How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[reinbeau]

but when you rely on the goodwill of people, it can fall short.

Therein lies some of the problem. Some of us think there are too many who rely too heavily on the goodwill of the people. The degree of the need, and the degree of the continuation of help, is where much of the conflict lies.

 

[patandchickens]

I think it comes down to defining "help".

See, it ISN'T a contradiction after all

One group thinks government programs are the way to provide help. The other group sees government as one of the least efficient ways to provide help and open to money diversion and corruption.

I actually agree with both of those statements... so what does that make me?

I think gov't is generally an inefficient and often-misuseable way to provide help... except that often there seem to BE no other ways and I think something just *has* to be done.

Church charities are good when you belong to a church. If you live in an area that doesn't have much population in your faith, or do not belong to an official denomination at all, churches do not do as much. (Some, yes, but not as much)

As far as private charities, they are often local/regional (which is great if you are needy in an affluent area - not so great if everyone around you is in equally sad shape) and also much more prone to trendy-ism than gov't programs are, so often a lot of charitable giving goes to, er, less-than-critically-needed causes and the critically-needed-but-unsexy causes may go begging.

We (as in libertarians and conservatives like me that I have discussed this with) also want the option to NOT give. If a programs proves to be not helpful (DARE is a good example), we want to say "no more".

LOL -- I think that EVERYONE would LOVE the option not to pay for gov't programs they don't approve of. My list would be long, certainly, probably starting with the war in Afghanistan (at the beginning especially)!

Unfortunately that is not possible, and would probably be a Very Bad Thing overall anyhow


Pat

 

[ScottSD]

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree there is a lot of poor 'filtering' of the recipients of gov't aid, and that many people recieve it who oughtn't, and that this is a real problem that should be more vigorously addressed.

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree that there are some folks out there who genuinely need and deserve gov't programs to help them out in some particular ways, and that it is GOOD to have such gov't assistance.

The disagreement on the thread seemed to be on just two main things:

1) A difference in emphasis. Conservatives spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people gettin' things they don't need, whereas liberals spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people needing (genuinely) things and being left in the lurch by gaps in private aid and gov't programs.

2) A difference in how half-full or half-empty you see the glass, in terms of whether gov't programs are laudably performing a valuable role for many people even tho yes, regrettably there are also some cheaters, or whether gov't programs may help a few who genuinely need it but are *mostly* just supporting parasites.

Pat

Ok...so, you're saying that conservatives just "talking about" about the unfairness of some people getting things they don't need.

I find all what you say very interesting. You really seem to have a problem with conservatives in each and every one of your posts. That's ok. That is your right.

I wonder though....who put's their own money where their mouth is?

According to the sources I have linked below( you know actual sources...not just my own opinion), conservatives are much bigger givers than liberals:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

From the article:
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities." "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give moreis a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states"

So, here's my opinion, based on the facts given.

Conservatives give more of their money to charity. They don't necessarily want that to be government's job. They are, after all the biggest ideological group in America, and they are obviously the most charitable. They give more. They just don't want government to take more of their taxes (or anyone else's) to do it. Based on their higher giving, it is clear they'd rather do it themselves.

Liberals....don't give as much to charity. They are a much smaller ideological group. They would rather the government increase taxes from everyone to help out those in need....you know...instead of them alone giving, they want to take from someone else to give to the poor.

Who of those two groups, puts their (not someone else's) money where their mouth is?

 

[FarmerChick]

that means that we need clearer budgets and to know how our government spends our money. regardless of which party is at the helm, we need to demand that useless programs, such as DARE and many others, are reevaluated or done away with. that will mean that more money goes where it should- to the people who genuinely need it.

I don't know about DARE but I am sure there are millions that say it is uselful...LOL


BUT I have said this a million zillion times......the govt must curt waste, fraud and the likes in all programs. the "lifer" welfare people, if you are of younger age etc and can work then you have limited time on the program. no more income for life.

tough love applies to social programs thru the govt also.


steal some funds from overseas wars, etc. and make true and tried fraud committees. wipe out the waste.

the money we gain will be incredible, unbelievable, mind-blowing and yup, with some left over.


Who can make the govt do this and when?

 

[FarmerChick]

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree there is a lot of poor 'filtering' of the recipients of gov't aid, and that many people recieve it who oughtn't, and that this is a real problem that should be more vigorously addressed.

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree that there are some folks out there who genuinely need and deserve gov't programs to help them out in some particular ways, and that it is GOOD to have such gov't assistance.

The disagreement on the thread seemed to be on just two main things:

1) A difference in emphasis. Conservatives spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people gettin' things they don't need, whereas liberals spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people needing (genuinely) things and being left in the lurch by gaps in private aid and gov't programs.

2) A difference in how half-full or half-empty you see the glass, in terms of whether gov't programs are laudably performing a valuable role for many people even tho yes, regrettably there are also some cheaters, or whether gov't programs may help a few who genuinely need it but are *mostly* just supporting parasites.

Pat

Ok...so, you're saying that conservatives just "talking about" about the unfairness of some people getting things they don't need.

I find all what you say very interesting. You really seem to have a problem with conservatives in each and every one of your posts. That's ok. That is your right.

I wonder though....who put's their own money where their mouth is?

According to the sources I have linked below, conservatives are much bigger givers than liberals:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities." "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give moreis a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states"

So, here's my opinion, based on the facts given.

Conservatives give more of their money to charity. They don't necessarily want that to be government's job. They are, after all the biggest ideological group in America, and they are obviously the most charitable. They give more. They just don't want government to take more of their taxes (or anyone else's) to do it. Based on their higher giving, it is clear they'd rather do it themselves.

Liberals....don't give as much to charity. They are a much smaller ideological group. They would rather the government increase taxes from everyone to help out those in need....you know...instead of them alone giving, they want to take from someone else to give to the poor.

Who of those two groups, puts their (not someone else's) money where their mouth is?

Uhhh for me I do both. I want my taxes to support social programs and I do say everyone must give something to support the natino.

I give to charities.



maybe conservatives make ALOT more income than others?? So they can give more??



again, if you leave it to ALL the people to what is right and support others and programs, it would not work. doesn't matter what label you put on that individual who won't give, to me it just won't work ever.

 

[ScottSD]

maybe conservatives make ALOT more income than others?? So they can give more??

Nope......did you read the article about who makes more and who gives more?

Liberals make 6% more on average.....yet give much much less.....


Also:

A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." People who "disagreed strongly" with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who "agreed strongly" with the statement.

 

[patandchickens]

Ok...so, you're saying that conservatives just "talking about" about the unfairness of some people getting things they don't need.

No no no no no. Not "just" talking about. Reread my post. I explicitly said, it's just a difference in *emphasis*. Conservatives talk mostly about one side of the story, liberals talk mostly about the other, but both perfectly well AGREE that both sides of the story are there and matter.

I find all what you say very interesting. You really seem to have a problem with conservatives in each and every one of your posts.

Huh?? No. In fact, I voted for Bush Sr in, what was it, 1992?, the year that Clinton ended up winning. I don't agree with many, if any, more Democratic party policies than with Republican ones.

Golly, you sure seem to want enemies.


Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

truthfully Scott when it comes down to this type of pie chart or the research done on this type of issue-----I just ain't going there seriously.

one thing I know----people don't get---medical care is not available to all, people are hungry, people are homeless, people are not working, people are toothless, people are without adequate basic necessities in life, people die for no reasons other than care was not provided, people go cold, abuse runs rampant, etc. etc. etc. etc.

and to me, if you have to list a pie chart on who gives more etc. it doesn't mean a darn thing cause OBVIOUSLY who gives what and how much JUST AIN'T working now is it?


micro dissect everything...in the end it doesn't and will never make the loathing for caring for the unfortunate any more sweet to many.

 

[FarmerChick]

It has been said many times in this thread


it is not everyone doesn't want to help the nation

it is the steps needed to be implemented to hit that solution that people disagree on. more govt involvement vs less involvement and fend for yourself?? etc. etc. etc.

that is the problem

the end result is samll and easy to see----the solution to get there is big and terrible

 

[ScottSD]

You don't like numbers?

micro dissect everything...in the end it doesn't and will never make the loathing for caring for the unfortunate any more sweet to many.

Loathing for the caring of the unfortunate?

Who does that? That is very accusatory language.