Political Crossfire Forums

[Graph]

The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

Of course not! What are you, a Commie? All of us good Christian, Republican, compassionate conservatives reject biological Darwinism but fully embrace social Darwinism. Poor people are poor because God wants 'em to be poor or because they are lazy. Same goes for sick people, cripples, and all the rest of those loser types. Why should we have to help losers? Read your Bible, all through His ministry Jesus was very clear that being rich was good, violence was acceptable in most cases and mandatory in the rest of them. Jesus was actually the one who originally formed the NRA--I bet you didn't know that. "Kick ass and take names," was one of His favorite sayings. Some people try to claim that Jesus was some kind of softy liberal who was concerned for poor people and fallen women who were about to be stoned, but it's a LIE. Jesus was a He-man, gun-toting, conservative, Republican just like Charlton Heston. Jesus whole ministry was based on the two Universal Laws: Might Makes Right and God Hates Homosexuals, with those two rules in mind JC and the boys often went out gay-bashing on Sabbath evenings after a few beers.

[Darbyh25]

It never ceases to amaze me how the government can take all the good out of giving. There is no good in STEALING from one to give to another, but there is good in giving to those in need. You are taking the choice to give out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the government.

[The Grandmaster]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

Of course not! What are you, a Commie? All of us good Christian, Republican, compassionate conservatives reject biological Darwinism but fully embrace social Darwinism. Poor people are poor because God wants 'em to be poor or because they are lazy. Same goes for sick people, cripples, and all the rest of those loser types. Why should we have to help losers? Read your Bible, all through His ministry Jesus was very clear that being rich was good, violence was acceptable in most cases and mandatory in the rest of them. Jesus was actually the one who originally formed the NRA--I bet you didn't know that. "Kick ass and take names," was one of His favorite sayings. Some people try to claim that Jesus was some kind of softy liberal who was concerned for poor people and fallen women who were about to be stoned, but it's a LIE. Jesus was a He-man, gun-toting, conservative, Republican just like Charlton Heston. Jesus whole ministry was based on the two Universal Laws: Might Makes Right and God Hates Homosexuals, with those two rules in mind JC and the boys often went out gay-bashing on Sabbath evenings after a few beers.

:lol: In all seriousness, sometimes satire gets the point across better than anything else. An entertaining post, and yes, through satire, honestly some very valid points.

But you might be surprised how many would tell you, until they were blue in the face, that every single poor who ever lived were so only because of overwhelming laziness, and any misfortune bestowed upon any person could only possibly be their own fault and so they got what they deserved. In fact, I’m nearly certain someone will pipe up any minute now and tell me this is the case.

[eynon]

Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

(shrug)....should be up to the states, social programs tend to be less effective and more ineffiecent as they get larger, smaller, leaner, and meaner is better.

As to the programs themselves, it's wise for society to keep a basic saftey net in order to ensure stability. If people are not given what they need(really need) they will take it.

Further then that where does the state's responsibility lie? that's the crux of the great debate. Personally I believe that government should only invest in social programs when it can expect a positive return. Invest in the citizen body as opposed to subsidizing it. In practice this makes me a big fan of programs such as:

-public education(k-12)
-plenty of no/loan intrest loans for higher education
-public universities
-free birth control
-IRAs
-ect.......

[eynon]

The Grandmaster wrote: Mare Tranquillity wrote: Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

Of course not! What are you, a Commie? All of us good Christian, Republican, compassionate conservatives reject biological Darwinism but fully embrace social Darwinism. Poor people are poor because God wants 'em to be poor or because they are lazy. Same goes for sick people, cripples, and all the rest of those loser types. Why should we have to help losers? Read your Bible, all through His ministry Jesus was very clear that being rich was good, violence was acceptable in most cases and mandatory in the rest of them. Jesus was actually the one who originally formed the NRA--I bet you didn't know that. "Kick ass and take names," was one of His favorite sayings. Some people try to claim that Jesus was some kind of softy liberal who was concerned for poor people and fallen women who were about to be stoned, but it's a LIE. Jesus was a He-man, gun-toting, conservative, Republican just like Charlton Heston. Jesus whole ministry was based on the two Universal Laws: Might Makes Right and God Hates Homosexuals, with those two rules in mind JC and the boys often went out gay-bashing on Sabbath evenings after a few beers.

:lol: In all seriousness, sometimes satire gets the point across better than anything else. An entertaining post, and yes, through satire, honestly some very valid points.

But you might be surprised how many would tell you, until they were blue in the face, that every single poor who ever lived were so only because of overwhelming laziness, and any misfortune bestowed upon any person could only possibly be their own fault and so they got what they deserved. In fact, I’m nearly certain someone will pipe up any minute now and tell me this is the case.

I could care less how a person became destitute.......the tools to help that person climb out should be there, and if they have no desire to do so, well we should provide a net to keep them out of the gutter.

[Demonic Spoon]

Mare and Grandmaster, you both miss the point entirely. I doubt anyone here is against helping out the non-lazy poor. I, and many others, however, are simply against FORCING people to help. It's like someone robbing you at gunpoint, and giving the money to the Westboro Baptist Church. Whether or not it's "right" is irrelevant.

[eynon]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Mare and Grandmaster, you both miss the point entirely. I doubt anyone here is against helping out the non-lazy poor. I, and many others, however, are simply against FORCING people to help. It's like someone robbing you at gunpoint, and giving the money to the Westboro Baptist Church. Whether or not it's "right" is irrelevant.

personally I believe government should be cold and calculating when it comes to things like social programs....stick to the statistics, not warm fuzzing feelings about what's "right".

[The Grandmaster]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Mare and Grandmaster, you both miss the point entirely. I doubt anyone here is against helping out the non-lazy poor. I, and many others, however, are simply against FORCING people to help. It's like someone robbing you at gunpoint, and giving the money to the Westboro Baptist Church. Whether or not it's "right" is irrelevant.

Very well. How would we pay for anything, if there were no taxes?

[MplsBison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charities

As spoon said, the point is not that we should not give anything to those who do need it (and there are some people out there who actually do need it, a small fraction of who get it now), the point is that the process in which they get it is vastly inefficient because of the government.

[perdidochas]

Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

They all should be, ideally.

[perdidochas]

Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

They all should be, ideally.

[micfranklin]

Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

Some people just can't help the fact that they are unlucky in life, like having a deformity, and for those who really need help should be able to get it from the government.

However, people who are working and have normal health conditions and such should be able to fend for themselves.

[Protostar]

The Grandmaster wrote: Mare Tranquillity wrote: Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

Of course not! What are you, a Commie? All of us good Christian, Republican, compassionate conservatives reject biological Darwinism but fully embrace social Darwinism. Poor people are poor because God wants 'em to be poor or because they are lazy. Same goes for sick people, cripples, and all the rest of those loser types. Why should we have to help losers? Read your Bible, all through His ministry Jesus was very clear that being rich was good, violence was acceptable in most cases and mandatory in the rest of them. Jesus was actually the one who originally formed the NRA--I bet you didn't know that. "Kick ass and take names," was one of His favorite sayings. Some people try to claim that Jesus was some kind of softy liberal who was concerned for poor people and fallen women who were about to be stoned, but it's a LIE. Jesus was a He-man, gun-toting, conservative, Republican just like Charlton Heston. Jesus whole ministry was based on the two Universal Laws: Might Makes Right and God Hates Homosexuals, with those two rules in mind JC and the boys often went out gay-bashing on Sabbath evenings after a few beers.

:lol: In all seriousness, sometimes satire gets the point across better than anything else. An entertaining post, and yes, through satire, honestly some very valid points.

But you might be surprised how many would tell you, until they were blue in the face, that every single poor who ever lived were so only because of overwhelming laziness, and any misfortune bestowed upon any person could only possibly be their own fault and so they got what they deserved. In fact, I’m nearly certain someone will pipe up any minute now and tell me this is the case.

Yes, some people might believe that Grandmaster, but those people are stupid. It doesn't really matter how someone became poor to me, that isn't the point. The point is why should I, be forced to take care of another human being (through taxes), when I had nothing to do with their present circumstance(s)? Believe me, as a poor college student, it would be alot easier to take care of myself if taxes such as SS and Medicaid were not taken out of my paycheck(s).

[Protostar]

wannabe wrote: Graph wrote: The government has many social programs that are supposed to make life easier. A lot of times they don't. Some add to the problem, some just take the edge off. My question is, should some social programs be the responsibility of the people and to help take care of the people that are less fortunate?

(shrug)....should be up to the states, social programs tend to be less effective and more ineffiecent as they get larger, smaller, leaner, and meaner is better.

As to the programs themselves, it's wise for society to keep a basic saftey net in order to ensure stability. If people are not given what they need(really need) they will take it.

Further then that where does the state's responsibility lie? that's the crux of the great debate. Personally I believe that government should only invest in social programs when it can expect a positive return. Invest in the citizen body as opposed to subsidizing it. In practice this makes me a big fan of programs such as:

-public education(k-12)
-plenty of no/loan intrest loans for higher education
-public universities
-free birth control
-IRAs
-ect.......

The programs you outlined above, do you think they should be funded by the state or federal government(s)? I think they should be funded by the state governments, as there is a lot less opportunity for waste.

[Graph]

What about the people who run pharmaceutical companies? They are perfectly capable of making drugs that don't cost an arm and a leg. Should it also be part of their responsibility to make drugs more cost efficient?

[perdidochas]

Graph wrote: What about the people who run pharmaceutical companies? They are perfectly capable of making drugs that don't cost an arm and a leg. Should it also be part of their responsibility to make drugs more cost efficient?

Drug companies could easily decrease costs--if they didn't have to worry about lawsuits, or about research on new drugs. However, they do have to worry about those things.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
personally I believe government should be cold and calculating when it comes to things like social programs....stick to the statistics, not warm fuzzing feelings about what's "right".

Social programs should not exist at all. Although PRIVATE (non-government) social programs can be good, depending on how well they're run.


Quote: Some people just can't help the fact that they are unlucky in life, like having a deformity, and for those who really need help should be able to get it from the government.

Ah, but you still don't address the key issue: Why should someone be FORCED to pay for someone else being unlucky? Why can private charities/families not deal with this?



Quote: Very well. How would we pay for anything, if there were no taxes?

Government is a necessary evil. There are very few things the government should be engaged in, but those are necessary to protect the rights of the people.
That said, taxes are an extension of government-a necessary evil.

I've heard people argue that government could be paid for by services (lottery, anyone?) or something like that. It sounds feasible, but I really haven't looked into it much.

[micfranklin]

Quote: Some people just can't help the fact that they are unlucky in life, like having a deformity, and for those who really need help should be able to get it from the government.

Ah, but you still don't address the key issue: Why should someone be FORCED to pay for someone else being unlucky? Why can private charities/families not deal with this? [/quote]

No one should be forced to pay for someone else, that should be their choice alone. Charities should be doing this type of thing.

[Demonic Spoon]

Wha?

Are you on my side, or do you think they should leech off the covernment? I'm confused :lol: