Compassion Versus Reality

[MtnBiker]

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS


Dr. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist and longtime friend and colleague, recently wrote a series of columns under the title "A War of Words." He pointed out that liberals succeed in duping the public because they are so clever with words that they give the appearance of compassion. Liberals talk about the need for "affordable" housing and health care. They tarnish their enemies with terms such as "price-gouging" and "corporate greed." Uninformed and unthinking Americans fall easy prey to this demagoguery.

Politicians exploit public demands that government ought to do something about this or that problem by taking measures giving them greater control over our lives. For the most part, whatever politicians do, whether it's rent controls to produce "affordable" housing, or price controls to eliminate "price-gouging," the result is a calamity worse than the original problem. For example, two of the most costly housing markets are the rent-controlled cities of San Francisco and New York. If you're over 40, you'll remember the chaos produced by the gasoline price controls of the 1970s. Socialist agendas have considerable appeal, but they produce disaster, and the more socialist they are, the greater the disaster.

Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.

Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance -- the $30.

Look at the morality of a resource allocation method that requires that I serve my fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces and contrast it with government resource allocation. The government can say, "Williams, you don't have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we'll take what he produces and give it to you." Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft -- the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.

Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.

There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Link (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/compassion.html)

Interesting perspective, considering the political talk leading up to the elections and how heath care will be highlighted.

[avatar4321]

That was beautifully said. that's why ive never understood liberals. they continue to support programs that makes situations worse and call the people who want to fix the problems by doing away with the programs the mean and uncompassionate ones.

Making people dependant on government is not compassionate. making people self sufficient is.

[JohnDoe]

That was beautifully said. that's why ive never understood liberals. they continue to support programs that makes situations worse and call the people who want to fix the problems by doing away with the programs the mean and uncompassionate ones.

Making people dependant on government is not compassionate. making people self sufficient is.


How do you make people self sufficient?

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[Kathianne]

Link (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/compassion.html)

Interesting perspective, considering the political talk leading up to the elections and how heath care will be highlighted.

I would have repped, but you know the message I got. This post reminded me of something I read earlier today, which somehow seems related:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...363663,00.html


DER SPIEGEL 27/2005 - July 4, 2005
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AFRICAN ECONOMICS EXPERT
"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.

SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn't exist at that time.

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

SPIEGEL: And why's that?

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.

Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.

SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.

Shikwati: That doesn't change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

Former Central African Republic leader Jean-Bedel Bokassa: "We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
DPA

Former Central African Republic leader Jean-Bedel Bokassa: "We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...

Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ...

SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.

Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

INTERACTIVE MAP
SPIEGEL ONLINE

* Click here to load our interactive African development aid map.

SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn't that qualify as successful development aid?

Shikwati: In Germany's case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ...

Congolese line up for a United Nations food delivery in 2002.
AFP

Congolese line up for a United Nations food delivery in 2002.
Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it's unacceptable that the aid worker's chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That's just crazy!

SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.

Shikwati: And what's the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda's president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

[Kathianne]

How do you make people self sufficient?

Well for people that are looking for a way to be self-sufficient, I think the model is probably found with how non-English speaking immigrants were 'helped' years ago. First, they would get a job, anywhere language wasn't required. Second, even during the depression there were churches, community groups, etc., that would help with learning English and giving some food to get people over a rough spot, (actually many of those immigrants later set up charitable funded programs in the same neighborhoods-that they moved out of). Third, they made their children work and go to school, oh yeah, and speak English.

As for 'foreign aid', such as the example with Africa, it seems a version of that would be a very good idea-somehow remove the 'treat them as children needing to be cared for' and replace it with educating how to move onto self-sufficiency. Private charities again seem much better at doing this, as long as their mission is to help the people, not force conversions or help colonialism.

It's the whole 'give a fish' v. 'teach to fish' concept.

[MtnBiker]

How do you make people self sufficient?

People are able to be self sufficient. In terms of US citizens a simple model of finishing school, becoming employed, live within the law, and live within their financial budget means.

[shattered]

People are able to be self sufficient. In terms of US citizens a simple model of finishing school, becoming employed, live within the law, and live within their financial budget means.

Too logical. Try something else.

[Dilloduck]

"Affluent" nations and peoples often "help" with motivations that are less than honorable and do so out of ignorance of the consequences of their efforts. "Giving" to assuage guilt fails as the goal is a self-centered one and assuming someone needs charity because they are not as affluent as we think they should be produces confusion.

Worse than misguided givers are those who feel as though someone more affluent than themselves should be responsible for helping others. If YOU see what YOU feel to be a person who is down on their luck and needs some help,
YOU get off you ass and go help them instead of throwing a few bucks at some agency to do it for you.

Actually providing the assistance in person will teach you volumes about what you are up against if you really expect people to use your assistance to get on their feet and move on to help someone else.

It's evil to help people without also giving them the awareness and confidence that their next job is to help the next person in need of hand up and not a hand out.

[Hagbard Celine]

Too logical. Try something else.

Human behavior doesn't always fit into your neat little conservative model of what you think it should be. That's what makes conservatism so naive. Ya'll are right, people SHOULD go to school, make good grades, obey the law, get a job, etc, but we all know that they DON'T. They never have and they never will. Without social programs to prop them up, especially in a society that insists upon making necessary things like healthcare ridiculously expensive, we'd see the "poor" devolve into a beggar class. Disease, starvation, CRIME would skyrocket.

[Dilloduck]

Human behavior doesn't always fit into your neat little conservative model of what you think it should be. That's what makes conservatism so naive. Ya'll are right, people SHOULD go to school, make good grades, obey the law, get a job, etc, but we all know that they DON'T. They never have and they never will. Without social programs to prop them up, especially in a society that insists upon making necessary things like healthcare ridiculously expensive, we'd see the "poor" devolve into a beggar class. Disease, starvation, CRIME would skyrocket.

Doesn't it even give you pause that some of the people have lost the sense that it their own responsibilty to survive? Even undomesticated animals are aware of that.

[Kathianne]

Human behavior doesn't always fit into your neat little conservative model of what you think it should be. That's what makes conservatism so naive. Ya'll are right, people SHOULD go to school, make good grades, obey the law, get a job, etc, but we all know that they DON'T. They never have and they never will. Without social programs to prop them up, especially in a society that insists upon making necessary things like healthcare ridiculously expensive, we'd see the "poor" devolve into a beggar class. Disease, starvation, CRIME would skyrocket.

So, you think those on welfare are incapable or unwilling to care for themselves? Now if you wish to discuss the elderly, children, mentally/physically handicapped, I'm listening.

If you are speaking about able bodied adults, that were prefer to have 'us' support 'them', let them beg.

[Hagbard Celine]

So, you think those on welfare are incapable or unwilling to care for themselves? Now if you wish to discuss the elderly, children, mentally/physically handicapped, I'm listening.

If you are speaking about able bodied adults, that were prefer to have 'us' support 'them', let them beg.

I can't disagree with you. But I still think a social net is a necessity.

[Dilloduck]

I can't disagree with you. But I still think a social net is a necessity.

Social nets provided by those who want to (and have the expertise to) manage them are great. Anything else is counterproductive as evidenced by the African in Ks post.

[Kathianne]

I can't disagree with you. But I still think a social net is a necessity.

:confused: You 'can't' disagree, but 'still' think necessary? Why?

[glockmail]

I can't disagree with you. But I still think a social net is a necessity.
I don't think you'll find a conservative who disagrees with you. But the net should be set very low, and not made into a hammock. That's what was done with welfare reform and it worked to force millions off the couch and into productive jobs.

[Kathianne]

I don't think you'll find a conservative who disagrees with you. But the net should be set very low, and not made into a hammock. That's what was done with welfare reform and it worked to force millions off the couch and into productive jobs.

I wonder, do you mean that if able bodied adults choose not to work, we aren't talking unemployment, we are talking NOT WORKING, 'we' should provide enough that they needn't lift a finger for housing, clothing, food?

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[LOki]

The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.:clap:
I'd like to hear that argument too.

[avatar4321]

How do you make people self sufficient?

Education. If you teach people good principles, they will govern themselves.

Create incentives.

although not a government function, teaching people the Gospel of Jesus Christ so they understand will greatly increase their self sufficiency and quest for the same.

[avatar4321]

Human behavior doesn't always fit into your neat little conservative model of what you think it should be. That's what makes conservatism so naive. Ya'll are right, people SHOULD go to school, make good grades, obey the law, get a job, etc, but we all know that they DON'T. They never have and they never will. Without social programs to prop them up, especially in a society that insists upon making necessary things like healthcare ridiculously expensive, we'd see the "poor" devolve into a beggar class. Disease, starvation, CRIME would skyrocket.

i dont see how they arent a beggar class now. or how crime isnt skyrocketing. particularly in highly liberal areas.

[avatar4321]

:clap:
I'd like to hear that argument too.

This is exactly why entitle programs are not the answer. personal charity, private organizations, Churches, they are who we should look to for "welfare" not the government.

These entitlements are nothing more than modern day slavery.

[glockmail]

I wonder, do you mean that if able bodied adults choose not to work, we aren't talking unemployment, we are talking NOT WORKING, 'we' should provide enough that they needn't lift a finger for housing, clothing, food? I don't know the answer to that Kate. There is always going to be a certain percentage of the population that will be at the public trough no matter how bad the gruel is. All we can do is give people opportunity and the incentive not to be at the bottom. Personally I'd rather pay to get these few in dormitory style housing with two squares/ day and a coupon for the goodwill clothing store instead of tripping over them when I walk down the street.

[Hagbard Celine]

:clap:
I'd like to hear that argument too.

"taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another" may be the stingy, dour way of looking at it. Another would be giving one's extra to those who need it. Wasn't it Christ who preached for us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves? I love it when conservatives try to be righteous :laugh: It's always a riot.

[MtnBiker]

You are speaking for Jesus?

Forceable taking from one person to give to another and charity are completely two different things.

[MtnBiker]

"taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another" may be the stingy, dour way of looking at it. Another would be giving one's extra to those who need it. Wasn't it Christ who preached for us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves? I love it when conservatives try to be righteous :laugh: It's always a riot.

Who determines "extra" and "need"? Does not a peron have a right to keep his own property?

[Hagbard Celine]

Who determines "extra" and "need"? Does not a peron have a right to keep his own property?

What is the dollar amount of money that you are missing out on--that's apparently breaking you financially--because a portion of your tax money goes to social programs?

[Kathianne]

What is the dollar amount of money that you are missing out on--that's apparently breaking you financially--because a portion of your tax money goes to social programs?

What is the minimum someone needs to 'survive'?

[Hagbard Celine]

What is the minimum someone needs to 'survive'?

Maslov said it was food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion. Why do you ask?

[MtnBiker]

What is the dollar amount of money that you are missing out on--that's apparently breaking you financially--because a portion of your tax money goes to social programs?
Who determines "extra" and "need"? Does not a peron have a right to keep his own property?

Can you not answer a question?

Explain to me excatly how you have determined my finanical situtation?

[MtnBiker]

Maslov said it was food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion. Why do you ask?

And is any of that guaranteed by the government?

[Hagbard Celine]

Who determines "extra" and "need"? Does not a peron have a right to keep his own property?

Can you not answer a question?

Explain to me excatly how you have determined my finanical situtation?

Just for that I'm going to ignore your question on purpose. :poke: I didn't "determine" your financial situation. I took an educated guess that, based on how adamantly you oppose helping poor people, you must be poor yourself and the tiny fraction of your tax money that goes to helping poor people must be breaking the bank for you. :dunno: The line of thought is pretty straightforward there.

[Hagbard Celine]

And is any of that guaranteed by the government?

Well, I've been excreted upon by the government a few times already, so I guess that one is.

[MtnBiker]

Just for that I'm going to ignore your question on purpose. :poke: I didn't "determine" your financial situation. I took an educated guess that, based on how adamantly you oppose helping poor people, you must be poor yourself and the tiny fraction of your tax money that goes to helping poor people must be breaking the bank for you. :dunno: The line of thought is pretty straightforward there.

You have displayed you ingorance in a grand manor!

You have no idea of my earnings, my taxes and my charitable contributions.




*and as a note, this discussion is not about our individual sitituations, rather as society as a whole, there is not a need to make it personal.

[glockmail]

"taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another" may be the stingy, dour way of looking at it. Another would be giving one's extra to those who need it. Wasn't it Christ who preached for us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves? I love it when conservatives try to be righteous :laugh: It's always a riot. I love it when Liberals pick and choose what passages they want GOVERNMENT to pursue.

The fact is we have many many churches and their parishioners practically falling over themselves to help people in need. That fact is routinely ignored by Liberals.

[MtnBiker]

Just for that I'm going to ignore your question on purpose.


My assumption is, you are unable to answer the question.

[avatar4321]

"taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another" may be the stingy, dour way of looking at it. Another would be giving one's extra to those who need it. Wasn't it Christ who preached for us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves? I love it when conservatives try to be righteous :laugh: It's always a riot.

yeah we are trying to treat others like we want others to be treated. I know for one i dont want my money stolen from me to be given to others who didnt work. Why then would i advocate stealing money from others to do the same?

What conservatives do advocate is giving up your own money to help others. not other peoples money.

[LOki]

"taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another" may be the stingy, dour way of looking at it.Nonsense. There's noting about the statement that demands stinginess of anyone. It's the "WTF?!?! Keep your hands to yourself!" way of looking at it.

Another would be giving one's extra to those who need it.Nonsense. The statement is clear on that, and the issue is "taking from one to give to another", and not just "giving" as you would like to pretend it is.


Wasn't it Christ who preached for us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves?1) I don't give a fuck what your Jesus allegedly preached.
2) Accepting the golden rule model: Since I wouldn't want my stuff taken from me and given to others, I don't want to take from others to give to some different others.


I love it when conservatives try to be righteous :laugh: It's always a riot.Similarly, I love it when retards get snarky :laugh: It's always a riot.

[avatar4321]

Maslov said it was food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion. Why do you ask?

im surviving fine without sex and sleep.

And im sure lots of men are surviving without sex... they might not be happy about it, but im sure they are surviving.

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[MtnBiker]

It is important to recognize that there are less fortunate people in this country that do need help and help should be given. I do not believe anyone would argue that. However there are better approaches then to help people through bloated inefficient government bureaucracies.

[avatar4321]

It is important to recognize that there are less fortunate people in this country that do need help and help should be given. I do not believe anyone would argue that. However there are better approaches then to help people through bloated inefficient government bureaucracies.

Thing is, i dont think liberals really want to help people. They just want to appear to help people so they can get power... its rather sad really.

[Kathianne]

Maslov said it was food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion. Why do you ask?

I wondered what 'society' needed to provide. Wow, sex? Kinda hard to find for a drunk living on the street? Male or female.

[Kathianne]

Maslov said it was food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion. Why do you ask?

now that I got past the 'hot zone' what do you think that would cost, not sex, all of it? Do you really think 'we' owe it to those able bodied adults that choose not to work?

[Kathianne]

What is the dollar amount of money that you are missing out on--that's apparently breaking you financially--because a portion of your tax money goes to social programs?

Is that where we should be? I mean the 'we' that choose to work? A minimum? To keep, I'm assuming, those that choose not to alive?

[Kathianne]

It is important to recognize that there are less fortunate people in this country that do need help and help should be given. I do not believe anyone would argue that. However there are better approaches then to help people through bloated inefficient government bureaucracies.

I posted earlier, I'm open to those that are elderly, mentally/physically impaired. What about those that just choose not to work?

[Hagbard Celine]

My assumption is, you are unable to answer the question.

Well, we all know what happens when you assume.


I love it when Liberals pick and choose what passages they want GOVERNMENT to pursue.

The fact is we have many many churches and their parishioners practically falling over themselves to help people in need. That fact is routinely ignored by Liberals.

Silly me. I was under the impression that conservatives liked it when the Bible was used to make public policy. I guess my reference to Jesus has made some of you feel convicted. Sorry to stir up bad feelings.

[avatar4321]

Silly me. I was under the impression that conservatives liked it when the Bible was used to make public policy. I guess my reference to Jesus has made some of you feel convicted. Sorry to stir up bad feelings.

even if you were under that impression, you very well know you're liberal views are not what the Bible teaches.

stealing from others is always wrong, even when giving to others.

[MtnBiker]

Well, we all know what happens when you assume.
You are right it was an assumption as I said, much like your post about my finacial situation without claiming it was an assumption, but rather a straight line of thinking. ;)




I love it when Liberals pick and choose what passages they want GOVERNMENT to pursue.

The fact is we have many many churches and their parishioners practically falling over themselves to help people in need. That fact is routinely ignored by Liberals.


Silly me. I was under the impression that conservatives liked it when the Bible was used to make public policy. I guess my reference to Jesus has made some of you feel convicted. Sorry to stir up bad feelings.

Looks as though you need help with the quote button, I never said what you quoted me on. Go ahead, click on the little arrow next to my name in that quote.

[MtnBiker]

Just for that I'm going to ignore your question on purpose. :poke: I didn't "determine" your financial situation. I took an educated guess that, based on how adamantly you oppose helping poor people, you must be poor yourself and the tiny fraction of your tax money that goes to helping poor people must be breaking the bank for you. :dunno: The line of thought is pretty straightforward there.

With out making an assupmtion, show me where I have been adamantly opposed to helping poor people.

[MtnBiker]

I posted earlier, I'm open to those that are elderly, mentally/physically impaired. What about those that just choose not to work?

Good question, if a person chooses not to work then they are dependant upon others to support them. Should it be the government that assures their support?

[Kathianne]

Good question, if a person chooses not to work then they are dependant upon others to support them. Should it be the government that assures their support?
I don't think so. As someone insinuated they may beg, but if they choose to roll over, I'm not going to feel bad. Now I'm not speaking of mentally ill, just those that choose not to work. Know how many of those would choose to roll over and die? None.

[Hagbard Celine]

Good question, if a person chooses not to work then they are dependant upon others to support them. Should it be the government that assures their support?

I'd say it's in the government's best interest to support those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. If those people werent' supported, it would create health and crime problems thus causing trouble for the government.

[Kathianne]

I'd say it's in the government's best interest to support those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. If those people werent' supported, it would create health and crime problems thus causing trouble for the government.Let them die. Their choice. If they turn to crime, well let them pay that price.

[glockmail]

Let them die. Their choice. If they turn to crime, well let them pay that price.
You're in an unusually foul mood, Kate. I suggest that you go home early and greet your hubby at the door wearing one of those little french maid outfits, nothing on underneath, then let him have his way with you. You'll be in a better mood later.

[Kathianne]

You're in an unusually foul mood, Kate. I suggest that you go home early and greet your hubby at the door wearing one of those little french maid outfits, nothing on underneath, then let him have his way with you. You'll be in a better mood later.Hardly. I just think if someone chooses to try and sit back, collecting money, they should get off their but and make it on their own. Take some of those jobs from the illegals, perchance?

If not, goodbye. Not foul mood, just see no reason to pay their freight.

Now if we are speaking of ill, fine, pay for treatment. Then get with the program.

Untreatable, fine, we pay.

Same with kids and elderly.

[glockmail]

Hardly. I just think if someone chooses to try and sit back, collecting money, they should get off their but and make it on their own. Take some of those jobs from the illegals, perchance?

If not, goodbye. Not foul mood, just see no reason to pay their freight.

Now if we are speaking of ill, fine, pay for treatment. Then get with the program.

Untreatable, fine, we pay.

Same with kids and elderly.

I think once hubby gets sight of you you'll forget all about this little discussion. :poke:

[nevadamedic]

You're in an unusually foul mood, Kate. I suggest that you go home early and greet your hubby at the door wearing one of those little french maid outfits, nothing on underneath, then let him have his way with you. You'll be in a better mood later.

Wow, that would be hot :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Wow, that would be hot :laugh2:

That might be hot. On the other hand, poor Glock can only make suggestions and criticisms.

[nevadamedic]

That might be hot. On the other hand, poor Glock can only make suggestions and criticisms.

But that was a good suggestion! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

That might be hot. On the other hand, poor Glock can only make suggestions and criticisms. That's right Kate, cuz I got my own lil' Southern Comfort waiting fer me!

[MtnBiker]

Good question, if a person chooses not to work then they are dependant upon others to support them. Should it be the government that assures their support?
I'd say it's in the government's best interest to support those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. If those people werent' supported, it would create health and crime problems thus causing trouble for the government.

So you are advocating able bodied people who choose not to work to freeload off of the government?

We have already established disabled people should be helped.