View Full Version : Abu Graib x 1000: why no outrage?
yeat182
01/15/05, 05:43 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp
cal1082
01/15/05, 06:09 PM
Because it's not the US and no Bush involvment.....?
Because it's not the US and no Bush involvment.....?
It hasnt become trendy to hate the UN yet.
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 08:03 PM
The link doesn't work.
The link doesn't work.
I think your "liberal bias" filter on your browser is not letting you go to the site.
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 08:19 PM
i think we can all agree that this is bad. it sure doesn't help the reputation of the UN any.
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:23 PM
In no way does two wrongs equal a right, ecspecially in this situation. Just look at it though........
Something like what happened in the Iraqi prisons dominated the press for months. I forgot how many times it made the front page of the NYT. What's the difference here? Maybe because images havent been released to the public (probably a big reason). Also I truly believe a big reason is because it's not the US.
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 08:28 PM
Of course this deserves the same amount of attention as the Abu Ghraib scandal.
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:34 PM
The question shouldnt be if it does or doesnt deserve the coverage (if anyone would like to argue which one deserves more, feel free to look stupid). The question is WHY hasnt it?
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 08:35 PM
and thus comes the debate about the "liberal media"
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:36 PM
and thus comes the debate about the "liberal media"
Not so much the liberal media, but the world media and the attitude towards the United States
Of course this deserves the same amount of attention as the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Yeah we know. But we are asking why it doesnt get it!
and thus comes the debate about the "liberal media"
How do you explain it?
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 08:42 PM
Yeah we know. But we are asking why it doesnt get it!
The media, as a whole, is a business, and they are looking make profit. This story isn't profitable. War, however, is action, and the people love action, so it makes sense that Abu Ghraib got more attention, because it was in the context of an already controversial war.
The media, as a whole, is a business, and they are looking make profit. This story isn't profitable. War, however, is action, and the people love action, so it makes sense that Abu Ghraib got more attention, because it was in the context of an already controversial war.
Thats exactly what we are saying. There is a mainstream media bias against America and the "right"
richter915
01/15/05, 08:46 PM
the US could careless about the UN these days so why does it matter that they did this...the US has the most respectable and well-trained army in the world (my opinion) so us doing something like this in a "war" we started is gonna cause conflict...and ya I agree with Love As Arson...what do we care about sex scandals if one of our past president's has been accused of sex scandals?
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 08:47 PM
How do you explain it?
why do i have to defend something that i don't believe exists? let's turn the tables...YOU explain to me why you think a liberal media exists
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:47 PM
The media, as a whole, is a business, and they are looking make profit. This story isn't profitable. War, however, is action, and the people love action, so it makes sense that Abu Ghraib got more attention, because it was in the context of an already controversial war.
It would be a legit argument except many of these abuses were during wars as well (Kosvo, Liberia), so I dont think that's it.
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:50 PM
the US could careless about the UN these days so why does it matter that they did this...the US has the most respectable and well-trained army in the world (my opinion) so us doing something like this in a "war" we started is gonna cause conflict...and ya I agree with Love As Arson...what do we care about sex scandals if one of our past president's has been accused of sex scandals?
Wow, way to totaly give an excuse for not caring.
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 08:51 PM
It would be a legit argument except many of these abuses were during wars as well (Kosvo, Liberia), so I dont think that's it.
Were those wars as controversial as the Iraq war?
Thats exactly what we are saying. There is a mainstream media bias against America and the "right"
I think both political spectrums are guilty of what I am speaking of.
cal1082
01/15/05, 08:52 PM
Were those wars as controversial as the Iraq war?
Wait, wait.......you said one reason was because war was profitable. Well these happened during war as well.
I don't see why a controversial war would make a difference on why it's covered? So if the Iraq war was not controversial, and those pics came out of US soldier humilitating Iraqi soldiers it wouldnt have been splashed all over the media here in the US? You really believe this.........
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 09:01 PM
Wait, wait.......you said one reason was because war was profitable. Well these happened during war as well.
I don't see why a controversial war would make a difference on why it's covered? So if the Iraq war was not controversial, and those pics came out of US soldier humilitating Iraqi soldiers it wouldnt have been splashed all over the media here in the US? You really believe this.........
War is profitable, I won't deny that, but take a look at what would make more of a profit, a war most people agreed with, or were uninformed about, or a war which split our nation, and angered the world? It is for that reason I think the Abu Ghraib scandal was covered more than the UN scandal.
why do i have to defend something that i don't believe exists? let's turn the tables...YOU explain to me why you think a liberal media exists
US troops led by a republican president abuse terrorists...
huge news story for weeks.
UN "peacekeepers" led by an International body abuse refugees...
a couple small internet stories.
War is profitable, I won't deny that, but take a look at what would make more of a profit, a war most people agreed with, or were uninformed about, or a war which split our nation, and angered the world? It is for that reason I think the Abu Ghraib scandal was covered more than the UN scandal.
So you are admitting that the media has a bias against the Iraq qar?
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 09:10 PM
So you are admitting that the media has a bias against the Iraq qar?
No, I am saying the Iraq war gets more coverage by the media because it is controversial.
No, I am saying the Iraq war gets more coverage by the media because it is controversial.
More negative coverage yes. Hence the bias
What's the Iraq qar?
a cross between a quagmire and a war
So if everything they reported was positive, would they not still be biased?
And no, I am not calling the media biased now, just using Poopy's words.
Yes, yes they would. I would like an exactly equal number of stories positive and negative. And if there is an odd number of stories then we are all screwed
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 09:23 PM
More negative coverage yes. Hence the bias
Negative coverage sells. It's not done to promote a political agenda. It's done in order to make money.
Negative coverage sells. It's not done to promote a political agenda. It's done in order to make money.
Why doesnt negative coverage of the UN sell?
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 09:24 PM
US troops led by a republican president abuse terrorists...
huge news story for weeks.
UN "peacekeepers" led by an International body abuse refugees...
a couple small internet stories.
first of all, one story does not constitute an entire liberal media bias conspiracy theory. second of all, while i'm not sure about this, the darling network of all conservatives, Fox, isn't covering this very much just like the rest of the networks
first of all, one story does not constitute an entire liberal media bias conspiracy theory. second of all, while i'm not sure about this, the darling network of all conservatives, Fox, isn't covering this very much just like the rest of the networks
Fox obviously has a liberal bias like all other networks
I gave you one example that you cant refute. Will you be conceding the victory to me in your next post?
But I like being screwed.
But that's never going to happen. People have personal agendas that they are going to push...and they want money. We live in a capitalist society, and people are going to want to make as much money as possible. ( Refer to Dom. )
Is wanting to make as much money as possible inherently evil?
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 09:28 PM
Why doesnt negative coverage of the UN sell?
The Iraq war is more controversial than the ones in which this took place. Besides, conservatives and liberals are having a field day with the Oil For Food scandal, so I think that answers the argument that negative coverage of the UN doesn't sell.
The Iraq war is more controversial than the ones in which this took place. Besides, conservatives and liberals are having a field day with the Oil For Food scandal, so I think that answers the argument that negative coverage of the UN doesn't sell.
How many times has the Oil for Food scandal been on the front page of the LA times or the NY times?
Yes.
Money leads to greed. Greed is evil.
How do humans communicate the value of goods and services without money. Are you suggesting we go back to barterring?
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 09:32 PM
How many times has the Oil for Food scandal been on the front page of the LA times or the NY times?
How many times has it been covered by conservative publications?
I don't like the money system.
I believe in earning what you get. So instead of just buying everything because your father is rich, you can earn it.
So your jealous of people who may have an easier life than you?
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 09:38 PM
Fox obviously has a liberal bias like all other networks
I gave you one example that you cant refute. Will you be conceding the victory to me in your next post?
you gave me an example i can't refute? when? and fox has a liberal bias? whoa.
you gave me an example i can't refute? when? and fox has a liberal bias? whoa.
whoa? and when? are not convincing arguments.
ohlookitspaul
01/15/05, 09:43 PM
whoa? and when? are not convincing arguments.
you said: "I gave you one example that you cant refute"
"when" meant "when did you post that?", because i didn't see an example i can't refute.
and the 'whoa" refers to how you said fox has a liberal bias...whoa as in surprise, shock, etc., because that's news to me.
cal1082
01/15/05, 09:51 PM
War is profitable, I won't deny that, but take a look at what would make more of a profit, a war most people agreed with, or were uninformed about, or a war which split our nation, and angered the world? It is for that reason I think the Abu Ghraib scandal was covered more than the UN scandal.
So if the Iraq war was not controversial, and those pics came out of US soldier humilitating Iraqi soldiers it wouldnt have been splashed all over the media here in the US? You really believe this.........
cal1082
01/15/05, 09:53 PM
I don't like the money system.
I believe in earning what you get. So instead of just buying everything because your father is rich, you can earn it.
I thought you liked socialism?
Love As Arson
01/15/05, 10:28 PM
So if the Iraq war was not controversial, and those pics came out of US soldier humilitating Iraqi soldiers it wouldnt have been splashed all over the media here in the US? You really believe this.........
Yes.
In no way does two wrongs equal a right, ecspecially in this situation. Just look at it though........
Something like what happened in the Iraqi prisons dominated the press for months. I forgot how many times it made the front page of the NYT. What's the difference here? Maybe because images havent been released to the public (probably a big reason). Also I truly believe a big reason is because it's not the US.
I'm not saying that they're right for doing this but, the reason why the U.S. press views us as the one nation that once the other side stops fighting we will help, that we DO NOT abuse our prisoners or anything of that sort. I remember my great grandfather' who is a World War Two veteran, and fought over in Germany and was apart of the D-Day effort, was completely disgusted with the way that whole entire thing went down and said that he felt ashamed to be related in some way to those people. Our general population expects the army to be there to fight those who want to fight, to treat our war criminals better than they would ever treat us because that is how Americans feel about themselves, that they should be the bigger person.
I'm rambling I know, but I think you get my point.
richter915
01/16/05, 12:10 AM
Nothing is wrong with sharing.
sharing is caring...woo kindergarten education right here!
richter915
01/16/05, 12:11 AM
Wow, way to totaly give an excuse for not caring.
ya I know, I'm horrible. But at least I wouldn't abuse prisoners cause they're non-compliant.
yeat182
01/16/05, 05:20 AM
the US could careless about the UN these days so why does it matter that they did this...the US has the most respectable and well-trained army in the world (my opinion) so us doing something like this in a "war" we started is gonna cause conflict...and ya I agree with Love As Arson...what do we care about sex scandals if one of our past president's has been accused of sex scandals?
because you can't compare harrasing some prisoners to rape and prostitution.
yeat182
01/16/05, 05:23 AM
first of all, one story does not constitute an entire liberal media bias conspiracy theory. second of all, while i'm not sure about this, the darling network of all conservatives, Fox, isn't covering this very much just like the rest of the networks
i actually saw this on Fox last night and went online to find an article about it...besides if I posted a Fox news link this would have turned into a Fox news bash fest.
ohlookitspaul
01/16/05, 09:09 AM
i actually saw this on Fox last night and went online to find an article about it...besides if I posted a Fox news link this would have turned into a Fox news bash fest.
well i'm not going to doubt you on that (for now,ha). i don't really watch news on tv that often so i wouldn't know if the other networks had covered it. i did find an abc article on it though.
cal1082
01/16/05, 09:50 AM
Yes.
Your opinion but I think that's abusrd. There's no way the NYT would not of had those pictures all over its paper. I dont see how you would believe otherwise?
Love As Arson
01/16/05, 10:54 AM
Your opinion but I think that's abusrd. There's no way the NYT would not of had those pictures all over its paper. I dont see how you would believe otherwise?
I think it would have been covered,but not to the extent that it was.
cal1082
01/16/05, 10:57 AM
I think it would have been covered,but not to the extent that it was.
It would have been eaten up as soon as those pictures became available. Come on..........just admit having pictures like the ones seen was a field day against Bush. Those would have been plastered everywhere had it been like the first gulf war or this one.
Love As Arson
01/16/05, 11:04 AM
It would have been eaten up as soon as those pictures became available. Come on..........just admit having pictures like the ones seen was a field day against Bush. Those would have been plastered everywhere had it been like the first gulf war or this one.
Profitability comes first. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't run numerous stories about it.
cal1082
01/16/05, 11:07 AM
Profitability comes first. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't run numerous stories about it.
How do you have any idea it would not have been profitable? How do you explain the lack of reporting etc....... on the beheadings in the NYT?
richter915
01/16/05, 11:10 AM
because you can't compare harrasing some prisoners to rape and prostitution.
harrassing? If it was just harrassing then it wouldn't be as big of a deal but it was obviously far worse. I'm not saying with the UN did is better (in fact I think it's worse) but like Dom is arguing...if it's not profitable to the public, the US public could careless and papers would be wasting precious ad space.
Love As Arson
01/16/05, 11:13 AM
How do you have any idea it would not have been profitable? How do you explain the lack of reporting etc....... on the beheadings in the NYT?
That type of behaviour is expected, so it really isn't controversial when we hear of it.
yeat182
01/16/05, 10:25 PM
harrassing? If it was just harrassing then it wouldn't be as big of a deal but it was obviously far worse. I'm not saying with the UN did is better (in fact I think it's worse) but like Dom is arguing...if it's not profitable to the public, the US public could careless and papers would be wasting precious ad space.
it really wasn't any worse than anything that happens in a college fraterinity. i'm not saying its right, but lets not blow it out of proportion.
richter915
01/17/05, 10:17 AM
it really wasn't any worse than anything that happens in a college fraterinity. i'm not saying its right, but lets not blow it out of proportion.
so you're comparing our soldiers to....drunken frat boys...and you say other people make up bad analogies...oh wait no that's justin_stacy...but still...baaaaad analogy.
yeat182
01/17/05, 10:19 AM
so you're comparing our soldiers to....drunken frat boys...and you say other people make up bad analogies...oh wait no that's justin_stacy...but still...baaaaad analogy.
its true. what they did in that prison was hazing, i've personally seen worse things on college campuses and it is generally accepted. seems pretty ridiculous to me...
richter915
01/17/05, 10:29 AM
its true. what they did in that prison was hazing, i've personally seen worse things on college campuses and it is generally accepted. seems pretty ridiculous to me...
ok but one set of people are trained and disciplined and should have enough respect for others to not do those things...are you gonna tell me like...well the Insurgents woulda done the same? That would mean we're on the same level (or close to the low level) of the Insurgents we're fighting.
The fact that you can compare what happened in a prison during a time of war to what drunk spoiled brats do on weekends is the reason why I have lost respect for our "honorable" men and women...ya, the acts of a few are dicking over the honor of the whole.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:38 AM
its true. what they did in that prison was hazing, i've personally seen worse things on college campuses and it is generally accepted. seems pretty ridiculous to me...
Regardless of what is considered socially acceptable in college fraternities, what the soldiers did was illegal. We have things like the Geneva Convention for a reason.
yeat182
01/17/05, 10:42 AM
Regardless of what is considered socially acceptable in college fraternities, what the soldiers did was illegal. We have things like the Geneva Convention for a reason.
its illegal when you do it on a college campus....i'm not saying its right, or it should be acceptable, the people should be punished, but the story was blown entirely out of proportion in a weak attempt to keep bush out of office.
richter915
01/17/05, 10:44 AM
its illegal when you do it on a college campus....i'm not saying its right, or it should be acceptable, the people should be punished, but the story was blown entirely out of proportion in a weak attempt to keep bush out of office.
or maybe because our troops that're supposedly among the best in the world are acting like immature little brats? maybe that's why the population is mad...because our respectable soldiers are no better than drunk kids who get a kick outta using broom sticks to leave splinters in your rectum.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:45 AM
its illegal when you do it on a college campus....i'm not saying its right, or it should be acceptable, the people should be punished, but the story was blown entirely out of proportion in a weak attempt to keep bush out of office.
I don't think it was an attempt to keep Bush out of office. The media blows everything out of proportion, and you really have no evidence that they had alterior motives.
yeat182
01/17/05, 10:46 AM
or maybe because our troops that're supposedly among the best in the world are acting like immature little brats? maybe that's why the population is mad...because our respectable soldiers are no better than drunk kids who get a kick outta using broom sticks to leave splinters in your rectum.
so why aren't they outraged at their kids doing the same thing when they are spending thousands of dollars sending them to get an education?
cal1082
01/17/05, 10:46 AM
I don't think it was an attempt to keep Bush out of office. The media blows everything out of proportion, and you really have no evidence that they had alterior motives.
the continued insistance by some that rumsfeld was involved could be considered evidence that there are alternative motives.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:49 AM
so why aren't they outraged at their kids doing the same thing when they are spending thousands of dollars sending them to get an education?
Because I believe the circumstances are a bit different...
Do you really think frats deserve the same criticism these soldiers received? Granted they may be jackasses to other college kids but people do that willingly, and aren't representing the United States as a soldier during a global war on "terror."
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:51 AM
the continued insistance by some that rumsfeld was involved could be considered evidence that there are alternative motives.
Just because some felt he may have been involved doesn't mean theres a liberal media conspiracy to remove Bush from office.
yeat182
01/17/05, 10:51 AM
I don't think it was an attempt to keep Bush out of office. The media blows everything out of proportion, and you really have no evidence that they had alterior motives.
true...but you dont' see anyone really even talking about the UN sex scandal which we can all agree is worse than the prison abuse, so why aren't the blowing this out of proportion as well?
yeat182
01/17/05, 10:52 AM
Because I believe the circumstances are a bit different...
Do you really think frats deserve the same criticism these soldiers received? Granted they may be jackasses to other college kids but people do that willingly, and aren't representing the United States as a soldier during a global war on "terror."
again, i'm not saying what the soldiers did was right, but i don't think it desevered the caliber of outrage it recieved, it was as if the world was ending.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:52 AM
true...but you dont' see anyone really even talking about the UN sex scandal which we can all agree is worse than the prison abuse, so why aren't the blowing this out of proportion as well?
Hey I agree it's weird, but I think it has more to do with Americans generally caring more about their OWN scandals than those in other countries or in the UN. We find them more personal and take it closer to home, so they're easier to sensationalize.
cal1082
01/17/05, 10:53 AM
Just because some felt he may have been involved doesn't mean theres a liberal media conspiracy to remove Bush from office.
No, it's understandable to intitialy think their might be involvment, but after the investigation has cleared him and the policies and you still see continued insistance of his involvment.........
I'm not saying it's absolute proof but it is evidence of an alternative motive.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:55 AM
again, i'm not saying what the soldiers did was right, but i don't think it desevered the caliber of outrage it recieved, it was as if the world was ending.
I felt it was a disgusting display of human nature, and probably overblown, but I can't really blame the media for doing it.
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 10:56 AM
No, it's understandable to intitialy think their might be involvment, but after the investigation has cleared him and the policies and you still see continued insistance of his involvment.........
I'm not saying it's absolute proof but it is evidence of an alternative motive.
I think the insistance of his involvement is only coming from liberals on this board and other talk shows. I don't think the mainstream media feels he had any involvement whatsoever, and that's who we're referring to, correct?
richter915
01/17/05, 11:01 AM
so why aren't they outraged at their kids doing the same thing when they are spending thousands of dollars sending them to get an education?
trust me...if/when I become a parent...I will ensure that my kids don't end up like that...I honestly think parents in the US are waaaaay to lenient (come on, 8 year old girls with prada bags and hooker outfits...it's sick) so it's no surprise kids get away with these things unscathed...I also think that it's the school's responsibility to discipline the frats...not the parents. but you can definitely blame the parents for "poorly" raising these children just like with this...the army fucked up somewhere and that's where the conflict comes in because we claim to be among the best...yet we have soldiers like this?
richter915
01/17/05, 11:03 AM
I felt it was a disgusting display of human nature, and probably overblown, but I can't really blame the media for doing it.
the media did go overboard but hey...the guy got what he deserved ya know...10 years (although Iraqis argue that he deserved far worse)...if this guy is gonna act like a kid...he shoulda just stayed in college.
yeat182
01/17/05, 11:04 AM
trust me...if/when I become a parent...I will ensure that my kids don't end up like that...I honestly think parents in the US are waaaaay to lenient (come on, 8 year old girls with prada bags and hooker outfits...it's sick) so it's no surprise kids get away with these things unscathed...I also think that it's the school's responsibility to discipline the frats...not the parents. but you can definitely blame the parents for "poorly" raising these children just like with this...the army fucked up somewhere and that's where the conflict comes in because we claim to be among the best...yet we have soldiers like this?
why not blame the parents for the acts of the soldiers?
UndefinedBoy
01/17/05, 11:06 AM
why not blame the parents for the acts of the soldiers?
Yes, let us play the blame game.
richter915
01/17/05, 11:07 AM
why not blame the parents for the acts of the soldiers?
again...ignoring everything else I wrote. I said institutions should also be blamed...so the army is receiving the bulk of the blame. That's how it should be.
yeat182
01/17/05, 11:13 AM
again...ignoring everything else I wrote. I said institutions should also be blamed...so the army is receiving the bulk of the blame. That's how it should be.
i'm not ignoring it, i'm just saying, the same thing happens everyday here at home and know one makes a big deal about or gets outraged about it, and yet when the same thing happens in Iraq the world stops spinning. and then when an even worse atrocity is commited involving the UN, the world is suspiciously silent on the issue...
richter915
01/17/05, 11:18 AM
i'm not ignoring it, i'm just saying, the same thing happens everyday here at home and know one makes a big deal about or gets outraged about it, and yet when the same thing happens in Iraq the world stops spinning. and then when an even worse atrocity is commited involving the UN, the world is suspiciously silent on the issue...
I dunno how other countries are viewing the abu gharib thing so I can't comment on that. I find it odd that the UN scandal is being ignored but like undefinedboy said, it's not close to home so people will probably ignore it and papers won't make a profit from those stories. Also, what's pretty pathetic with the hazing that goes on (it happens in HS sports as well) is that those with authority support it...and it has sadly become "tradition" for these kinds of things to happen.
Nothing is wrong with sharing.
Should I be forced to share because you think there is nothing wrong with it?
Love As Arson
01/17/05, 01:08 PM
Should I be forced to share because you think there is nothing wrong with it?
No, we should force people to live in poverty.
No, we should force people to live in poverty.
People arent forced to live in poverty
Love As Arson
01/17/05, 01:19 PM
People arent forced to live in poverty
The capitalist system requires people to live in poverty.
The capitalist system requires people to live in poverty.
Poverty is again a subjective idea. I'm not gonna argue our differences on what we believe poverty is or isnt. Instead I'll ask again.
Should I be forced to share because you think its a good idea?
Love As Arson
01/17/05, 01:32 PM
Poverty is again a subjective idea. I'm not gonna argue our differences on what we believe poverty is or isnt. Instead I'll ask again.
Should I be forced to share because you think its a good idea?
Should someone be required to do something if it is for the greater good of the whole?
Should someone be required to do something if it is for the greater good of the whole?
You are really good at answerring a question with a question. Obviously you are confused and a little slow.
To answer your question, absolutely not. What kind of punk are you when all you do is whine about helping everyone and sharing.
Love As Arson
01/18/05, 01:18 AM
You are really good at answerring a question with a question. Obviously you are confused and a little slow.
To answer your question, absolutely not. What kind of punk are you when all you do is whine about helping everyone and sharing.
That question illustrated my views perfectly. Obviously, you lack the intelligence to get that.
In any case, using your rationale, I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, even if it is for the greater good of the country.
As for the punk comment, that simply shows your intelligence. Congratulations, you've made yourself look like a moron.
open mind
01/18/05, 04:39 AM
More negative coverage yes. Hence the bias
reporting the truth is the media's job, ignoring the truth (like the media did during the build up to the war) would be biased.
That question illustrated my views perfectly. Obviously, you lack the intelligence to get that.
In any case, using your rationale, I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, even if it is for the greater good of the country.
As for the punk comment, that simply shows your intelligence. Congratulations, you've made yourself look like a moron.
How does welfare or medicare benefit me? Or social security for that matter. I pay taxes but because I am sucessful I dont receive any of the the benefits. I am part of the country but am I a part of your "greater good"? Care to answer this question with an answer please. And not a touchy feely subjetive one if possible (I know its hard for you)
UndefinedBoy
01/19/05, 12:29 PM
How does welfare or medicare benefit me? Or social security for that matter. I pay taxes but because I am sucessful I dont receive any of the the benefits. I am part of the country but am I a part of your "greater good"? Care to answer this question with an answer please. And not a touchy feely subjetive one if possible (I know its hard for you)
How does social security benefit you? It will when you're old enough (well actually it probably won't, but it should). You're lucky not to be on welfare or need medicare, but maybe some day you will. This country has given you the opportunity to be as successful as you are (or your parents are), and everyone has to pay their dues.
What exactly is your point with this? That if you don't need welfare you shouldn't have to pay for it?
When you get on rants like this it makes us all very curious about how old you are, and I'm kinda confused about why you refuse to tell us. But hey, do what you want.
How does social security benefit you? It will when you're old enough (well actually it probably won't, but it should). You're lucky not to be on welfare or need medicare, but maybe some day you will. This country has given you the opportunity to be as successful as you are (or your parents are), and everyone has to pay their dues.
What exactly is your point with this? That if you don't need welfare you shouldn't have to pay for it?
When you get on rants like this it makes us all very curious about how old you are, and I'm kinda confused about why you refuse to tell us. But hey, do what you want.
Exactly.
I am 24
richter915
01/19/05, 03:55 PM
Exactly.
I am 24
so pretty much you feel that since the wealthy are wealthy...they shouldn't give two craps about those who aren't as priviliged...or the elderly who aren't able to work any more...this sorta selfish thinking is why I personally dislike conservatives.
Alan Rupp
01/19/05, 04:53 PM
so pretty much you feel that since the wealthy are wealthy...they shouldn't give two craps about those who aren't as priviliged...or the elderly who aren't able to work any more...this sorta selfish thinking is why I personally dislike conservatives.
This really annoys me. Conservatives aren't anit-charity, in fact, many do give to charity. I would guess percentages of those who donate are fairly equal between conservatives and liberals. The difference is they don't believe the government should steal our money, spend it unwisely and end up only giving maybe 30% of what they stole to those in need. The government is innately irresponsible with money, and that will never change. The less power they have, the better off we are.
Also, is it not selfish to demand the upper classes to give money to support you, regardless of the amount of work you do?
richter915
01/19/05, 06:02 PM
This really annoys me. Conservatives aren't anit-charity, in fact, many do give to charity. I would guess percentages of those who donate are fairly equal between conservatives and liberals. The difference is they don't believe the government should steal our money, spend it unwisely and end up only giving maybe 30% of what they stole to those in need. The government is innately irresponsible with money, and that will never change. The less power they have, the better off we are.
Also, is it not selfish to demand the upper classes to give money to support you, regardless of the amount of work you do?
I never said conservatives aren't anti-charity...I was replying to Poopy who sees that since he won't ever see that money come back to him and that it might go to those less priviliged...those programs are uselss and should be done away with...Also what is just...well known is that if these upper classmen are given the choice to give money to programs such as welfare but through private organizations...shit will be given (and it's known that not all private organizations let all the money go through...rock and a hard place)...
I'm not saying these programs are perfect, social security is so flawed that it won't even make it through to my generation...I think that changes should be made to programs like welfare...for example, I feel welfare should be given at different rates based on amount of work done...you can set limits and cap it off...
I feel that it is far more selfish to refuse to help the needy when you are obviously capable of it than the needy asking for help.
Love As Arson
01/19/05, 06:40 PM
How does welfare or medicare benefit me? Or social security for that matter. I pay taxes but because I am sucessful I dont receive any of the the benefits. I am part of the country but am I a part of your "greater good"? Care to answer this question with an answer please. And not a touchy feely subjetive one if possible (I know its hard for you)
It seems as though it is hard for you to debate without using ad hominems. I think that says something about you.
Those things don't directly benefit you. Then again, you don't need those things because you are successful, right? Although, one could argue that welfare allows for people to get on their feet, join the workforce, thus allowing them to contribute to economy, so, in a way, it does benefit you.
Are you part of the greater good? No, you're part of those who must sacrifice for the greater good, because with the oppurtunities they've been provided, they are able to make this sacrifice without having to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
so pretty much you feel that since the wealthy are wealthy...they shouldn't give two craps about those who aren't as priviliged...or the elderly who aren't able to work any more...this sorta selfish thinking is why I personally dislike conservatives.
I believe that being selfish is a virtue. The only way to get what you want in life is to know what you want, and get it, not give it away to someone who will waste it.
I never said conservatives aren't anti-charity...I was replying to Poopy who sees that since he won't ever see that money come back to him and that it might go to those less priviliged...those programs are uselss and should be done away with...Also what is just...well known is that if these upper classmen are given the choice to give money to programs such as welfare but through private organizations...shit will be given (and it's known that not all private organizations let all the money go through...rock and a hard place)...
I'm not saying these programs are perfect, social security is so flawed that it won't even make it through to my generation...I think that changes should be made to programs like welfare...for example, I feel welfare should be given at different rates based on amount of work done...you can set limits and cap it off...
I feel that it is far more selfish to refuse to help the needy when you are obviously capable of it than the needy asking for help.
Stop putting words in my mouth. All you hypocrits try to demonize me because I have original ideas about how to make this country better. The reason I dont approve of welfare and programs like it is because I get nothing out of them. Believe it or not I would like to see the poor helped, but I dont believe welfare helps them. If I give to a charity then at least I get the satifaction of knowing I am helping someone instead of paying for layers and layers of useless government bureaucracy
ohlookitspaul
01/19/05, 10:06 PM
Stop putting words in my mouth. All you hypocrits try to demonize me because I have original ideas about how to make this country better. The reason I dont approve of welfare and programs like it is because I get nothing out of them. Believe it or not I would like to see the poor helped, but I dont believe welfare helps them. If I give to a charity then at least I get the satifaction of knowing I am helping someone instead of paying for layers and layers of useless government bureaucracy
haha..."original ideas"? how are your ideas original?
haha..."original ideas"? how are your ideas original?
They are not yours, or anyone elses. I didnt read mine on the back of a NOFX CD.
ohlookitspaul
01/19/05, 10:20 PM
They are not yours, or anyone elses. I didnt read mine on the back of a NOFX CD.
are you referring to your "private charity instead of welfare" idea? actually that one's been around for a while. and i didn't read mine on the back of an NOFX CD, i actually read a lot and self-educate myself. So please refrain from stereotyping me, it's insulting.
are you referring to your "private charity instead of welfare" idea? actually that one's been around for a while. and i didn't read mine on the back of an NOFX CD, i actually read a lot and self-educate myself. So please refrain from stereotyping me, it's insulting.
Well I have never heard it mentioned by any major politician.
When you say you've read alot, you are reffering to the transcripts of M. Moores movies right?
Thats straight where all your politcal views and arguments come from. Its obvious.
Lueda Alia
01/19/05, 10:27 PM
I think it'd be a good idea if you ignore Poop.... I mean, Poopy from now on, Pauly. Obviously he thinks that no one besides him knows anything and that we all get our opinions from celebrities so meh.. it's pointless. Although quite amusing cause he's making a fool out of himself.
It seems as though it is hard for you to debate without using ad hominems. I think that says something about you.
Those things don't directly benefit you. Then again, you don't need those things because you are successful, right? Although, one could argue that welfare allows for people to get on their feet, join the workforce, thus allowing them to contribute to economy, so, in a way, it does benefit you.
Are you part of the greater good? No, you're part of those who must sacrifice for the greater good, because with the oppurtunities they've been provided, they are able to make this sacrifice without having to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
Do you even realize the hypocracy of the bold statement?
The "greater good", thats all you talk about. What is it?
ohlookitspaul
01/19/05, 10:28 PM
Well I have never heard it mentioned by any major politician.
When you say you've read alot, you are reffering to the transcripts of M. Moores movies right?
Thats straight where all your politcal views and arguments come from. Its obvious.
i had thought it had been, i'm not sure, i can look it up later. but i know it's been a fairly consistent anti-welfare argument for the right wing for a while at least.
and no, i'm not referring to michael moore movies. when will you stop making uneducated assumptions about me? if you must know, i am a second year political science major at USC and most of my best friends are either poli sci or international relations majors, and so i learn a lot from them. i also read books on politics rather voraciously.
I think it'd be a good idea if you ignore Poop.... I mean, Poopy from now on, Pauly. Obviously he thinks that no one besides him knows anything and that we all get our opinions from celebrities so meh.. it's pointless. Although quite amusing cause he's making a fool out of himself.
Finally something I have said got through your thick skull. Victory is mine!!
i had thought it had been, i'm not sure, i can look it up later. but i know it's been a fairly consistent anti-welfare argument for the right wing for a while at least.
and no, i'm not referring to michael moore movies. when will you stop making uneducated assumptions about me? if you must know, i am a second year political science major at USC and most of my best friends are either poli sci or international relations majors, and so i learn a lot from them. i also read books on politics rather voraciously.
You and your friends are the reason that politcians suck. You try to call leftist indoctrination education.
ohlookitspaul
01/19/05, 10:32 PM
You and your friends are the reason that politcians suck. You try to call leftist indoctrination education.
first of all, you obviously don't know anything about colleges or higher education if you think USC is a liberal indoctrinating institution. this is one of the most politically apathetic and conservative campuses (relatively) around. second of all, where do YOU get all your information?
the more you post, the more you sound like an idiot.
first of all, you obviously don't know anything about colleges or higher education if you think USC is a liberal indoctrinating institution. this is one of the most politically apathetic and conservative campuses (relatively) around. second of all, where do YOU get all your information?
the more you post, the more you sound like an idiot.
I told you, my ideas are original. They come from my head, not some leftist professor.
ohlookitspaul
01/19/05, 10:38 PM
I told you, my ideas are original. They come from my head, not some leftist professor.
ahhh, so your ideas don't have any kind of factual and solid basis from the real world, it all comes from your head and your imagination.
that explains a lot.
cal1082
01/19/05, 10:38 PM
See this is what makes me wonder how much people really are aware about stuff.
The faith-based initiatives have been one of Bush's talking points for a long, long while. He's always supported.
Love As Arson
01/19/05, 10:38 PM
Do you even realize the hypocracy of the bold statement?
The "greater good", thats all you talk about. What is it?
No, I don't see any hypocrisy in it.
Come on, Poopy. You're a smart guy, or you claim to be anyway. With all that political knowledge, you should know what I am talking about when I refer to the greater good.
cal1082
01/19/05, 10:39 PM
No, I don't see any hypocrisy in it.
Come on, Poopy. You're a smart guy, or you claim to be anyway. With all that political knowledge, you should know what I am talking about when I refer to the greater good.
are you Utilitarian?
No, I don't see any hypocrisy in it.
Come on, Poopy. You're a smart guy, or you claim to be anyway. With all that political knowledge, you should know what I am talking about when I refer to the greater good.
To me the greater good is a smokescreen created by commies to steal my money and make it legal.
Love As Arson
01/20/05, 02:18 AM
are you Utilitarian?
Yes.
To me the greater good is a smokescreen created by commies to steal my money and make it legal.
We all must sacrifice for the greater good, which is helping those who are unable to help themselves, so in the future, they may be able to help themselves.
It hasnt become trendy to hate the UN yet.
who likes the UN?
Yes.
We all must sacrifice for the greater good, which is helping those who are unable to help themselves, so in the future, they may be able to help themselves.
So let me get this straight. Someone isnt good enough to do something, so we give them money for nothing and they are supposed to be inspired to learn and grow and work harder? Sorry dude it doesnt add up.
UndefinedBoy
01/20/05, 11:15 PM
So let me get this straight. Someone isnt good enough to do something, so we give them money for nothing and they are supposed to be inspired to learn and grow and work harder? Sorry dude it doesnt add up.
People born less fortunate than you aren't "not good enough." Do you enjoy flashing ignorance?
open mind
01/20/05, 11:17 PM
People born less fortunate than you aren't "not good enough." Do you enjoy flashing ignorance?
damn the liberals and their brainwashed minds. :stick:
Love As Arson
01/21/05, 12:18 AM
So let me get this straight. Someone isnt good enough to do something, so we give them money for nothing and they are supposed to be inspired to learn and grow and work harder? Sorry dude it doesnt add up.
Because, of course, those who are poor are that way, because they didn't work hard enough, and those who are rich worked for what they have.
This is the difference between you and I:
I don't think someone is less than human for being poor, and I believe the government, as well as the people, have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate.
Now, do I believe we should just throw money at them? No. Along with welfare, I would be for developing programs that would have the government training those on welfare, and even finding jobs for those people. However, these programs would require more tax dollars. Are you going to complain about that? Or, do you see it for what it is, something that is done for the greater good?
Because, of course, those who are poor are that way, because they didn't work hard enough, and those who are rich worked for what they have.
This is the difference between you and I:
I don't think someone is less than human for being poor, and I believe the government, as well as the people, have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate.
Now, do I believe we should just throw money at them? No. Along with welfare, I would be for developing programs that would have the government training those on welfare, and even finding jobs for those people. However, these programs would require more tax dollars. Are you going to complain about that? Or, do you see it for what it is, something that is done for the greater good?
So you choose to victimize the poor. You condescention is not helping them. I believe they have more oppurtunities here in America now than anyone has ever had in the past.. As for trainning them and finding jobs for them I would support that over welfare anyday. But notice how you say that you would like to train those on welfare and help them find jobs. That gives them little incentive to actually keep a job when they could just quit and get back on welfare. Also what is the reason that low cost job trainning cannot be provided by the free market? Schools like ITT tech, ect. and private charities to cover some of the cost. The poor dont need government to depend on and by claiming that they do, you are helping to make it true.
People born less fortunate than you aren't "not good enough." Do you enjoy flashing ignorance?
Someone on welfare isnt less fortunate than me. The only diffference between him and me, is that I CHOOSE to work.
open mind
01/25/05, 02:14 PM
Someone on welfare isnt less fortunate than me. The only diffference between him and me, is that I CHOOSE to work.
you're a real stereotyping fuck you know that?
UndefinedBoy
01/25/05, 03:29 PM
Someone on welfare isnt less fortunate than me. The only diffference between him and me, is that I CHOOSE to work.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
cal1082
01/25/05, 03:51 PM
Because, of course, those who are poor are that way, because they didn't work hard enough, and those who are rich worked for what they have.
This is the difference between you and I:
I don't think someone is less than human for being poor, and I believe the government, as well as the people, have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate.
Now, do I believe we should just throw money at them? No. Along with welfare, I would be for developing programs that would have the government training those on welfare, and even finding jobs for those people. However, these programs would require more tax dollars. Are you going to complain about that? Or, do you see it for what it is, something that is done for the greater good?
Yes, I'd complain until I was blue in the face. Fact of the matter is huge, welfare programs ran by the state are inefficent, wasteful, and not affective. Yes, they help some but I dont think it's the most effective way to help the most.
I'd much rather imbrace local communties, churches, city programs, county programs and other more local tools to help people finding jobs, getting shelter, and recieving food.
open mind
01/25/05, 03:56 PM
Yes, I'd complain until I was blue in the face. Fact of the matter is huge, welfare programs ran by the state are inefficent, wasteful, and not affective. Yes, they help some but I dont think it's the most effective way to help the most.
I'd much rather imbrace local communties, churches, city programs, county programs and other more local tools to help people finding jobs, getting shelter, and recieving food.
are you also calling for an end to corporate welfare and corporate tax breaks?
cal1082
01/25/05, 03:59 PM
are you also calling for an end to corporate welfare and corporate tax breaks?
I dont have a problem with corporate tax breaks, just like i dont have a problem with regular tax breaks. :huh:
Am I wrong? Do you really think the US government is the most efficent way to provide help?
open mind
01/25/05, 04:27 PM
I dont have a problem with corporate tax breaks, just like i dont have a problem with regular tax breaks. :huh:
Am I wrong? Do you really think the US government is the most efficent way to provide help?
it's the only way to make a real difference on a national level as far as i can see.
cal1082
01/25/05, 04:39 PM
it's the only way to make a real difference on a national level as far as i can see.
I dont deny that I think government welfare at this point is an evil neccesity, but I'm not alos going to be stupid and think it's the best way to provide the most efficient help for the most people.
All you have to do is currently look how screwed up our welfare system is. I would say the best solution is to minimize, as much as possible, the use of federal welfare. Then incorporate more local welfare, on a city, religious, county, and even state level if needed.
Just be rational and think who's gonna be able to help the single mom with 3 kids the most..........the federal government in Washington, or the church down the road or community center around the corner?
open mind
01/25/05, 04:44 PM
I dont deny that I think government welfare at this point is an evil neccesity, but I'm not alos going to be stupid and think it's the best way to provide the most efficient help for the most people.
All you have to do is currently look how screwed up our welfare system is. I would say the best solution is to minimize, as much as possible, the use of federal welfare. Then incorporate more local welfare, on a city, religious, county, and even state level if needed.
Just be rational and think who's gonna be able to help the single mom with 3 kids the most..........the federal government in Washington, or the church down the road or community center around the corner?
we already had welfare drastically cut in the last decade.
the church will waste just as much if not more money and try to convert you, and the community center would be good for activities but not so much for food and bills.
shit man i thought you said you were a realist once before.
cal1082
01/25/05, 04:56 PM
we already had welfare drastically cut in the last decade.
the church will waste just as much if not more money and try to convert you, and the community center would be good for activities but not so much for food and bills.
shit man i thought you said you were a realist once before.
I am......I realize that community is much more affective than federal. The only really effecitve, reliable, service the federal government has come to be good at is the US postal service.
Also church will waste money trying to convert you..........? You completely ingore any help the church would do. You are simply brushing any help they do, by saying it's wasteful because they'll try to convert you. Give me a break.......I worked 3 years at a local church and often had people come in seeking help. Usually it only resulted with a voucher for one night in a hotel (many were just passer-bys) but sometimes they would come in speak to a minister, and the minister would provide them with information on programs, and telephone numbers of local agencies. They even work with other churches and religions to spread out word about their programs. You have a warped pereception of what most local churches do......
open mind
01/25/05, 05:15 PM
I am......I realize that community is much more affective than federal. The only really effecitve, reliable, service the federal government has come to be good at is the US postal service.
Also church will waste money trying to convert you..........? You completely ingore any help the church would do. You are simply brushing any help they do, by saying it's wasteful because they'll try to convert you. Give me a break.......I worked 3 years at a local church and often had people come in seeking help. Usually it only resulted with a voucher for one night in a hotel (many were just passer-bys) but sometimes they would come in speak to a minister, and the minister would provide them with information on programs, and telephone numbers of local agencies. They even work with other churches and religions to spread out word about their programs. You have a warped pereception of what most local churches do......
you didn't read carefully enough.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Care to enlighten me?
UndefinedBoy
01/25/05, 05:45 PM
Care to enlighten me?
If you don't view the poor as less fortunate than I'm not sure if there's any hope for you.
If you don't view the poor as less fortunate than I'm not sure if there's any hope for you.
I would not make a blanket statement that every person who is "poor" is "less fortunate" than me.
UndefinedBoy
01/25/05, 05:49 PM
I would not make a blanket statement that every person who is "poor" is "less fortunate" than me.
But you WOULD make a blanket statement saying that the difference between you and someone on welfare is that you choose to work...
Not that that would be hypocritical or anything.
cal1082
01/25/05, 06:04 PM
you didn't read carefully enough.
explain then........if i didnt read it carefully enough would you explain it again? I've re-read and not seeing what i'm not reading carefully?
But you WOULD make a blanket statement saying that the difference between you and someone on welfare is that you choose to work...
Not that that would be hypocritical or anything.
Ok, your right thanks for catching my hypocracy.
open mind
01/25/05, 06:11 PM
explain then........if i didnt read it carefully enough would you explain it again? I've re-read and not seeing what i'm not reading carefully?
i didn't say they'd waste money trying to convert you i said they'll waste money AND they'll try to convert you, i'm not into the idea of state sponsored religion (although we already have some of that with faith based initiatives)
i didn't say they'd waste money trying to convert you i said they'll waste money AND they'll try to convert you, i'm not into the idea of state sponsored religion (although we already have some of that with faith based initiatives)
You idiot!
Cal is saying that the church, as a private organization could help the impoverished. The government would not have to sponsor anything.
cal1082
01/25/05, 06:23 PM
i didn't say they'd waste money trying to convert you i said they'll waste money AND they'll try to convert you, i'm not into the idea of state sponsored religion (although we already have some of that with faith based initiatives)
I see where I made my mistake. It's not state-sponsored religion.........(eventhough I currently support the idea of the faith based initiatives).
There's more to a Christian churches besides converting. Ultimatiley the main goal is preaching the Gospel, but giving charity and aid is a very, very, very large part.
open mind
01/25/05, 06:25 PM
You idiot!
Cal is saying that the church, as a private organization could help the impoverished. The government would not have to sponsor anything.
i'm an idiot? what the fuck does that make you then?
we're talking about welfare (you may not know this but the government runs it)
but let's say we're talking about the church being charitable without government funding, they'd still waste alot of money, because much of the money would be spent on church buisness and growth instead of helping people, also churches do what your talking about already and they don't come close to doing the job that needs to be done, are they all of a sudden going to become fiscally responsible if we get rid of welfare?
open mind
01/25/05, 06:27 PM
I see where I made my mistake. It's not state-sponsored religion.........(eventhough I currently support the idea of the faith based initiatives).
There's more to a Christian churches besides converting. Ultimatiley the main goal is preaching the Gospel, but giving charity and aid is a very, very, very large part.
i know this, my dad is a priest, which is also a big reason why i don't think churches can handle such a large task such as welfare, i've seen how things go upclose.
cal1082
01/25/05, 06:29 PM
i know this, my dad is a priest, which is also a big reason why i don't think churches can handle such a large task such as welfare, i've seen how things go upclose.
Also I'm not laying it all on the back of the church. My main point again is to get it out of federal hands as much as possible. It's easier to meet the desires and needs of a community when the people who are trying to help are in the community and know what the community needs.
open mind
01/25/05, 06:34 PM
Also I'm not laying it all on the back of the church. My main point again is to get it out of federal hands as much as possible. It's easier to meet the desires and needs of a community when the people who are trying to help are in the community and know what the community needs.
like food and housing until people can get on their feet? or maybe organizations that help people find jobs?
cal1082
01/25/05, 06:41 PM
like food and housing until people can get on their feet? or maybe organizations that help people find jobs?
Both.....example. The city of College Station where I live provides community job fairs, free GED classes, and some classes that you pay for on a monthly bases. There are a number of churches here that do various charity work, we have a branch of Habitat for Humanity (Christian organization), the food pantry, etc........
You cant just look down the scope like you're doing any saying, "well the churches can't provide all of that". You have to look at all the differnt churches, all the differnt charity groups, and the city's own differnt charitable groups.
open mind
01/25/05, 06:45 PM
Both.....example. The city of College Station where I live provides community job fairs, free GED classes, and some classes that you pay for on a monthly bases. There are a number of churches here that do various charity work, we have a branch of Habitat for Humanity (Christian organization), the food pantry, etc........
You cant just look down the scope like you're doing any saying, "well the churches can't provide all of that". You have to look at all the differnt churches, all the differnt charity groups, and the city's own differnt charitable groups.
my thinking is they can't handle it all, if they could we wouldn't be able to spend all of the welfare budget, because charities would have already done the job.
also if they're all private organizations they don't have to help everyone, they could turn away alot of people over trivialities, something the government can't do.
we'll have to resume this conversation later, i have to go do some errands.
my thinking is they can't handle it all, if they could we wouldn't be able to spend all of the welfare budget, because charities would have already done the job.
also if they're all private organizations they don't have to help everyone, they could turn away alot of people over trivialities, something the government can't do.
we'll have to resume this conversation later, i have to go do some errands.
There are so many logical inconsistencies in your thinking I dont even know where to start. You are right that a Church does not have to help everyone. They would be more focused on providing the best care to the individuals who in their eyes deserve it the most. Even if you dont agree with how a church would select the recipients of help, the great thing about the free market is you would be free to find or create a charity that aligns itself more closely with the people you would like to help. The help would go where you want it with less waste and would give you more satisfaction knowing that you money is being spent efficiently on people who really need help. That is the beauty of the free market.
my thinking is they can't handle it all, if they could we wouldn't be able to spend all of the welfare budget, because charities would have already done the job.
also if they're all private organizations they don't have to help everyone, they could turn away alot of people over trivialities, something the government can't do.
we'll have to resume this conversation later, i have to go do some errands.
Keep in mind that the tax burden is tremendous on the average American. If they had more income, they would have more to donate. Americans are very generous, if you gave them a chance I think they could finance a private welfare type programs, that would meet the publics needs
cal1082
01/25/05, 10:50 PM
my thinking is they can't handle it all, if they could we wouldn't be able to spend all of the welfare budget, because charities would have already done the job.
also if they're all private organizations they don't have to help everyone, they could turn away alot of people over trivialities, something the government can't do.
we'll have to resume this conversation later, i have to go do some errands.
Who are churches going to turn down? Non-Christians? That wouldnt make a whole lot of sense considering a churches goal is to get them to church.
UndefinedBoy
01/25/05, 10:51 PM
Keep in mind that the tax burden is tremendous on the average American. If they had more income, they would have more to donate. Americans are very generous, if you gave them a chance I think they could finance a private welfare type programs, that would meet the publics needs
That's a pretty big risk and assumption.
scitsofreaky
01/25/05, 11:03 PM
Keep in mind that the tax burden is tremendous on the average American. If they had more income, they would have more to donate. Americans are very generous, if you gave them a chance I think they could finance a private welfare type programs, that would meet the publics needs
Sure, they would supprot the welfare type programs, but Americans don't want to pay taxes, even though they know it funds such programs. In fact, in general, people don't like that they have to pay for people on welfare, and think of the people on welfare as parasites on society's wallet.
open mind
01/26/05, 02:09 AM
Who are churches going to turn down? Non-Christians? That wouldnt make a whole lot of sense considering a churches goal is to get them to church.
we live in a self segregating society, each group might only tend to their own people and those they believe they can convert to their religion/denomination, i mean there won't be much motivation to do otherwise and each group can only do so much.
another thing is what if you live in an area where no one can afford to give to charity? are the well off going to send money to them? i doubt it.
open mind
01/26/05, 02:10 AM
There are so many logical inconsistencies in your thinking I dont even know where to start. You are right that a Church does not have to help everyone. They would be more focused on providing the best care to the individuals who in their eyes deserve it the most. Even if you dont agree with how a church would select the recipients of help, the great thing about the free market is you would be free to find or create a charity that aligns itself more closely with the people you would like to help. The help would go where you want it with less waste and would give you more satisfaction knowing that you money is being spent efficiently on people who really need help. That is the beauty of the free market.
so how am i being illogical again?
open mind
01/26/05, 02:13 AM
Keep in mind that the tax burden is tremendous on the average American. If they had more income, they would have more to donate. Americans are very generous, if you gave them a chance I think they could finance a private welfare type programs, that would meet the publics needs
and conservatives are the realists................shit man, while i could see some of the extra money going to charity but i also think alot of people would just spend the money on electronics, clothes, cars, and vacations and the like.
cal1082
01/26/05, 07:05 AM
we live in a self segregating society, each group might only tend to their own people and those they believe they can convert to their religion/denomination, i mean there won't be much motivation to do otherwise and each group can only do so much.
Again these people are going to be seeking the churches, communty groups, ect...... it's not going to be the other way around.
another thing is what if you live in an area where no one can afford to give to charity? are the well off going to send money to them? i doubt it.
there's many of those places and that's a lot of times where you find the most churches, and help groups.
cal1082
01/26/05, 07:07 AM
and conservatives are the realists................shit man, while i could see some of the extra money going to charity but i also think alot of people would just spend the money on electronics, clothes, cars, and vacations and the like.
I agree, that's one reason I recognize the need for government welfare. To be honest though I'd rather be able to give what the government would take to whoever I want to give it too. I wish charitable donations could be written off.
ps---i realize charitable donations can be written off tax wise. Let me restate what i meant cause it didnt sound right. I wish the % of money that the government uses for it's welfare program, and in turn the % of welfare each person pays out of there taxes could be designated where ever you'd like.
Love As Arson
01/26/05, 09:50 AM
So you choose to victimize the poor. You condescention is not helping them. I believe they have more oppurtunities here in America now than anyone has ever had in the past.. As for trainning them and finding jobs for them I would support that over welfare anyday. But notice how you say that you would like to train those on welfare and help them find jobs. That gives them little incentive to actually keep a job when they could just quit and get back on welfare. Also what is the reason that low cost job trainning cannot be provided by the free market? Schools like ITT tech, ect. and private charities to cover some of the cost. The poor dont need government to depend on and by claiming that they do, you are helping to make it true.
There is no condescension in the belief that the government, and the people, have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate.
As for incentive, you say this believing the majority of people on welfare abuse it, I don't take that stance. People, when given the oppurtunity to get a job and get off of welfare, will take it.
I'm not making the poor more dependent on the government, I'm trying to make the government more responsible for protecting it's citizens.
Yes, I'd complain until I was blue in the face. Fact of the matter is huge, welfare programs ran by the state are inefficent, wasteful, and not affective. Yes, they help some but I dont think it's the most effective way to help the most.
I'd much rather imbrace local communties, churches, city programs, county programs and other more local tools to help people finding jobs, getting shelter, and recieving food.
I'd be in favor of a reform that would make it less wasteful and more efficient.
I'm not saying welfare as it stands is perfect, but I do believe that welfare is necessary, and I would be for reforms to help make it work better for the people.
UndefinedBoy
01/26/05, 10:21 AM
I agree, that's one reason I recognize the need for government welfare. To be honest though I'd rather be able to give what the government would take to whoever I want to give it too. I wish charitable donations could be written off.
I agree with that.
open mind
01/26/05, 07:00 PM
I agree, that's one reason I recognize the need for government welfare. To be honest though I'd rather be able to give what the government would take to whoever I want to give it too. I wish charitable donations could be written off.
ps---i realize charitable donations can be written off tax wise. Let me restate what i meant cause it didnt sound right. I wish the % of money that the government uses for it's welfare program, and in turn the % of welfare each person pays out of there taxes could be designated where ever you'd like.
your taxes go down when you donate, so the percentage of your money that goes to welfare goes down to, so i don't see much point to it, but i wouldn't be against that.
open mind
01/26/05, 07:04 PM
Again these people are going to be seeking the churches, communty groups, ect...... it's not going to be the other way around.
there's many of those places and that's a lot of times where you find the most churches, and help groups.
what's to stop said churches and groups from turning people away if they don't like them?
yeah, the ghettos and poorest rural areas of america are just bursting with them.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.