NationStates Jolt Archive

It occurred to me recently that liberals seem to think the government IS a charity - designed to provide free education to the poor, free heathcare to the poor, free clothing, food and housing to the poor. In fact, the poor shouldn't have to pay for anything in their ideal world of big brother style government. They would make poverty into an attractive option! Why bother working!

So lets see if liberals, as a group, can define the difference between government and charity. Where does the responsibility of one end and the other begin? What charity should receive government money? What government should receive charity money? Should charity be mandatory for everyone, noone or just the wealthy? What about non-financial charity? (Time, blood) Is there a service provided by charity that the government should do? Is there a service provided by government that charity should do?

So, speak up libbies, let's watch you fight over the difference between charity and government!

there isn't a difference. or there shouldn't be. you hit the nail on the head, it is the government's job to feed and clothe its population.
your argument that laziness is a direct result of socialism is crap, in the ussr this happened due to many other circumstances. besides, there is more in terms of incentive than the promise of food and the threat of violence.

Charity: money given by the wealthy to deal with feelings of guilt for being wealthy at the expense of others and/or a supplement to government subsidies to help those areas that society feels that government shouldn't pay for.
Government: money given by government on behalf of society as a whole so that the middle class can deal with feelings of guilt for being better off than others and/or government subsidies to make sure the population is healthy enough and educated enough to keep working when needed.

Perhaps I am just a cynic.

there isn't a difference. or there shouldn't be. you hit the nail on the head, it is the government's job to feed and clothe its population.
your argument that laziness is a direct result of socialism is crap, in the ussr this happened due to many other circumstances. besides, there is more in terms of incentive than the promise of food and the threat of violence.
I like the idea of not having to work and letting the government provide everything. I will think happy thoughts about you and the others who will work to provide for me.

Question : I earn far more than I need for a comfortable life but why should I pay for someone elses welfare?

Answer : You shouldn't! But how about you take a pay-cut, get someone else to do some of your duties and the company can pay them what they've saved on you! That way you still get your comfortable wage and another person is off of welfare.

Question : I earn far more than I need for a comfortable life but why should I pay for someone elses welfare?

Answer : You shouldn't! But how about you take a pay-cut, get someone else to do some of your duties and the company can pay them what they've saved on you! That way you still get your comfortable wage and another person is off of welfare.
Apparently that is inefficient although that point of view depends on whether you think that the point of an economy is to create wealth for a few or a living for all.

It is not a function of government to provide for its whole population. The provision of a safety-net for the very unfortunate is a very different thing, though.

It occurred to me recently that liberals seem to think the government IS a charity - designed to provide free education to the poor, free heathcare to the poor, free clothing, food and housing to the poor. In fact, the poor shouldn't have to pay for anything in their perfoect world of big brother style government. They would make poverty into an attractive option! Why bother working!

So lets see if liberals, as a group, can define the difference between government and charity. Where does the responsibility of one end and the other begin? What charity should receive government money? What government should receive charity money? Should charity be mandatory for everyone, noone or just the wealthy? What about non-financial charity? (Time, blood) Is there a service provided by charity that the government should do? Is there a service provided by government that charity should do?

So, speak up libbies, let's watch you fight over the difference between charity and government!


yup, gotta hate them "Liberals".

It pisses me off how people try to cut themselves into little squares, Liberal and Conservative, Left and Right.

If you look around, there is not "Liberals" and "Conservatives". Sure, people call themselves that, but if you look, they can never agree. There are Liberals who are all ready to rush headfirst into gay marriage, for example, and Liberals who do not.

Racist Skinheads call themselves "Right" but if you look, there are most people on the "right" who think they are just bitches and would prefer to have nothing to do with them.

Hell, the Liberal Party in Nicaragua was a brutal dictatorship.

And yet, after all this, "Liberals" and "Conservatives" often still see each other as the enemy, the guys who are the exact opposite of them.

Well, here, why don't all you "Liberal" and "Conservative" fucks get your godamn acts together, and work out EXACTLY what is and what is not "Liberal" and "Conservative", stop the infighting before going abroad, and looking like fucks, the both of you.











































Oh, wait, you can't, because THERE IS NO "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE" COLLECTIVE.






































I've made my day.

Question : I earn far more than I need for a comfortable life but why should I pay for someone elses welfare?

Answer : You shouldn't! But how about you take a pay-cut, get someone else to do some of your duties and the company can pay them what they've saved on you! That way you still get your comfortable wage and another person is off of welfare.


I did just that. That is the heart of capitalism right there! As soon as I expanded my staff and reduced my clerical responsibilities I had more time to spend working to expand my market share. I now make even more money than before. WOOT! THAT is WAY better than just giving money away. You are SOOOOoo right about it!

Apparently that is inefficient although that point of view depends on whether you think that the point of an economy is to create wealth for a few or a living for all.

Isn't it more inefficient to have all the bureaucracy of a welfare system?

Whether we should create a living for all depends on how you feel about the poor stealing what they need to survive (in a welfare-free system) and paying for the imprisonment of those that get caught.

I've made my day.


Now, if you could only stay on topic you'd make everyone elses day too.

It is not a function of government to provide for its whole population. The provision of a safety-net for the very unfortunate is a very different thing, though.
It could be. There is no universal law that says it can't. It all depends what kind of policies the government in power has. For example the UK has universal healthcare and education - provided for the whole population. It doesn't provide housing for everyone anymore though as that is seen as a private matter these days. Charities exist to help the homeless otherwise they would be abandoned by society completely .

Isn't it more inefficient to have all the bureaucracy of a welfare system?

Whether we should create a living for all depends on how you feel about the poor stealing what they need to survive (in a welfare-free system) and paying for the imprisonment of those that get caught.
Totally depends on your definition of inefficiency. I'm not comenting n whether I agree with you or not, just stating that it is a relative term.

I did just that. That is the heart of capitalism right there! As soon as I expanded my staff and reduced my clerical responsibilities I had more time to spend working to expand my market share. I now make even more money than before. WOOT! THAT is WAY better than just giving money away. You are SOOOOoo right about it!

Well done, it's a simple idea and most people would rather be working than living with the stigma attached to welfare and as you've found there are more benefits besides.

Now, if you could only stay on topic you'd make everyone elses day too.


I could, but I don't really like you guys.

Really, I don't believe that the government should necessarily socialize everything, because that could lead to a very lazy population. However, the focus of capitalism is not to sweat and toil just to make enough money to buy healthcare--it's to make enough money to look at your neighbors and say, "Hey, I can buy more STUFF than you can".

So, all we really need to do is socialize things like health care--people who can't afford them REALLY need them--and then keep everything else under the capitalistic system--people who can't afford a personal car, or computer, for example, can get along in life without those items without TOO much of a hassle.

The alternative system would be for the government to involve itself in its capitalism, by making its own corporation. As long as it follows the proper laws, anti-trusts, etc., it won't need to force anybody to do anything. If the government corporation has competitive prices and wages, it can attract the people on its own.

Charity is this rainbow in the sky; it looks pretty and ideal, but is actually pretty useless to most people.

the difference between charity and goverment is that charity only helps the DESERVING poor and the government gives to whoever meets the guidelines.

government programs add stability to society. we have too many homeless people as it is, we dont need any more.

and what about the children of these poor people? are they to be tossed into the trash right from the start because their parents are losers?

And then again, the argument, "Why should I give my money to a poor shmuck--he should have to work like I have," I have always hated that argument.

I think that people who are fortunate should HAVE to give something back, because they are fortunate. Charity is one thing, but not a lot of people want to do it because of the argument previously listed. It kind of reminds of the joke, "Would you want to pay 1 million in taxes?" I always say, "YEAH," because if you're paying 1 million in taxes that means that you're certainly earning more than that. The gains completely outgrow the losses.

If the government has to take charity money from someone, that really says a lot to me about the character of that individual.

So, speak up libbies, let's watch you fight over the difference between charity and government!

I don't know what your vendetta is, but I can assure you a number of things:

1. You probably are "liberal": Someone socially progressive, in favor of equal treatment of people, equal opportunity, etc. America and any other nation is founded on "liberal" ideals, simply because they were changes from the aristocratic governments of times passed. Civil rights advocates and feminists and the NRA are all "liberal" simply because they demand certain rights to belong to them, that should be theirs, as guaranteed by the Constitution, God, or whatever the hell you claim is your source of equal opportunity for happiness.
Note that I'm not saying you aren't conservative (you probably are libertarian), I'm just saying that to a certain extent you are liberal, and to malign a word that is a cognate for freedom is obnoxious, petty, and just plain stupid.

2. No group agrees on things. "I'd like to see you conservatives decide and define government involvement".
Nazis, conservatives, and libertarians would argue over government involvement, while shunning the idea of welfare or access to necessities of life (paid for by the government). There would be disagreement on all subjects, ranging from economy to civil rights to religion.
Liberals, moderates, and socialist members would also argue over government involvement, the definition of welfare and the definition of affirmative action. Different interest groups squabble all the time, claiming higher priority to their needs in a system which has limited resources.

3. No sane person thinks lazy people should be rewarded, nor would that tenet be held at large by the numerous people worldwide who are called "liberal". A model of what most liberals want are countries like Canada or Sweden, or "something like that". Most have never been there, and therefore only go by what they hear and percieve, as well as the acknowledgement that the current system of government isn't helpful.

4. Some "liberals" just want the government to stop harassing different groups and making things harder for them. How can a poor or homeless person be expected to take care of themselves when there are laws against living in the streets, inachievable and impossible quotas for jobs, limited and subpar shelters that also have standards and qualifications, inaccessable locals for education, and simply no place to shower or go to the bathroom?

Just something to think about before you blindly set flame traps.

Now, if you could only stay on topic you'd make everyone elses day too.

Perhaps if your topics consisted of more than merely lining up your opponents on a shooting range for easy sniping.

And then again, the argument, "Why should I give my money to a poor shmuck--he should have to work like I have," I have always hated that argument.

I think that people who are fortunate should HAVE to give something back, because they are fortunate. Charity is one thing, but not a lot of people want to do it because of the argument previously listed. It kind of reminds of the joke, "Would you want to pay 1 million in taxes?" I always say, "YEAH," because if you're paying 1 million in taxes that means that you're certainly earning more than that. The gains completely outgrow the losses.

If the government has to take charity money from someone, that really says a lot to me about the character of that individual.


damn straight, my man.

And, on another note, if a person 'meets the guidelines', then isn't he a 'deserving poor'? He must be deserving to meet the guidelines in the first place. Otherwise, we ought to change the guidelines, not scrap the entire welfare system.

Government is NOT a charity nor should it be.

If charity is TAXED out of you, it's not really charity is it? In fact calling taxation charity actually degrades the meaning of real charity. Trying to make the two the same thing is hopelessly misguided.

Especially since the idea involves depending on the GOVERNMENT to be CHARITABLE.

Yeah.

Read that sentence again, liberals. Government.... charitable. You are essentially gambling your money, taking the risk, banking on the Government doing "the right thing" with your tax dollars. In my mind that's a poor risk to be taking, and a naive thing for people to expect of the world's most powerful government.

It occurred to me recently that liberals seem to think the government IS a charity - designed to provide free education to the poor, free heathcare to the poor, free clothing, food and housing to the poor. In fact, the poor shouldn't have to pay for anything in their ideal world of big brother style government. They would make poverty into an attractive option! Why bother working!

So lets see if liberals, as a group, can define the difference between government and charity. Where does the responsibility of one end and the other begin? What charity should receive government money? What government should receive charity money? Should charity be mandatory for everyone, noone or just the wealthy? What about non-financial charity? (Time, blood) Is there a service provided by charity that the government should do? Is there a service provided by government that charity should do?

So, speak up libbies, let's watch you fight over the difference between charity and government!

WHy yes... we, as a group, believe exactly the same thing. We get it from our Liberals Almanac delivered monthly to our door...

:rolleyes:

For the record, I think that education and health care should be basic rights available to everyone. This is not a free service for the poor, but rather a subsidized service for EVERYONE.

Conservatives like to complain about "hand outs", but giving people the chance to attain their full potential is a "hand up" that benefits everyone.

Or, perhaps you prefer that they remain poor, soak up subsidized housing, welfare cheques, food stamps, and use the emergency rool like a regular doctor's office to the detriment of hospital service, and which inflates the health care costs for everyone? Because that is what happens in the absence of opportunity.

There ARE financial benefits to helping the poor elevate themselves which are totally aside from the sevices that the conservatives have a better reason to complain about.

You make it sound like people will take college courses for the hell of it and then just go back on welfare. I think you will find that this is not generally the case. That sort of person would skip the school and just take the welfare. Only those willing to do the work will. That sort of "get a degree, then do fuck all and live in Mom's basement" is more a middle-class phenominon than a poor one. Becase most of the poor's mom's don't have basements in neighbourhoods that the kids really want to stay in for life.

Poor people given an opportunity are more likely to take it. They know what they are trying to get out of as a life. Richer kids are far more likely to be taking that liberal arts degree and then pissing their lives away with the support of spineless parents who won't cut the apron strings and force the kids to become self-sufficient.

Nor is such a program "charity". Charity implies giving something for nothing. Giving people access to education pays the government back in higher future tax revenue.

It is not charity, it is an investment.

Government is NOT a charity nor should it be.

If charity is TAXED out of you, it's not really charity is it? In fact calling taxation charity actually degrades the meaning of real charity. Trying to make the two the same thing is hopelessly misguided.

Especially since the idea involves depending on the GOVERNMENT to be CHARITABLE.

Yeah.

Read that sentence again, liberals. Government.... charitable. You are essentially gambling your money, taking the risk, banking on the Government doing "the right thing" with your tax dollars. In my mind that's a poor risk to be taking, and a naive thing for people to expect of the world's most powerful government.
oh like government doesnt waste money on "conservative" issues too
remember the $600 hammer?

welfare is our way of mitigating the bad side of captialism. without it there would be massive numbers of poor desperate people.

so we have public education, housing, food, healthcare, whatever. its not a great life. but it keeps people from being forced to resort to crime. and it gives the children of the poor a chance to make something of themselves. many many of the children of the poor grow up to be solid middle class working people. without public programs they woudlnt have a chance.

yes welfare can sap people's initiative. fooling them into thinking they are getting a good deal. by the time they realize they are NOT getting a good deal (compared to getting an education and a good job) they are trapped into the system by lack of education and having children to take care of.

BUT when we had a boom in the 90's and there was a good chance of doing better than welfare, massive numbers of people went to WORK. they actually preferred a job over a handout. go figure.

and you may h ave noticed that, in the US anyway, there are limits to how long you can collect welfare money. it really IS only a safety net.

Government is NOT a charity nor should it be.

If charity is TAXED out of you, it's not really charity is it? In fact calling taxation charity actually degrades the meaning of real charity. Trying to make the two the same thing is hopelessly misguided.

Especially since the idea involves depending on the GOVERNMENT to be CHARITABLE.

Yeah.

Read that sentence again, liberals. Government.... charitable. You are essentially gambling your money, taking the risk, banking on the Government doing "the right thing" with your tax dollars. In my mind that's a poor risk to be taking, and a naive thing for people to expect of the world's most powerful government.


This concept is true of Conservatives as well as liberals. Both sides tax. The diference is in the priority of spending choices and the fiscal responsibility of the parties. Odd that in the US it seems to be the Conservatives who can't balance the books.....

The complaint is that Democrats are "tax and spend", but it seems that the Republicans are "tax and spend MORE!"

there isn't a difference. or there shouldn't be. you hit the nail on the head, it is the government's job to feed and clothe its population.
your argument that laziness is a direct result of socialism is crap, in the ussr this happened due to many other circumstances. besides, there is more in terms of incentive than the promise of food and the threat of violence.I like the idea of not having to work and letting the government provide everything. I will think happy thoughts about you and the others who will work to provide for me.

Most people wouldn't consider things like a functional shelter, a couple of outfits adequate for the enviornment, proper health care, education, and nutrition "everything they would want." It would, however, allow everyone to survive while the vast majority worked to be able to buy things like electronics, designer brands, and other sorts of goods that most people wish to own.

Perhaps if your topics consisted of more than merely lining up your opponents on a shooting range for easy sniping.

Liberals are my friends, not my opponents. I have much more fun with people willing to disagree with me, even when I am right.

If you think that asking liberals to define their position on charity (or anything else) makes for easy sniping then you have little faith in the liberal platform.

Most people wouldn't consider things like a functional shelter, a couple of outfits adequate for the enviornment, proper health care, education, and nutrition "everything they would want." It would, however, allow everyone to survive while the vast majority worked to be able to buy things like electronics, designer brands, and other sorts of goods that most people wish to own.
So then your position is that the poor are not entitled to electronics such as TV, radio and computer.

This concept is true of Conservatives as well as liberals. Both sides tax. The diference is in the priority of spending choices and the fiscal responsibility of the parties. Odd that in the US it seems to be the Conservatives who can't balance the books.....

The complaint is that Democrats are "tax and spend", but it seems that the Republicans are "tax and spend MORE!"


And your point is... ?

Fiscal conservatives have frew choices today, you are correct, however that does not make us wrong.