A Father/Daughter talk

[Shane Tuttle]

Quoted by miboso:

Actually, I don't recognize that. I see people rejecting options open to them because of some commitment required from them.

I've seen it first hand with my wife's former job.

Quoted by SecDef:

And yet there are some that don't support birth control or sex education.

Well, birth control is the person's right, per the current law. And, if she's had 4 kids, she doesn't need sex ed. If the father isn't living under the same roof as implied, it isn't my problem 95% of the time to support her.

I guess sometimes we have to be patient with other people.

That I do agree on certain accounts. My example: Ones that actually did plan the best they could and disaster struck. Upon the event, he/she did whatever means necessary to improve their situation.

Quoted by Redworm:

You don't recognize that there are cases in which people have been screwed over by life through absolutely no fault of their own and have no non-governmental resources for help?

Tell me one documented case that one was in finacial ruin that wasn't his/her fault and had NO govt. help. I've seen many, many cases at my wife's former employer that got down and out people back on their feet. This was a private company, yet she also had govt. resources at her disposal. NOT ONE PERSON was denied help if they were out on the street and worked their butt off to help themselves.

Quoted by nobody special:

While I partly agree with your overall reasoning, tell me this: what area isn't subject to major natural disasters? (And don't forget about the off-chance of a meteor impact...)

How about I clarify my muddled statement. What are the chances of your house being destroyed by a mud slide due to the location on a hill as described in my previous post compared to your house being destroyed by a tornado in Texas? Yes, there's a minute chance of anyone's house being destroyed by a meteor. But, you need to look at reasoning here. If you choose to live in an area MORE prone to natural disasters, YOU are responsible for preparing for such.

Quoted by miboso:

So what? It is not the governments responsibility to take care of individuals. When government tries to take care of each individual, there is no end to what it can do for the sake of the people, for the children (sound familiar?) Why, government might even take away our guns to protect us from ourselves.
NO, get government OUT of our lives, and if we cannot manage our own lives, even with the help of other individuals or groups, then I guess the end quote I posted above applies: "We die." That's life.

As cold as reality is, I must agree to a large extent with your statement. I believe you can only help the ones that truly want to better their lives and take accountability for themselves. My example is that a smoker addicted to nicotine or a drunk that's addicted to alcohol will CANNOT be successfully helped until he/she helps themselves first. When I see true effort, by hard earned money goes to a private charity that will handle my funds efficiently or I give the help directly to the person in need.

Quoted by Redworm:

That's debatable. Sometimes it does genuinely help, sometimes it doesn't. Anecdotes don't count and statistics are too flaky to say for sure whether government or private charity helps more. That some people are without the resources for help. Not everyone has access to the things you mentioned previously.

If you don't see the obvious in how much more wasteful govt. assisstance is compared to most private assisstance, I don't think there's enough bandwidth in the world to try to convince you otherwise.
Again, what people are without resources for help? If homeless men can make it from North Platte, Nebraska to San Francisco's homeless shelter because they will cater to them, then I'm sure it's common knowledge that the down-and-out can find the nearest YellowPages to get the address to the nearest Soup Kitchen.

Bottom line, assuming everyone has access to private sources of help is counterproductive and detrimental to the idea that private organizations should be the most common source of help.
And I wouldn't necessarily agree that the majority of people who need help have access to such things.

How is it counterproductive? Every city that I've lived in had resources in the private sector to help the needy. I think the thought of NOT having private organizations is the best answer is counterproducive. And yes, the majority of people who actually need help have access to improve their lives.

And I also disagree with the assumption that somehow private charities and churches are less prone to abuse than government or that they do a better job of promoting personal responsibility.

Well, I just have to agree to disagree with you there. My bottom line is that "Big Brother" isn't the answer. The private citizens is...

No, the reason Republicans get painted by that wide brush is because you use phrases like "to think that I should have to pay for some crackwhore first is assend backwards" and implying that most of the people your tax dollars would be helping are "crackwhores".

Well, in using "crackh%^@" as a broad term, we shouldn't have to have our wages garnished to support them first. I think we'd weed out the majoriy of people "in need" that choose to not help themselves if they have to give a urine sample before receiving a welfare check...

 

[SecDef]

Well, birth control is the person's right, per the current law.

Abstinence only programs were the target of my post.

 

[Redworm]

Tell me one documented case that one was in finacial ruin that wasn't his/her fault and had NO govt. help. I've seen many, many cases at my wife's former employer that got down and out people back on their feet. This was a private company, yet she also had govt. resources at her disposal. NOT ONE PERSON was denied help if they were out on the street and worked their butt off to help themselves.

I didn't say anyone was without no government help, I said without non-government help. Your wife's employer is not necessarily representative of other such organizations out there.

If you don't see the obvious in how much more wasteful govt. assisstance is compared to most private assisstance, I don't think there's enough bandwidth in the world to try to convince you otherwise.
Again, what people are without resources for help? If homeless men can make it from North Platte, Nebraska to San Francisco's homeless shelter because they will cater to them, then I'm sure it's common knowledge that the down-and-out can find the nearest YellowPages to get the address to the nearest Soup Kitchen.

But it's not obvious. It's very debatable and neither side of the argument has equivocally proven their case.

A soup kitchen won't necessarily help someone get back on their feet, especially if that person has some kind of physical or mental disability. A hot meal is nice but the only problem is solves is hunger for one night.

How is it counterproductive? Every city that I've lived in had resources in the private sector to help the needy. I think the thought of NOT having private organizations is the best answer is counterproducive. And yes, the majority of people who actually need help have access to improve their lives.

It's counterproductive because it's untrue and when an argument is based on a fallacy it weakens the argument in the eyes of everyone listening. Like I said, public perception of an ideal is equally as important as the rationality for that ideal. If everyone that argues for private charities keeps spouting off inaccurate information then the argument gets dismissed.

Well, in using "crackh%^@" as a broad term, we shouldn't have to have our wages garnished to support them first. I think we'd weed out the majoriy of people "in need" that choose to not help themselves if they have to give a urine sample before receiving a welfare check...

Well I can certainly agree with you there. But I'd also recommend a blood alcohol test while we're at it.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Your wife's employer is not necessarily representative of other such organizations out there.

I beg to differ...

A soup kitchen won't necessarily help someone get back on their feet, especially if that person has some kind of physical or mental disability. A hot meal is nice but the only problem is solves is hunger for one night.

I was using SoupKitchen as a general term for help. A hot meal is the first step. You have to eat and drink to survive.

But it's not obvious. It's very debatable and neither side of the argument has equivocally proven their case.

The facts are there to prove my point. However, like I said, I'm not willing to engage...

It's counterproductive because it's untrue and when an argument is based on a fallacy it weakens the argument in the eyes of everyone listening. Like I said, public perception of an ideal is equally as important as the rationality for that ideal. If everyone that argues for private charities keeps spouting off inaccurate information then the argument gets dismissed.

So, are you saying that even though I've seen it firsthand that supports my arguement is still fallacy and maybe that I'm lying?

Abstinence only programs were the target of my post.

Point taken, SecDef. As much as I'm a proponent of abstinence, I don't think it's conducive to completely deny access to birth control either...

 

[Redworm]

So, are you saying that even though I've seen it firsthand that supports my arguement is still fallacy and maybe that I'm lying?

I'm saying that the personal experiences of one person does not make something a fact. Nor does common belief by a wide variety of people make something a fact. Data and evidence make facts and there are facts that support both sides of the issue.

I'm not saying you're lying, just that you're putting too much importance on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Bruxley]

It's amazing that the United States survived and prospered so heavily and grew to become the envy of the world before those social programs came in and look how much better we're doing now!!

The experience of a nation and the facts of history count? Hows marriage, teen pregnancy, child suicide, addiction doing since the 'Utopian society' via government approach has been implemented. Seems the 'unintended consequences' are worse then the perceived problem. More of the same will fix it right????

I'll re-inerate a too repeated mindset of mine. Solutions to problems should not be sought past the perimeter they are impacted by. A community can much better determine not only the validity, but muster the APPROPRIATE resources to address it. Starving family, homeless person, orphaned child, house burned down, lost your job, etc.

If the problem effects multiple communities (wildfire, earthquake, etc.) the State the best place. Only when the entire nation is imperiled should the Feds get involved unless a State declares it's self to need such help.

Qualify one side by insisting it work perfectly and universally otherwise it isn't valid while justifying your own sides gapping inadequacies isn't intellectually honest. It's not even intellectual.

Private charities and local compassion lack perfection but they do achieve results far more efficiently then broad entitlements that coerce their funding from taxpayers.

Liberty is to own ones own life. The time that life will last is finite. The efforts made during that life yielding something of value are your own property as some of that finite life you own was spent yielding it. To take it against the will of one individual to give it to another individual is theft whether by an individual or government official. Giving of one individual to another individual by free will is the only means that it can be done virtuously.

Money is not power because it represents gold, it is power because it represents hours of life.

 

[miboso]

Amen, brother Bruxley, amen.

 

[Redworm]

A community can much better determine not only the validity, but muster the APPROPRIATE resources to address it. Starving family, homeless person, orphaned child, house burned down, lost your job, etc.

And if that community refuses to help those people because they're the wrong color or don't believe in the same religion?

And that's assuming the community even has the ability to solve the problem in the first place. Sometimes they don't and people get screwed.

Private charities and local compassion lack perfection but they do achieve results far more efficiently then broad entitlements that coerce their funding from taxpayers.

Considering the amount of debate back and forth on this you'd be hard pressed to prove it.

To take it against the will of one individual to give it to another individual is theft whether by an individual or government official. Giving of one individual to another individual by free will is the only means that it can be done virtuously.

Really? So you don't believe any individual should ever have to pay for anything the government does that the individual doesn't agree with?

Because if so then I'd like my money back for Iraq, the war on drugs, and the USS Ronald Reagan.

Otherwise, your argument flies out the window.

 

[Bruxley]

You have intentionally misconstrued the quote. A prolific tendency of yours. No wonder your having such difficulty making a valid point, you have selective vision. Allow me to highlight it for easy understanding and more clarification.

To take it against the will of one individual to give it to another individual is theft whether by an individual or government official. Giving of one individual to another individual by free will is the only means that it can be done virtuously.

Exactly where did I say or imply that one had to agree with how every dollar is spent publicly.

And PROVE government entitlements are wasteful??? SERIOUSLY. Sheeez. Show me the government volunteers providing them. The only debate on that seems to be you. Out of hand discounting of facts, demanding perfection for validity, and misconstruing statements are all the proof you've offered in the debate.

Providing charitable help based on racial and religious conditions is illegal, do people break the law YEAH, the vast majority don't. A charity doing it is headline news. But your implication that it is a problem of scope that justifies taking my property to give it to someone else is pure sophistry.

Your not entitled to your entitlement checks/resources. Government officials are stealing them from others to give them to you. Settle that with your conscience. It's not for the public good to provide you with free stuff.

 

[Redworm]

There's no misconstruing of the quote. Your comment can only lead to that one conclusion. In what instance is money being taken from an individual and being given to another individual? Never. It doesn't work that way and thus your argument still falls flat on its face.


If you don't agree with where the money is being spent then it's being taken against your will.

And PROVE government entitlements are wasteful???

Yes. If you're going to claim that private sources are more efficient than government sources you're going to have to prove it. With evidence. With data. Not with anecdotes.

SERIOUSLY. Sheeez. Show me the government volunteers providing them. The only debate on that seems to be you. Out of hand discounting of facts, demanding perfection for validity, and misconstruing statements are all the proof you've offered in the debate.

The debate has been raging for decades.

Providing charitable help based on racial and religious conditions is illegal, do people break the law YEAH, the vast majority don't. A charity doing it is headline news. But your implication that it is a problem of scope that justifies taking my property to give it to someone else is pure sophistry.

Oh I didn't claim it justifies it at all. But it does happen.

Your not entitled to your entitlement checks/resources. Government officials are stealing them from others to give them to you. Settle that with your conscience. It's not for the public good to provide you with free stuff.

I don't disagree with that but at the same time no one is entitled to a new aircraft carrier so government officials are stealing money from me in order to build them.

The point remains that you - and everyone else - support income redistribution for causes they agree with but not for ones they disagree with. I'm not saying there's anything abnormal about that but it's the truth and polishing that halo doesn't really help your case.

 

[Bruxley]

Oh I didn't claim it justifies it at all. But it does happen.

Prove it.......

I'm not saying there's anything abnormal about that but it's the truth

Prove it.......

I don't disagree with that but at the same time no one is entitled to a new aircraft carrier so government officials are stealing money from me in order to build them.

Who got a new aircraft carrier?

Redistribution of wealth is a far cry from purchasing public resources. You know that of course. Free money and stuff that are now another individuals property are what your not entitled to and are stolen from someone that earned them. If your concience is clear then why the attempts to paint over or cloud that distinction?

Your assertions are getting pretty thin.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm saying that the personal experiences of one person does not make something a fact. Nor does common belief by a wide variety of people make something a fact. Data and evidence make facts and there are facts that support both sides of the issue.

Ummm...where do you think data is accumulated? I guess seeing hundreds of people that my wife get their life turned back around is just anecdotal evidence. And, the fact remains that I personally saw the private industry in action compared to government action. I may be one of few examples, yet everywhere I go and read, private businesses/individuals trump the effective use of one's dollar.

If everyone that argues for private charities keeps spouting off inaccurate information then the argument gets dismissed.

And you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary...

Considering the amount of debate back and forth on this you'd be hard pressed to prove it.

Well, I've provided first hand accounts of one of many communities with private businesses that provide resources to turn lives around. You have given nothing for "anecdotal" evidence. All that you have claimed is any information that we've provided is "thrown out the window". So, what "evidence" can you provide that is undoubtedly solid to support your assertion? And I don't your "what if's". That isn't an "It is"...

 

[DonR101395]

And if that community refuses to help those people because they're the wrong color or don't believe in the same religion?

And that's assuming the community even has the ability to solve the problem in the first place. Sometimes they don't and people get screwed.

Leaving race and religion out of the equation, what entitles a person to to help?

Really? So you don't believe any individual should ever have to pay for anything the government does that the individual doesn't agree with?

Because if so then I'd like my money back for Iraq, the war on drugs, and the USS Ronald Reagan.

Otherwise, your argument flies out the window.

What he is saying is taking from one individual to give to another individuals is wrong. The items you don't like are national defense and security items. Totally different than a welfare check.

 

[Redworm]

Prove it.......

The Bob Jones University issue is the most well known, I'll compile some more for you.

Prove it.......

rofl

You're supporting it with every post.

Who got a new aircraft carrier?

Redistribution of wealth is a far cry from purchasing public resources. You know that of course. Free money and stuff that are now another individuals property are what your not entitled to and are stolen from someone that earned them. If your concience is clear then why the attempts to paint over or cloud that distinction?

Your assertions are getting pretty thin

It's not a far cry at all since many people consider a social safety net, health care and education to be public resources. Just because you disagree with those folks doesn't make their idea of a public resource any less valid than yours.

 

[ZeroJunk]

My partners and I employed 50 or so people spread out over several years. I do not remember one who had average IQ or better whose success if limited was not because of his own attitude. I do not remember any of the failures that thought any of it was their fault.

 

[miboso]

Just because you disagree with those folks doesn't make their idea of a public resource any less valid than yours.

Let's hear some other opinions on the validity of what should be a public resource:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]

And, the coup de grace:
...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

The bold emphasis is mine.

 

[Redworm]

Ummm...where do you think data is accumulated? I guess seeing hundreds of people that my wife get their life turned back around is just anecdotal evidence. And, the fact remains that I personally saw the private industry in action compared to government action. I may be one of few examples, yet everywhere I go and read, private businesses/individuals trump the effective use of one's dollar.

That's the very definition of anecdotal evidence.

And you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary...

Because I'm not arguing the opposing point, just that it's best to get the arguments straight.

Well, I've provided first hand accounts of one of many communities with private businesses that provide resources to turn lives around. You have given nothing for "anecdotal" evidence. All that you have claimed is any information that we've provided is "thrown out the window". So, what "evidence" can you provide that is undoubtedly solid to support your assertion? And I don't your "what if's". That isn't an "It is"...

First hand accounts on an internet forum don't hold much water and one community doing things right does not preclude the possibility of other communities doing things wrong.

 

[Redworm]

Let's hear some other opinions on the validity of what should be a public resource:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]

And, the coup de grace:
...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

The bold emphasis is mine.

Fortunately their opinions are not sacrosanct. They weren't superhuman, they had a lot of bad ideas and principles in addition to their good ones.

As for powers being enumerated I certainly agree that to handle such issues a constitutional amendment would be appropriate.

 

[Redworm]

Leaving race and religion out of the equation, what entitles a person to to help?

Oh I don't know, maybe being a member of the same species? Maybe the idea that we're only out for each other is a primitive and backwards way to look at the world, that "rugged individualism" is just an excuse to further social darwinism. Maybe that as a developed nation we should be able to help our least fortunate because it's the right thing to do.

Or maybe I actually agree with you guys to a point and I'm only trying to remind y'all to be reasonable with your arguments so you don't do more harm than good to the position.

What he is saying is taking from one individual to give to another individuals is wrong. The items you don't like are national defense and security items. Totally different than a welfare check.

And what I'm saying is that his idea that it ever happens is ridiculous. All of our money goes into a pool, it's not just taken from one and given to another.

Otherwise I'd have to complain that the fire department's response to my neighbor's house being on fire is taking money out of my pocket to give to him.

The items I don't like are not national defense and security. The same way y'all can argue against one set of government expenditures I can argue against those. It's the same damn rationale, that money is being taken from people to pay for things they don't agree with. Just because you don't see a welfare check as something worth your money does not make an aircraft carrier worth mine.

 

[DonR101395]

Because first hand accounts don't mean a thing and one community doing things right does not preclude the possibility of other communities doing things wrong.

Who is to tsay they are doing them wrong? If it's their community and it works for the contributing members of that community, how can it be wrong?