Adam Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 WTF adam, you're siding with a guy that can't spell, can't put a coherent thought together and condescendingly spouts his liberal bias? That's ok though, at least you're finally taking a stand. You think. Maybe Taking a stand, not taking a stand. I'm not even completely sure what he said, other than people from both parties are causing problems. I have definite opinions, but I am not always eloquent enough to state them- not that that is any type of problem, as people usually don't agree with me (which isn't a problem, either. Great thing about the country is that everyone has an opinion, and it's ok to have the wrong one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Somebody like DC Tom may be able to check my historical reference here, but I beleive that one of the driving forces behind the establishment of welfare in the 1930s was an effort to curb the violence associated with people trying to eat during The Great Depression. Gangs had began forming in big cities that were jacking food from bread lines and there was fear that the loathing towards those who didn't lose everything in '29 would turn from percolating to violent. Not saying that that was the only impetus for welfare establishment; but it was one of them. And that was in a time before technology, and television, and huge megatropolises. Edit: This is by no means exhaustive, but a simple search yields all types of anecdotes about the violence during the Great Depression owing to people unable to eat: Violent hunger riots in Detroit, Toledo, NYC, etc.; farm protests; significant increase in the crime rate. The trend was increasing until the New Deal policies. I do know that a lot of European welfare programs were a result of pro-Soviet "we all bet the Nazis together!" goodwill in the immediate post-WWII period. So your timeframe is roughly right, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 What were the recent riots in London about? perhaps this writer knows the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) i agree with Hobbes and you that without some form of societal support for the have nots, anarchy will result. it's entirely consistent with what i understand of conservative philosophy to support welfare programs to the degree needed to avioid anarchy. it's the least expensive solution. far cheaper but far less moral, for example, than mandating a living wage. Well said. As a moderate conservative, support for a functioning welfare system is based on preventative maintenance and pragmatism as much as beneficence. Edited December 21, 2011 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well said. As a moderate conservative, support for a functioning welfare system is based on preventative maintenance and pragmatism as much as beneficence. i don't believe beneficence is generally paid more than lip service by many conservatives. it's just not a significant factor in the decision making process. i'm sure the greek chorus here will agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yeah because all that anarchy before the social support systems were put in place really sucked. America has always had a social program- previously it was called the frontier and consisted of taking land from the natives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) i don't believe beneficence is generally paid more than lip service by many conservatives. it's just not a significant factor in the decision making process. i'm sure the greek chorus here will agree. Before you get hurt in backslapping yourselves, let's put aside whatever stereotypes of "many conservatives" especially the ones on this board. Firstly, data shows that conservatives are much more generous in charitable giving of time & money, so you may want to rethink that beneficence point. Secondly, many conservatives recognize the difference between a safety net that is designed to dampen the shock of employment cycles and accomodates temporary needs and a safety net that creates a permanently subsidized class of people feeding off generations of entitlements. Edited December 21, 2011 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Would I recognize a liberal on the street? That's a stupid question, but typical of a liberal. You guys rarely ever pin yourself down and speak in platitudes often. The well-to-do liberals have a sense of superiority and entitlement. The poor liberals just have a sense of entitlement. Let me make it clear I am not saying one hundred percent of you guys are like this but it is a liberal trait. Your philosophy is based more on academic assumptions than reality or the test of time. You would rather rewrite history than learn from it. You guys are also mean spirited and are dogmatic in you adherence to the message given you by your liberal leaders. That's just a small slice of it today, doc. And oh, did you ever hear of teabagger? Is this really what lives in your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Is this really what lives in your head? Can you refute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Before you get hurt in backslapping yourselves, let's put aside whatever stereotypes of "many conservatives" especially the ones on this board. Firstly, data shows that conservatives are much more generous in charitable giving of time & money, so you may want to rethink that beneficence point. Secondly, many conservatives recognize the difference between a safety net that is designed to dampen the shock of employment cycles and accomodates temporary needs and a safety net that creates a permanently subsidized class of people feeding off generations of entitlements. Private charities have historically provided a sliver of actual need on a national level and even less on an international level. While admirable, a more systematic approach is necessary to effectively address unmet needs in areas such as housings, education, nutrition and healthcare. Liberals are generally much more willing to legislate (and pay the significant tax bill for) such systems than are conservatives and I suggest that holds true for those on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Private charities have historically provided a sliver of actual need on a national level and even less on an international level. While admirable, a more systematic approach is necessary to effectively address unmet needs in areas such as housings, education, nutrition and healthcare. Liberals are generally much more willing to legislate (and pay the significant tax bill for) such systems than are conservatives and I suggest that holds true for those on this board. Can you back this up, or will it be more hyperbole? Understand this, liberals are willing to legislate while conservatives are willing to give on their own accord. We just want most of our buck going to people who need it, not the public sector unionist who ends up taking the vast majority of the money and administrating it to the ones that keep their patrones in office. You spent a lot of years getting educated in your field, and it is a noble field, but you sure missed out on a real world education. I challenge you to read something different than medical journals and Obama puff pieces. If you have any interest in history, try Mitchener's works. They are "fiction, but real. They will give you a different perspective (Excluding "Iberia"). After those you might be ready for a little of Robert Ringer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Private charities have historically provided a sliver of actual need on a national level and even less on an international level. While admirable, a more systematic approach is necessary to effectively address unmet needs in areas such as housings, education, nutrition and healthcare. Liberals are generally much more willing to legislate (and pay the significant tax bill for) such systems than are conservatives and I suggest that holds true for those on this board. Liberals are willing to legislate and forget. While conservatives end up paying for the liberal redistribution of wealth AND contributing through charities and actions. Oh, and you are factually wrong with you first statement. Historically it was the Church (of what ever faith was local) that provided for "actual need" prior to the government siphoning of more and more of peoples disposable income. Through diligent deconstruction of faith through liberal media and "public" education institutions (i.e. government schools), contributions to charities have declined as the nation has become more secular and reliant upon the government to provide in time of need instead of relying on the action charitable actions of churches and neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Private charities have historically provided a sliver of actual need on a national level and even less on an international level. While admirable, a more systematic approach is necessary to effectively address unmet needs in areas such as housings, education, nutrition and healthcare. Liberals are generally much more willing to legislate (and pay the significant tax bill for) such systems than are conservatives and I suggest that holds true for those on this board. All of the "other people's money" that you idiots are passing out hasn't changed much of anything. Virtually the same percentage of people are uneducated, hungry, homeless, and jobless as there were before this gigantic unconstitutional bureaucratic apparatus was in place, but at least the public employee unions are able to kill the middle class tax payer with their out of control pension benefits at virtually every level of government. Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 America has always had a social program- previously it was called the frontier and consisted of taking land from the natives. Yes, that's such a great point. One of the big complaints against 'the government' in 1763 was that the Brits wouldn't all the colonists to move west of the appalachian mountains All of the "other people's money" that you idiots are passing out hasn't changed much of anything. Virtually the same percentage of people are uneducated, hungry, homeless, and jobless as there were before this gigantic unconstitutional bureaucratic apparatus was in place, but at least the public employee unions are able to kill the middle class tax payer with their out of control pension benefits at virtually every level of government. Bravo! That's such an ignorant statement. The welfare stat has incredibly improved peoples lives, it's a big reason for the longer life span, the reduction of child mortality and easing general misery all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yes, that's such a great point. One of the big complaints against 'the government' in 1763 was that the Brits wouldn't all the colonists to move west of the appalachian mountains That's such an ignorant statement. The welfare stat has incredibly improved peoples lives, it's a big reason for the longer life span, the reduction of child mortality and easing general misery all over. And you make fun of my spelling. It's late so I'll give you a pass. My speeling sicks when I'm drink too. Spelling aside that's one of the funniest post ever. Tell you what. Why don't you take a walk through south central and ask them how welfare has improved their lives. You'll be dead before you hit Inglewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Before you get hurt in backslapping yourselves, let's put aside whatever stereotypes of "many conservatives" especially the ones on this board. Firstly, data shows that conservatives are much more generous in charitable giving of time & money, so you may want to rethink that beneficence point. Secondly, many conservatives recognize the difference between a safety net that is designed to dampen the shock of employment cycles and accomodates temporary needs and a safety net that creates a permanently subsidized class of people feeding off generations of entitlements. I'm having trouble finding the data on who is is more charitable in time and money. I do agree with your second point. There is a difference between a safety net and a system that doesn't provide any motivation to get out once you're in. However this is not a good time to make cuts in areas like cash assistance, unemployment, and food stamps. These are programs designed to stabilize consumption during economic downturn. Cutting these programs now is a great way to send the economy back into free fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 That's such an ignorant statement. The welfare stat has incredibly improved peoples lives, it's a big reason for the longer life span, the reduction of child mortality and easing general misery all over. What welfare "stat"? Surely you can back this up with numerous studies. You know, because I'm so ignorant I require proof to back up such "bold" statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 I'm having trouble finding the data on who is is more charitable in time and money. I do agree with your second point. There is a difference between a safety net and a system that doesn't provide any motivation to get out once you're in. However this is not a good time to make cuts in areas like cash assistance, unemployment, and food stamps. These are programs designed to stabilize consumption during economic downturn. Cutting these programs now is a great way to send the economy back into free fall. WTF? Dave in Norfolk must have invited his family to join PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Liberals are willing to legislate and forget. While conservatives end up paying for the liberal redistribution of wealth AND contributing through charities and actions. Oh, and you are factually wrong with you first statement. Historically it was the Church (of what ever faith was local) that provided for "actual need" prior to the government siphoning of more and more of peoples disposable income. Through diligent deconstruction of faith through liberal media and "public" education institutions (i.e. government schools), contributions to charities have declined as the nation has become more secular and reliant upon the government to provide in time of need instead of relying on the action charitable actions of churches and neighbors. at their highest point, religious hospitals provided a fraction of the inpatient care required for universal access and a smaller fraction of outpatient care. they were and are great institutions, notably Catrholic and Baptists hospitals but they were never at a point where they could fill the needs of the entire county for heathcare. same for retired folks needs or feeding the hungry. Catholic charities still does an amazing job but there are plent of hungry, homeless people in the US that they can't and have never been able to reach. and you are incorrect...there are liberals that donate privately and pay taxes publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 That's such an ignorant statement. The welfare stat has incredibly improved peoples lives, it's a big reason for the longer life span, the reduction of child mortality and easing general misery all over. I'll eschew my usual observation that you're a total !@#$ing moron in favor of something more constructive, and potentially more entertaining: Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts