1st Term Obama Approval

[formergothardite]

I think the real reason people like Jericho don't want the government to be in charge of helping the poor is that they want to make sure that their money only goes to help people they approve of. Dont' want to be helping the people who are pagans or have abortions (they should be in jail for murder anyway) or gays. Of course, admitting to that is going against everything Jesus said, so they can't say that lest they admit to being crappy Christians.

Jericho in thread after thread has been unable to prove that private charities can care for poor people like the government currently does. Right now it doesn't matter your race, religion or sexual orientation, you can get help without having to hear about how you are a godless sinner or how that charity doesn't help people like you.

Is there need for welfare reform? Sure, but Jericho isn't advocating fixing the problems in the current system, he wants to get rid of it.

Either Jericho is:

~selfish and doesn't give a shit about the poor. (which is says isn't true)

~he only wants to help people he approves of. (which goes against the teachings of Jesus)

or

~he wants to ignore all historical facts and pretend that his ideas will work even though history proves him wrong. (which makes him willfully ignorant)

So Jericho, which one is it? Since your ideas about helping the poor, history proves will not work, what are the real reasons behind you wanting to almost demolish the welfare system in favor of a system that will almost certainly fail? Why not just fight for the changes you want in the welfare system?

[jericho]

Where is the proof that private charities do not work? Here are some facts I found online to support they do work.

Replacing Welfare with Private Charity By Michael Tanner

Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. In fact, more than 85 percent of all adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. In addition, about half of all American adults perform volunteer work; more than 20 billion hours were worked in 1991. The dollar value of that volunteer work was more than $176 billion. Volunteer work and cash donations combined bring American charitable contributions to more than $300 billion per year, not counting the countless dollars and time given informally to family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. Of course, by that time the job will be gone. A private charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery).

The sheer size of government programs works against individualization. As one welfare case worker lamented, "With 125 cases it's hard to remember that they're all human beings. Sometimes they're just a number." Bureaucracy is a major factor in government welfare programs. For example, a report on welfare in Illinois found procedures requiring "nine forms to process an address change, at least six forms to add or delete a member of a household, and a minimum of six forms to report a change in earnings or employment." All that for just one program.

In her excellent book Tyranny of Kindness, Theresa Funiciello, a former welfare mother, describes the dehumanizing world of the government welfare system--a system in which regulations and bureaucracy rule all else. It is a system in which illiterate homeless people with mental illnesses are handed 17-page forms to fill out, women nine months pregnant are told to verify their pregnancies, a woman who was raped is told she is ineligible for benefits because she can't list the baby's father on the required form. It is a world totally unable to adjust to the slightest deviation from the bureaucratic norm.

In addition to being better able to target individual needs, private charities are much better able to target assistance to those who really need help. Because eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances, many people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. More than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Yet more than half of the families receiving means-tested benefits are not poor. Thus, a student may receive food stamps, while a homeless man with no mailing address goes without. Private charities are not bound by such bureaucratic restrictions.

Private charity also has a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients. Surprisingly little of the money being spent on federal and state social welfare programs actually reaches recipients. In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs.

The full article can be found here. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

[Arielkay]

I think the real reason people like Jericho don't want the government to be in charge of helping the poor is that they want to make sure that their money only goes to help people they approve of. Dont' want to be helping the people who are pagans or have abortions (they should be in jail for murder anyway) or gays. Of course, admitting to that is going against everything Jesus said, so they can't say that lest they admit to being crappy Christians.

Jericho in thread after thread has been unable to prove that private charities can care for poor people like the government currently does. Right now it doesn't matter your race, religion or sexual orientation, you can get help without having to hear about how you are a godless sinner or how that charity doesn't help people like you.

Is there need for welfare reform? Sure, but Jericho isn't advocating fixing the problems in the current system, he wants to get rid of it.

Either Jericho is:

~selfish and doesn't give a shit about the poor. (which is says isn't true)

~he only wants to help people he approves of. (which goes against the teachings of Jesus)

or

~he wants to ignore all historical facts and pretend that his ideas will work even though history proves him wrong. (which makes him willfully ignorant)

So Jericho, which one is it? Since your ideas about helping the poor, history proves will not work, what are the real reasons behind you wanting to almost demolish the welfare system in favor of a system that will almost certainly fail? Why not just fight for the changes you want in the welfare system?

I would vote for all of the above. I'm seriously annoyed by his post about "I don't know why I post with all these ebil misled feminists". Yes, you do. Because you're an asshole with idiot, condescending views. Almost everywhere I go, I deal with people like jericho. I live in conservative Bible Belt territory. It's nice to go here and read posts by people who believe in common decency, who want to truly be as Jesus tells Christians they should be. The GOP in general has no clue what Jesus woudl do. And I agree with the one who said this thread raises her blood pressure. But I am liking the responses to his idiocy. Emmy for president!!!!

[emmiedahl]

Quoting from a libertarian thinktank? Really?

You cannot explain away the FACT that private charity has not been sufficient in the past and there is no reason to think it will be sufficient now. Countries where there is no government assistance have poor people living in appalling conditions.

I have never heard of a charity where a person will come jump your car.

More than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Yet more than half of the families receiving means-tested benefits are not poor. Thus, a student may receive food stamps, while a homeless man with no mailing address goes without. Private charities are not bound by such bureaucratic restrictions.

It is appalling that 40% of the poor are not getting help that they need because people like YOU insist on making it shameful.

Students have a hard time getting food stamps; it is almost impossible as a single person. Someone on the board, is it Alecto? has personal experience with this. Homeless people in my area can use the post office general delivery as an address. In many areas, they are given a special form of SNAP that can be used at fast food restaurants because they lack cooking facilities.

Means tested means that they actually ARE poor and it has been verified. I think what the Cato institute means is that they are not below the poverty level. The poverty level is so abysmally low that my state considers people at risk if they make up to twice the poverty level. We have higher than average living expenses and a poverty level income will barely cover rent at a subsidized apartment. So these "non-poor" people will not have food without food stamps, asshole.

[freejoytoo]

That's what I ask myself many times. It's so hard to read the things that most people believe here. It makes me sad for the future of this country. But reading this forum does help me understand why Obama is doing what he is doing in office. He honestly believes in the socialistic, anti-prosperous views that most on this forum believe in. I can't understand why anyone would want to tear down the successful in this country.

And BTW, for the last time, I'm not against helping the poor (as so many like to say here). I against government control helping the poor. A few safeguards for the poor I would be happy with, but the government is way too involved the way it is now.

:lol: Obama is about as far away from a socialist that you can get. He is a fiscal Conservative and would fit into our UK Conservative party, which is why he wouldn't get my vote if he ran here as I actually have socialist views (which are not the same as communist ones, though the Religious Right seem to think otherwise).

Out of curiosity, who would you vote for if you were in the UK? I'm taking it as a given that you wouldn't vote for Labour or Lib Dem but you seem to think Obama is a socialist so I guess you wouldn't vote for our Conservative party either, especially as they are generally positive about gay rights and the NHS (I can't believe I am actually defending our Conservative party).

Healthcare isn't a business. It's not like giving out something as trivial as an iphone. Do you know what happened before there was any kind of social security? People lived in slums, in their own filth, and died in gutters. You shouldn't have to afford treatment. Wellbeing is not something you should have to write a cheque for.

[emmiedahl]

I would like to add that the Cato Institute is against Social Security, against regulation of the tobacco industry, and against any environmental regulation whatsoever. The Institute was founded by a robber baron who claims to be a philanthropist because he donates to the ballet. He is the son of one of the wealthy founders of the John Birch Society.

eta link http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... table=true

[jericho]

Healthcare isn't a business. It's not like giving out something as trivial as an iphone. Do you know what happened before there was any kind of social security? People lived in slums, in their own filth, and died in gutters. You shouldn't have to afford treatment. Wellbeing is not something you should have to write a cheque for.

It isn't? Then why do private healthcare companies exist?

[Arielkay]

Threads like this are a reminder of why we all need to band together and get out there and VOTE this year! Democrats try too hard to be nice, to compromise. Obviously, this is not happening. If Obama can get a second term, we need to encourage him to be strong. No more bowing down to GOP interests. The only way we've gotten change in the past (Civil Rights movement, etc) is by getting ANGRY and DEMANDING change. This gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, but there are a hell of a lot more poor than there are rich. Anyone else remember the French Revolution? People got sick of things and rebelled. I'm not suggesting a full scale war, but we should do what we can to make change. And one of those things is to vote and cancel out a few jerichos. Go freejinger!

[jericho]

I would like to add that the Cato Institute is against Social Security, against regulation of the tobacco industry, and against any environmental regulation whatsoever. The Institute was founded by a robber baron who claims to be a philanthropist because he donates to the ballet. He is the son of one of the wealthy founders of the John Birch Society.

eta link http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... table=true

Thanks for the info. Those are different issues, but I did find what they said about private charities interesting.

[Austin]

Of course you did. :roll:

[formergothardite]

Too lazy to read it, what does it say about private charities?

[Austin]

[ :lol: Obama is about as far away from a socialist that you can get. He is a fiscal Conservative and would fit into our UK Conservative party, which is why he wouldn't get my vote if he ran here as I actually have socialist views (which are not the same as communist ones, though the Religious Right seem to think otherwise).

Out of curiosity, who would you vote for if you were in the UK? I'm taking it as a given that you wouldn't vote for Labour or Lib Dem but you seem to think Obama is a socialist so I guess you wouldn't vote for our Conservative party either, especially as they are generally positive about gay rights and the NHS (I can't believe I am actually defending our Conservative party).

Healthcare isn't a business. It's not like giving out something as trivial as an iphone. Do you know what happened before there was any kind of social security? People lived in slums, in their own filth, and died in gutters. You shouldn't have to afford treatment. Wellbeing is not something you should have to write a cheque for.

Ain't it the truth! When people say the President is a socialist, my response is, "I wish!" But not even close.

I saw a chart recently comparing various administrations' policies (as opposed to the presidents themselves) and Obama was to the right of Nixon on many issues. Nixon!

[emmiedahl]

Thanks for the info. Those are different issues, but I did find what they said about private charities interesting.

The founder and controller of the Cato Institute gives millions to his thinktanks and political action committees and considers that "charity". Does that help the poor? He started the Cato Institute to support his political causes and directly controls the findings and releases. So I consider any information from them suspect. Koch is paying experts to support his selfish company practices.

People have DIED because of his energy company's anti-environment policies. And Koch considers that JUST FINE. He has the money, so only his life matters.

[Witsec7]

Jericho, some of us are only one generation removed from a time when there was no welfare, no social security and no health care for poor people and no child labor laws. My parents came to this country as children. My mother began working in a sweatshop at the age of 7, my father in a coal yard at the age of 5. When my grandfather lost a finger in a slaughter house accident my grandmother didn't have the five dollars it took to care for his wound. She sewed it up herself. And then when he could not work she took a job in a snuff mill, naturally she got paid in snuff, so after working a 12 hour day she had to peddle snuff for a few cents a tin. Mandatory education wasn't enforced, but thank goodness for the Reds, Paul Robeson taught my uncle to read English, and he in turn taught the language to the rest of the family.

Did the churches help? Only to the extent that my one grandmother was an RCC and had thirteen kids that survived to adulthood. The parish priest said the lord would provide. He didn't thats why the kids worked in the mills as soon as they could, usually around the age of 5 or 6. She raised those kids as a widow with no safety net through two depressions. It was a life of hardship with no respite until the day she died and left five kids to fend for themselves. The churches didn't feed them, they were parceled out to their older siblings who provided for them and raised them. There was no help from private charities in those days Jericho, none, zip, nada.

You have swallow so much crap that your eyes are brown Jericho.

[freejoytoo]

Tell a worker to dig a ditch for a rich man? He must be forced. Tell a worker his reward will be in Heaven and the worker will jump in and dig his own grave.

[emmiedahl]

It isn't? Then why do private healthcare companies exist?

They shouldn't. That's the point. Healthcare should not be limited to only the wealthy owners of the Cato Institute.

[formergothardite]

They shouldn't. That's the point. Healthcare should not be limited to only the wealthy owners of the Cato Institute.

Exactly.

[jericho]

Threads like this are a reminder of why we all need to band together and get out there and VOTE this year! Democrats try too hard to be nice, to compromise. Obviously, this is not happening. If Obama can get a second term, we need to encourage him to be strong. No more bowing down to GOP interests. The only way we've gotten change in the past (Civil Rights movement, etc) is by getting ANGRY and DEMANDING change. This gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, but there are a hell of a lot more poor than there are rich. Anyone else remember the French Revolution? People got sick of things and rebelled. I'm not suggesting a full scale war, but we should do what we can to make change. And one of those things is to vote and cancel out a few jerichos. Go freejinger!

Face it. You are in your own little world on this forum. You have 99% of people on your side. I'm just one that has taken time to stand up and refute some of your claims. There are many people in the real world who agree with your keynesian economics, but there are also many that agree with my supply-side and Friedman style economics. It's an argument that will go on for a long time.

[jericho]

They shouldn't. That's the point. Healthcare should not be limited to only the wealthy owners of the Cato Institute.

If the government stepped out of Heathcare, then prices would be more competitive and more lower income people and business owners could provide it.

[Visionoyahweh]

You have 99% of people on your side.

I wouldn't care if I had 1% of people on my side. Truth is truth.

You've also neglected the religious smackdown this thread has thrown you. Get back to answering questions about Jesus. Please explain how he wants need people to die in ditches, because they can't afford food, homes, or health care.

[jericho]

Exactly the reason I keep posting here.

I've answered plenty on this. People keep putting words in my mouth about things I don't believe like you just did. I've never said I want people to die in ditches or go without food or a place to live or health care. The government can't help everyone. We are in serious debt as a nation because they keep trying to though. And at the same time congress refuses to make any cuts and live within their means.

[emmiedahl]

If the government stepped out of Heathcare, then prices would be more competitive and more lower income people and business owners could provide it.

How should the government step out? Less regulation, so insurance companies don't have to cover cancer? You forget that the government *was* for the most part out of it until just a few years ago. The government stepped in because we have the most expensive and least effective system in the developed world.

I don't want for my country to keep beating its head against the wall. We have established pretty conclusively that the private system does not work. It is time to start looking at places where health care works. Like Germany. Do some research on their system-it is a public/private hybrid and very cheap, very effective.

[debrand]

I was reading the article posted by jericho and I was curious. Do people on the right believe that private charities would end if government offers more help to the poor? I am not certain why the article makes certain points. Of course, private charity helps but I don't read anything in the article that proves that private citizens can replace the government.

Where is the proof that private charities do not work? Here are some facts I found online to support they do work.

Sadly, history has proved that private institutions is not as effective as the government in giving the largest number of people assistance. Please read about poverty during the gilded age. You will be shocked at how miserable poverty actually was. It isn't that there wasn't people who tried to help. However, no matter how well meaning, private organizations can not take care of the majority of the poor.

sGovernment regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike.

The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

At the present time, I have no problem with charities setting their own criteria for who they give assistance. They are private organizations, after all. Government helps those that private charity either can't or won't assist. However if individuals could ONLY get help from a private charity many more people would end up falling through the cracks.

Imagine the single mother who is sexually active and wants birth control to prevent pregnancies. Or the atheist father who doesn't want to sit through a prayer service to get help for his family. There are plenty of churches who might turn such people away.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives.

Again, progressives are not saying that private organizations should not be allowed to help. Under a more liberal system, the organization would still be able to drive her to her job. Yet under your system, the government could not help her. So, the very check that she depends on wouldn't even reach her.

The sheer size of government programs works against individualization. As one welfare case worker lamented, "With 125 cases it's hard to remember that they're all human beings. Sometimes they're just a number." Bureaucracy is a major factor in government welfare programs.

If government programs ended, those hordes of people would not stop existing. Do you think that an influx of poor looking for help would be seen as individuals to the suddenly overworked volunteers at a private charity? Private charities would end up becoming bureucracies to deal with the large number of people that they must step up to help.

More than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance.

I have no doubt that many people fall through the cracks. That is sad but is a result of our country's swing to the right.

[freejoytoo]

You don't seem to getting the point that if people can't afford insurance they WILL die. That is happening NOW, in the 21st century. I don't know about you, but I care about the general public. I care about people I don't know. I want to rest assured that if they need chemo they're not going to struggle to pay for it, and that goes for any other kind of illness. I'm happy that my money goes towards it, I'm willing to pay it in tax because, IMO, it is the most important tax we have. Everyone benefits from it. Do you want to hear something funny? Everyone who lives here in the UK dearly loves the NHS. We might have the odd gripe but we are DAMN proud of it and when the government suggested cuts - not even getting rid of it, just cuts - thousands marched the streets. We marched for days to protect our right to decent, available healthcare because the American system abhors us and doctors were the most vocal of the lot.

Isn't it funny how countries with the most socialist form of healthcare have the highest standards of living?

[Visionoyahweh]

The government can't help everyone

We've established that private charity has historically been an epic failure to help everyone. Government has done a better job relieving poverty, especially in concert with private charity. Wouldn't Jesus tell us to use something that worked when it comes to helping the poor? As another poster pointed out, why do you care so much about rendering to Caesar? Even if 99.9% of your income was lost to taxes, you're gonna be walking on streets of gold soon enough. Why do you focus on the top marginal tax rates, job creation, etc?