth can you trust ANYONE to be that judge ?

There is no objective standard to base necessity. Poverty levels are arbitrary, they depend on who judges where the line should be. And this is my point about your communist philosophy: Once you establish the principle that no one is entitled to what they make or only a portion of it, moving that line from portion to none is not dificult. When you live in a Democracy of majority rule, it only takes a simple majority to erase the rights of the minority.
 
When you live in a Democracy of majority rule, it only takes a simple majority to erase the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

Where was your concern when it was religious minorities earlier in the post?

Your system of redistribution all depends on who is doing the judging. Who decides which family is needy and which is not?.....Would you trust ME to do the judging?
Click to expand...
God I hope not. I can just see it, a little kid with bones showing and a bloated stomach begging for food, while you're sitting there wondering "Now, is this child really poor? How can anyone really judge whether someone is poor?"

Should we all be given internet access as a right? A new car ? 3 meals a day and a roof for every citizen? Would you trust ME to do the judging?
Click to expand...
No, no (first two are absurd, and a new car for everyone would practically destroy the environment anyway), yes (I only eat twice a day because that's as hungry as I get, but yes food is a basic human right), yes (some form of shelter anyway, community shelters at least)


Poverty levels are arbitrary, they depend on who judges where the line should be.
Click to expand...

This is a joke, if someone cannot afford to feed their child breakfast in the morning how can you say they're not living in poverty? Let's be realistic. This is getting to the point of "it depends what the definition of is is".

And this is my point about your communist philosophy: Once you establish the principle that no one is entitled to what they make or only a portion of it, moving that line from portion to none is not dificult.
Click to expand...

You're insane. Almost every government on earth manages this balance, taking out taxes from someones paycheck and letting them keept the rest. With few modern exceptions (north korea is about all I can think of) that line is never pushed from portion to none. What western country does not fit your definition of communism? Slippery slope logic usually doesn't prove true, and in this case it has proven not to be true. And besides, if you want to call me a communist go ahead, maybe when I die they should just cremate me with a red flag.

I hate the fact that this topic was almost dead, and then I had to respond.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan']

Your system of redistribution all depends on who is doing the judging. Who decides which family is needy and which is not?.....Would you trust ME to do the judging? [/quote]
God I hope not. I can just see it, a little kid with bones showing and a bloated stomach begging for food, while you're sitting there wondering "Now, is this child really poor? How can anyone really judge whether someone is poor?"

[/quote]


Of course you would omit the last portion of my statement for effect. Who are YOU to judge which person is the most needy? By whose authority? By what standard? Nobody, none, and none.

The point is that if you choose to help someone, good. Forcing others by eliminating their choice is denying them freedom. So, you would deny people their right to life to help people you determine are needy. I'm glad you are the judge that all decisions will be based. When we live in the alonzo dictatorship, I'll be sure to find another country for citizenship.

You keep reiterating your opinion that I don't help people, that I am cruel or heartless. YOU DON'T KNOW ME. You cannot presume I don't offer myself as charity, I do. But I do it because it is MY choice, not YOURS.

Something tells me your end of charity has never gone beyond leaving your old clothes by the Salvation army door. I'd bet money you have never: brought homeless people into your own home, driven battered women from the hospital to a shelter, handed out food and pillows at the local homeless shelter, donated money or time to an adopt-a-family program in your local school district, YMCA, big brother program, march of dimes, volunteers of america, purple heart, 1st methodist church soup kitchen. I have.

I don't have to wear my charity on my sleeve, it's MY business. I don't have to prove to you or anyone else my motivations, my benefits, or the amounts of my gifts, it's private. That's another difference between you and me: you want to wear it as a badge.

Your guilt is showing through your desire to force other people to commit their life to the needy without you having to lift a finger. Again, I say you favor charity by proxy. But I would expect no less from someone who has no faith in human beings such as yourself (your words, paraphrased).
 
Evidently the Government also seems to want to keep tabs on underachievers born with silver spoons in their mouths.
 
Of course you would omit the last portion of my statement for effect. Who are YOU to judge which person is the most needy? By whose authority? By what standard? Nobody, none, and none.

The point is that if you choose to help someone, good. Forcing others by eliminating their choice is denying them freedom. So, you would deny people their right to life to help people you determine are needy. I'm glad you are the judge that all decisions will be based. When we live in the alonzo dictatorship, I'll be sure to find another country for citizenship.
Click to expand...

I didn't omit anything I felt was important, I was making the point that it was absurd to say there's no way to judge a person who is truly poor. This is done all the time, and there are those who are obviously poor (can't feed kids normal meals, can't pay heat, rent etc.), those who obviously have money (you or me), but you always have to draw a line somewhere. The age of consent for example, a 5 year old obviously can't consent, a 30 year old obviously can, but a 16 year old? It's not a clear line. And you don't seem to have a problem with our taxes going to the military. What happened to MY freedom? Sure, I'll pay something, we need a functional military for defense and peacekeeping, but I don't want to pay for a military of our size. Shouldn't I only have to help the military if I choose? Who is to judge how large of a military we need? You say we need a military to defend ourselves, I say we need social programs to help our poor, that having only charity (or only a private military) would be disasterous. It's a basic belief of how the government should be run. There's no other argument to be made, you don't think peoples tax dollars should be forced to help poorer members of society, there is no argument to be made, thats as basic as it's going to get. Though I didn't understand this line "So, you would deny people their right to life to help people you determine are needy." Who am I denying the right to life? More people will survive because of social programs, less people will freeze to death sleeping on benches in the winter. Whose life am I denying? And "I" determine who's needy? You seriously believe that a family with children, who ar eliving on the street, aren't needy? There's a grey line, then there are obvious examples that someone you don't agree with.


Something tells me your end of charity has never gone beyond leaving your old clothes by the Salvation army door. I'd bet money you have never: brought homeless people into your own home, driven battered women from the hospital to a shelter, handed out food and pillows at the local homeless shelter, donated money or time to an adopt-a-family program in your local school district, YMCA, big brother program, march of dimes, volunteers of america, purple heart, 1st methodist church soup kitchen. I have.
Bringing homeless people, any stranger for that matter, is a dangerous and foolish thing to do and I seriously doubt you've done that (and some other things listed). Personally I've handed out food to homeless people in boston, donated money to charities to help the homeless, donated to RAIN (rape, abuse and incest network), and helped students at a local elementary school (once a week when I was doing it). But unlike you I view it as the governments job to help its citizens, it is my choice, it shouldn't be the governments choice. I view taxation for the military, for social programs, for public works as the same, all essential. You don't view taxation for social programs as even desirable, much less essential. There is no common ground to work with here.

I don't have to wear my charity on my sleeve, it's MY business. I don't have to prove to you or anyone else my motivations, my benefits, or the amounts of my gifts, it's private. That's another difference between you and me: you want to wear it as a badge.
Click to expand...

Your last comment kind of contradicted this statement.

Your guilt is showing through your desire to force other people to commit their life to the needy without you having to lift a finger. Again, I say you favor charity by proxy. But I would expect no less from someone who has no faith in human beings such as yourself (your words, paraphrased).
Click to expand...

Ya, giving a few tax dollars out of your pay check for government social programs is really committing your life to helping the needy. The needy shouldn't be forced to depend on the kindness of strangers, the government is there to help the less fortunate. Charity, face to face, is a decision everyone should have to make, it is their choice whether they want to help that way. The government should not have a choice in whether it runs social programs for the poor. Many nations in the developing world can't afford these programs of course, but ours can.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The age of consent for example, a 5 year old obviously can't consent, a 30 year old obviously can, but a 16 year old? It's not a clear line.
Click to expand...

Absurd ? You have just admitted, in a completely unrelated analogy, that the line is blurred. If you were to be the secretary of welfare, I'm sure you would make a great deputy of poor justice, though since you seem to know exactlyt where this line exists. Good for you, you can feel their pain.

And you don't seem to have a problem with our taxes going to the military. What happened to MY freedom?
Click to expand...

[quote name='the Constitution of the United States of America']...Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;[/quote]

It cannot be argued that revenue collected legally by the united states government should not be used for the purposes uotlined in the constitution. This is Government's primary function. Stealing form wealthy people and giving to poor is not written in there, I just re-read it to make sure. You should do the same someday...

As for the size of the millitary? Perhaps we are in agreement, there are many programs I do not favor.

I say we need social programs to help our poor...
Click to expand...

I say we start with all of mommy and daddy's tuition money, then let's talk more.

Bringing homeless people, any stranger for that matter, is a dangerous and foolish thing to do and I seriously doubt you've done that (and some other things listed).
Click to expand...

How naive you are. Homeless people are ALL strangers to you. The homeless I have brought into my own home were not strangers to me. You may have your doubts about anything you wish, I believe MY analysis was correct about you from this telling statement.

Personally I've handed out food to homeless people in boston, donated money to charities to help the homeless, donated to RAIN (rape, abuse and incest network), and helped students at a local elementary school (once a week when I was doing it).
Click to expand...

Bravo, you've handed out food....once. Donated some money; charity by proxy, as I suspected. I knew you'd have to make your own list. I'm now confident in my profile, sherrif, here's your Star.

But unlike you I view it as the governments job to help its citizens, it is my choice, it shouldn't be the governments choice.
Click to expand...

Government's job is to protect our lives and our property, period. Moms and Dads are here to help us without choice. Government is not supposed to heal the wounds of broken families and social structures, that's YOUR job. Get to work. And keep your guns in their holsters because I already know what I'm doing, thank you.
 
Absurd ? You have just admitted, in a completely unrelated analogy, that the line is blurred. If you were to be the secretary of welfare, I'm sure you would make a great deputy of poor justice, though since you seem to know exactlyt where this line exists. Good for you, you can feel their pain.
Click to expand...

I never said, or suggested, it was a clear cut line. That is true of anything where you have to decide a cut off point. But there is obviously those below and above that line, you seem like you don't want to aknowledge their are people clearly below that line.


It cannot be argued that revenue collected legally by the united states government should not be used for the purposes uotlined in the constitution. This is Government's primary function. Stealing form wealthy people and giving to poor is not written in there, I just re-read it to make sure. You should do the same someday...
Click to expand...

Again, taxation is not stealing from the wealthy. Again, the purpose of government in your eyes is different than the purpose of government in mine. Again, this is going nowhere.


How naive you are. Homeless people are ALL strangers to you. The homeless I have brought into my own home were not strangers to me. You may have your doubts about anything you wish, I believe MY analysis was correct about you from this telling statement.
Click to expand...

If they weren't strangers that's just helping a friend, that is different than the charity we have been discussing. And anyone I don't know is a stranger, homeless or not. I'm not about to randomly pick up someone off the street and bring them into my home, homeless or not.

Bravo, you've handed out food....once. Donated some money; charity by proxy, as I suspected. I knew you'd have to make your own list. I'm now confident in my profile, sherrif, here's your Star.
Click to expand...

One, I never said how many times I've done those things. Two, I donated money to organizations who are trained at doing certain things, what good am I going to be helping someone suffering from incest or rape? Sure, I could comfort a friend, that's not charity. A professional can do much more than I can. And besides, you made the original list, at the same time claiming you don't wear your charity on your sleave.

But unlike you I view it as the governments job to help its citizens, it is my choice, it shouldn't be the governments choice.
Click to expand...

Government's job is to protect our lives and our property, period.
Click to expand...

Great, once again you have illustrated my point, we view government differently (even though giving people shelter in the winter would be protecting their lives, since homeless people freeze to death in the winter), yippee ](*,) . It seems we have a problem here, one person who thinks there is still something to be argued, the other person who, while not adding anything new lately, is too stupid to stop responding. There is no common ground, I'm saying the government has responsibility for the quality of life and welfare of those less fortunate, you're saying the only responsibility is property and protection of citizens (in terms of military defense). There are no statistics to point to, obviously neither view is outlawed, and neither view can be proved (or just simply be) correct or incorrect. We're sitting here with two separate ideas. It's like a hindu and a christian arguing about which religion's gods are real, no evidence to point to, just two separate beliefs, two separate ideas, two separate opinions.
 
Great, once again you have illustrated my point, we view government differently
Click to expand...

Fortunately I have the law on my side. The document that grants powers to congress and the federal government outline it's duty which does not include giving people foor and shelter. One's own right to life comes with a responsibility to provide for one's self. Individual rights come with individual responsibility. It's why we have freedom and are beholdent to no one. It also fits in nicely with the original topic of this thread. You want government money? You have to comply with government dictated behavior. You think religious charity will make people slaves of god, yet you would prefer them to be slaves of government as if this is of greater benefit to anyone.

It seems we have a problem here, one person who thinks there is still something to be argued, the other person who, while not adding anything new lately, is too stupid to stop responding.
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be you. You seem to think we are living in a communist country and want it to become more communist in application, yet you can't understand why there are people like me who resist.


I'm saying the government has responsibility for the quality of life and welfare of those less fortunate, you're saying the only responsibility is property and protection of citizens (in terms of military defense). There are no statistics to point to, obviously neither view is outlawed, and neither view can be proved (or just simply be) correct or incorrect.
Click to expand...

My view cannot be outlawed unless by amendment to the constitution. Your view has circumvented the constitution and gone well beyond the framers intent for the role of government. Statistics this, model that. You are an acedemic with no life experiences beyond your pampered whitebread existence to be telling ME what should work, what cannot work, and what has never been analyzed enough before it is implemented. You college boi's always want to think about things until you're satisfied you have more knowledge than joe average guy. You know just enough to be dangerous.

It is interesting to note that your moral philosophy flows from the bible. You believe it is the duty of men to be their brothers' keepers. You believe in the god of abraham and his ideal that we are duty bound to help each other in life and in spirit or be branded as Cain was because of Able. You want the government to fufill that role. You therefore believe in the marriage between church and state, as it's the government's moral duty to help those in need without question, in all circumstances. Whether it's a concious decision on your part or not, you agree with the principle and the rule of god, de facto. And then you wish to impose this belief system on everyone. I say, if this is my moral duty, then it is MY responsibility to fulfill this duty, it is not your place or the government's to tell me I must.

I gave you a glimpse into my nature, and to disprove the lies you keep wishing were true about me being heartless and uncharitable. Keep shining your badge, though, you are wearing it just as it was intended.
 
Fortunately I have the law on my side. The document that grants powers to congress and the federal government outline it's duty which does not include giving people foor and shelter.
Click to expand...

Yes, since we all know welfare, housing and food aid are illegal.


Yes, this would be you. You seem to think we are living in a communist country and want it to become more communist in application, yet you can't understand why there are people like me who resist.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what communism is, by your definition much of europe is communist.


I'm saying the government has responsibility for the quality of life and welfare of those less fortunate, you're saying the only responsibility is property and protection of citizens (in terms of military defense). There are no statistics to point to, obviously neither view is outlawed, and neither view can be proved (or just simply be) correct or incorrect.
Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that your moral philosophy flows from the bible.
Click to expand...

I don't care what books share my beliefs (or at least some aspects of them) but too bad christians in the centuries past didn't believe in those things. But really though, you need to stop going on about yourself, bragging about what you have (or may have) done doesn't exactly support your description of yourself. You seem to be filled with false modesty.

I'm done here, I'm finally going to take my own advice (that I've been telling myself for about 3 days) and stop responding. Write page after page about how I'm not only a communist but a stalinist as well, I don't care.
 
Yes, since we all know welfare, housing and food aid are illegal.
Click to expand...

Are you planning to go to law school or something? You seem to have a habbit of taking things and purposefully obscuring their meaning. Stealing from one group of citizens to provide housing, food, and welfare for another group IS illegal, and IS discrimination. Something you supposedly were against(discrimination), unless it champions your own private cause. I guess reverse discrimination is okay, though when you throw logic out the window.

You need to retake highschool government, son. Those powers not granted by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the States and to the people. The constutution is a LEGAL RESTRICTION on government. That was it's purpose, it's intent and our safeguard from tyrrany.

You don't even know what communism is, by your definition much of europe is communist.
Click to expand...

Yes, i do, and yes they are. It's you who cannot see the forrest for the trees (again). but at least you aren't afraid to admit that you are one. I'm still waiting for you to relinquish your tuition money for the greater good, though. So I guess your a hypocritical communist.

But really though, you need to stop going on about yourself, bragging about what you have (or may have) done doesn't exactly support your description of yourself. You seem to be filled with false modesty.
Click to expand...

I'm proud of my beliefs and am not afraid to expose people like you for the hypocrites you types usually are. You slandered me by reporting (falsly) that I am uncaring, un-charitable, and heartless. I was merely providing examples that disproved your statements. In other words: "you started it". Your attempted insults shine all too brightly upon your own insecurities. Now go home and cry to your momma, nancy boy.

Be Seeing You !
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You slandered me by reporting (falsly) that I am uncaring, un-charitable, and heartless ... Now go home and cry to your momma, nancy boy.[/quote]

Charity!

edit: also, slander is spoken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top