Shane Tuttle
Staff
Quoted by miboso:
I've seen it first hand with my wife's former job.
Quoted by SecDef:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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...
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...
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...