Two Very excellent points. And it wasn't me who put ALL that responsibilities on the charities. I mererly said they were not able to handle the problems. That is not blaming them.

I agree fully with what you said. Charities can and do help. In fact i already said that earlier. But they are not prepared nor they are qualified or have the resources to deal with these problems on a full scale bases.
(in response #38 here is what i said:these charities were there but still the problem continued despite all the charities' efforts.it helped i am sure but they couldnt solve it on their own.. But you still chose to say i am the one who tells you asinine ideas???? amazing !!!!... it really is)

.... Charities have their role and Gov has its role. saying one should replace the other is just not sane policy. But when you say that to some, they jump in their boots and say Gov should not be involved and leave everything to charities.

Thanks for making my points.

i got the impression that the people who say leave everything to charities are really saying "we help as much as we like .... if that is not enough... well, too bad and tough luck .... that is life .... let them deal with it....etc"

but the problem with that is this: the problem creates problem for ALL of us and if not solved drags us all down. But some, dont care about that ..... That is ok too. but to say this view is the correct one is total nonsense. Fortunately, the majority recognizes that nonsense.

I made no one's points. It is a great leap of logic to assume that just because someone can help those who stumble, that we must now create a bureaucracy to prevent it from happening. I never touched on that part of the issue.

Nor do I believe that humanity should be put in rubber rooms to guard against any eventuality that they may fail. But that is what the mindset is about government and these programs. The problem with that, is then we are all children, protected from life, and not allowed to live it. Because we might fail.

A safety net is not a guarantee against failure. It is to mitigate it. And that is what charities are designed to do, and have been doing. You state they failed, but provide no proof or even anecdotal stories of where they have. You merely condemn them for not preventing failure, a job I pointed out they are not designed to do.

This country thrived, survived and prospered without a nanny state for over 150 years. Some died, some failed, and some lived and suceeded. That is called life. Gaurantees against failing are not living. It is existing. Terry Schiavo was guaranteed against failure. SO we must all be hooked up to the teats of government to guard against failure, or we cant live?

Sorry, my idea of living is to know that when I take a chance, I risk failing. And from that failure I will learn. Not that I will not allowed to even try because I might fail. But that to some is living.

Keep your brave new world to yourself. I want life, not existance.

again? i did not say they failed. You yourself admitted that they could not handle everything and every problem and that is what i said. They do what they are capable of and they mostly succeed but that is not enough. The problems are more than they can handle. when are you going to understand that?



First: yes it survived and prospered but was never great as it did after those 150 years. but how did that period end?in a great depression?

It became Great and dominant only when it realized that ALL should share in prosperity and lift the average standard of living through programs that opened the doors to the less fortunate and to the excluded.

Second: This is not a nanny state by any means and no one is proposing that it should.
no one is suggesting to do anything other than provide the safety-net that you mentioned.

It seems that you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

The risk that we take in not dealing with the society's problems is not personal. It does not lead to personal failure. It is a risk to society and it results in society's failure. that is what the safety net is supposed to guard against. not personal failures but society's failure.

Not true, TA.

Universal health care is not a "safety net"; it is an entitlement. And it is proposed by each of the three leading Democrats.

The welfare system as it is is hardly a "safety net"; families who need a "safety net" can hardly get on it (as we discovered firsthand during our brief downturn in NV!), and many families are chronically on it with no intent of getting off of it until they are forced to.

You talk about the Great Depression, yet somehow you don't realize that the New Deal died a long time ago; the Great Society is more influential in the welfare system as it exists today. The New Deal built dams, wired the nation, built roads and bridges. The Great Society created an entire class of "shovel leaners".

Of course it is not. This is a service with people paying for it. The cost of a good designed system is much less than what the Gov pays now. It is all a matter of management and cost control. The insr comp are the ones who are benefiting from the current system. The Gov and the Public pays more and get less.

It is no secret that Univ health care is opposed by insr comp for the simple reason that if it is implemented, there will be no need for their services.

The Right makes all kind of deceiving reasons for opposing the proposed system but the real reason is the fact that it will render the insr comp obselete.

currently, the insr comp exist for the simple reason of getting money from the Gov and from people to pay service-providers. Can you tell me what is the logic behind that? why do we need this middle step? take them out of the pic and you have less cost, less nonsense, and easy service. But you and the rest of the right still say it is socialism in order to scare people. As if Canada, France, UK, Germany,...etc all going to be or already are communists.

The Right's dishonesty and deceit has no limit or shame ..... say it straight .... the insr comp will be hurt ..... that is the main problem for the Right. It is a legitimate concern, but if addressed openly and honestly could be resolved ..... but honesty is the forbidden policy for the Right. that is the main problem.

Does that justify saying eliminate it? why not fix the system? why do we always settle for less? it is all management and oversight. Cant we do that in order to get it right?

Is that a reason to suggest we live in a society that force people who really deserve help to go begging at Chrches' doors?

where are the Gov workers who follow those who are chronically on welfare? where are the programs to get their butts off the floor and into training centers, and work. and if they refuse then they lose their rigth to be helped?

you can even make it mandatory, public works-program. If they need help, go work there and you get paid. Is that soooo difficult to do?

many roads, bridges, public buildings and even private ones can use that service and it will force the lazy to get off their butt and work. make work fro them if you have to .... they will be forced to.

There are many ways to fix the system. condemning it is not one of them ...

but unfortunately that is the policy of the Right .... all complaints and no action ... The Right doesnt know and in fact doesnt want to Govern. Just use the society's resources and opportunities ... but dont pay for it. That goes against the Right's own principle: there are no free lunches ..... but then again when was the last time the Right had any consistent principle? remember the Deficit and fiscal responsibilities?

The surplus became "a problem" when Clinton made it materialize. Even Green Span said it was bad. That was the ultimate in hypocrisy, wasnt it? after decades of complaining about the deficits, here comes Reagan and Bush I to increase it to stratospheric heights and the Right kept saying ... dont worry about that they are not that bad after all. Then when Clinton made it disapper and created a surplus, that became bad and dangerous. during all that time the complaints about entitlements never stopped.
even when there was a surplus ....

You and the Rigth never complain about no-bid contracts, kick-backs, waste on unbelievable scale in the military, nepotism in government agencies by cronies and buddies, subsidies to corp who make tens of billions of dollars of profits then complain about entitlement ????!!!!!.

Yes the entitlement programs need fixing .... I said that and most rational people say that. .... Now tell me when was the last time that you or anyone from the Right wrote an article about all the theft/corruption/mismanagement i mentioned above?

None that i am aware of .....

WRONG!

First, I am NOT a Republican, TA, as you should well know.

Second, I have REPEATEDLY condemned those kinds of expenditures. You lose all credibility when you make comments like this.

We were having a decent conversation. If you're going to make digs like lumping me with the right and putting words in my mouth, though, I am done with the conversation.

we still are Gid. I just did not see anything from you about that .,. sorry if i missed it. but your writing in general is about condemning what the gov does instead of trying to fix it. That is my point.

btw, it doesnt matter whether you are Republican or not. many republicans are very reasonable and have contributed a lot to the current programs and they still trying to fix them. But the GOP is now controlled not by those moderates but the newcon and their neoconservative movement.

sorry again if i missed the articles you mentioned.

That is ridiculous. You don't even recognise "lots and lots of data" as something other than "nothing". It is no wonder Draginol is growing so impatient with you.

Data counts.

What do you base your opinions on? Fairy tales?

Grand. Then why use tax money to pay for it?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a (partly) tax-funded healthcare system. But being for such a system and claiming that it has nothing to do with redistribution is dishonest.

Actually, no. If I have an issue, I'm working on it. And, uh, I've actually GIVEN you the solution, if you read it. Remove welfare entirely from federal control, and give the power to the states. Some states will have massive welfare programs, while others' programs will be virtually nonexistent. That should be their right as the state to decide.

The problem with the welfare program as it sits, TA, is the same as the problem with almost any help program. Rather than work towards its own obsolescence, people in these programs actually work to EXPAND these programs. A perfect example can be given in the area of Children's Protective Services (CPS), one of the biggest targets in my gun sights. While CPS started with a legitimate aim, they expanded their role from being that of protecting children from abuse and neglect to that of investigators, and even of DEFINING abuse and neglect. Why? Because there were more dollars available if they did so.

When they didn't get as many cases as they needed to justify the funding, they took to BEGGING the public to call them, even on the merest suspicion of abuse and neglect. As a result, lives have been ruined, jobs have been lost, all on the vengeful false allegations of a hateful neighbour or ex-spouse. The best way to get back at a parent in this country is to call CPS on them. You can sit back and watch the fireworks while they're none the wiser. Sad, really.

And the worst part is, their actions actually ENABLE the real abusers, first by filling up their caseload so that REAL cases of abuse or neglect aren't given the proper attention while they're out investigating Joe Public whose neighbor's pissed at the color of his fence; second by tainting the investigation by sending out an "investigator" who does not use proper evidence gathering techniques in their investigation, or even obtain the proper warrants for a search unless the family literally stands in the door and refuses them entry. This is a problem I have detailed many times, and I've detailed the solutions EXTENSIVELY. I may repost those articles at some time, but I won't go into them now.

So you want my solution? Here it is:

Give complete responsibility for welfare programs to the state government. Get the federal government out of it entirely, up to and including cabinet posts dedicated to that end.

At the state level, use welfare funds ONLY as a stopgap safety net. Don't put time limits on it, but don't give a minimum time either. Focus on solutions, not on temporary fixes. If a family needs relocation assistance to work, get them relocation assistance to a job once a prospective offer has been made. Help them with training programs, but do so in a way that they contribute to their own education through service.

Eliminate foodstamps entirely. Work with groups such as Second Harvest to stock food banks, and provide needy families with food, education on food preparation and nutrition, and basic toiletries. Staff these food banks with families enrolled in the program to work with assembling food packages, and families who have recently "graduated from" the program as counselors to assist families in the program, as they have the experience of having "been there. Set up an extensive mentoring program to lift these families out of the CYCLE of poverty. Enlist the help of churches, but don't make their assistance essential to the program.

Clothing banks can be set up on a similar model.

For housing, create cheap, affordable communal living spaces that provide clean, comfortable, but not luxurious accomodations. The maintenance of these facilities can be managed by transitional employees who are working their way out of the program.

Provide an extensive volunteer network and return the concept of community. Get back to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" and away from a system that divides and enables destructive behaviour. If you want to end poverty, you must see it for what it is, and eliminate the things that cause it to continue. Enabling it only makes the problem worse.

And yes, I have a plan to pay for the whole thing. But that's another article entirely!

Detailed enough for you?

I have no problem with that at all. But dont you see the problem in that?

It is the same missmanagement and corruption on the state level.

it really doesnt matter where and who puts the programs in action. It is how and what the program does. If we all concentrate on that instead of arguing about the need for these programs we , and the country, will be much better. All i read here is tax-cutting, wealth distribution, stealing from the rich, ..etc.

That doesnt sound like people who really care about their country and society.

As for the CPS, i personally hate the idea itself. Yes, people who abuse their kids should be punished but that could be treated like any other crime. why we need a special agency for that? People are responsible for their kids well being and safety, if they dont do that it becomes a crime on an individual bases. going around and invistigate every time a kid complains that his mother slapped him/her is really a stupid idea to start with.

This is not what i am concerned with at all. I am concerned about people who are unemplyed, sick, uneducated, cant go to college, hungry , homeless ... etc.

I dont personally suffer any of these, but it is all around me and i can see it. That bothers me and hurts me, because i cant solve it by my self. and noone here seems to care. As if we leave these issues alone, it will be ok.

I know it will not be ok for any of us. except of course those who can afford to put fences and guards around themselves. I dont even want to live in a fenced enclave even if i can afford it.

All your suggestions are excellent start .... but that is far cry from always complaining about governmenet programs and taxes. These programs and ideas you are suggeting need funds to be done and people to do it. Hope we all keep talking about how do we do that in the best and least expensive way.

you see .... we have a lot to talk about not just cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating programs. how about fixing the waste in the military? redesign subsidies to actually encourage energy independence and effecient products, and all other major issues that would benefit all of us and make it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to be less poor. Is that too bad?

But see, that's why I didn't like your stereotype. If you look on my blog, it is not a continual kvetch about programs and taxes, and when it is, I always have a solution to back it up. You have to prove your thesis that there IS a problem, though, before you can advance a reform agenda.



Yes and no, TA. Two things, though:

1. I've detailed my problems with the federal system. Rural areas get left out in the cold at the expense of urban pockets.

2. At the state level, it is much easier to police mismanagement and corruption because it happens at a lower level. Don't believe me? Try this experiment. Call your state senator. Now call your US senator. Unless you know them, I can virtually guarantee the state senator will call back first.

There is no perfect system, you are right. If things worked the way they were meant to work, churches, synagogues, and mosques would be taking care of the poor and needy and government would have no need to get involved. The government stepped in after these groups failed. SO what we need is reform within our own faiths as well...but that's another issue entirely.

Actually, TA, this misconception is exactly that; a misconception. For most people, "can't" go to college really means "won't TRY". There is ample funding for poor people to go to college.

Do you know how much I have paid for TUITION this go around, TA? Not a blessed dime. Yes, I work full time, but that is to support my family. I can assure you there is a boatload of money out there if people would only take advantage of it.

if you are partly for it then we are not in disagreement here.

Why it is not redistribution? here is why:

I said that before and all societies recognize the danger of leaving problems around them without solving them. The people who remain sick and cant afford treatment or insurence cause problems for the rest of us. we leave them untreated at the risk of our own health and well being.

we pay to treat them to protect ourselves. That is why it is not redistribution. it is pure self-interest .... pure and simple.

same with school drop-outs, drugs, unemployment, hunger, homelessness.... etc. all dangers to us and we all should protect ourselves not by fences around us but by minimizing these problems.

There is no way that anyone can eliminate these problems entirely. Poors, sick, uneducated and dangerous people will always exist in any society. The trick is to keep their numbers to a safe minimum for our own self-interst.if some get frutrated with me because i expose their self-destructive tunnel vision so be it.

Of course date is useful ... but picking and choosing what the data mean is my point. Not only that, but pretending that someone is the only one who understands the issues while in fact they are looking at them from a very narrow angle is an arrogance beyound belief.

A self-admitting dont-care-about-others attitude is really not qualified to deal with any social issue that affects the lives of others. If you dont care about others how can you get involved in discussing what affects them? you disqualified yourself already ... so why are you discussing it?

I can understand complaining about paying any taxes at all from someone who doesnt care. that is their rights. but pretending that what they say is based on data or sound policy is a deciet and a way to hide behind false pretenses. That is pure dishonesty. say it as it is: I dont care and I dont like paying for anything that is not directly affecting me NOW.

I will never object to anyone saying that. It is the pretense of knowing what is the best policy that i am objecting to. If that gets them frustrated ...well... so be it.