should we give money to the poor?

[Lava]

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lava,@ <!--QuoteBegin-Nono, Jeez, Sub, and I thought PRH was strident. Let 'em starve while you clutch your bundle, eh? If those are the rules, then they should come over to your place and steal the stuff. You're asking for the jungle; you should get it. Indeed. Anyone here know why Americas crime rate is many times higher per capita than Britain's? Thats what you get when you tell people to go starve. And you deserve it. :) Lava

I?d love to see the logical proof behind that one.[/b][/quote]

I doubt that such social constructs can de proved or disproved.

All that can be offered as evidence is that America is antisocial towards its poorest, so it doesnt surprise me one bit that the poorest react to mainstream America with so much hatred. Doesnt surprise me at all. Hence so much crime compared to here.


Lava

[syracusa]

Lava,

I agree and I really see where you are coming from.

It is quite amazing to me that all these people who talk in harsh "laissez-faire" terms - it's a jungle out there, the fittest survive, we do not care if the weak suffer, not our business to save them, we have the right to amass as much fortune as we can, etc etc - fail to see how by being so anti-social and cold towards the poor / weak / etc, they in fact sabotage themselves by arousing further hatred and jealousy in these people.

And theh they wonder where crime and terrorism is coming from...

At best - this wil always prevent them from trully enjoying the fruits of their talents/labor because they will always have to be paranoid over them, to defend what they have from the hungry eyes of the less fortunate, to hide, to lie about how much they have accumulated etc.
This in intself deprives them from having the admiration of the community, which - from times immemorial! - humans have craved.
Instead they instill jealousy and hatred by throwing such philosophy into the face of those less fortunate or less capable, or weaker or whatever.
(And I am not sure how much longer religion will work to keep the schmucks in their place, regardless of how nasty and cold the rich pigs become).
At worst, they set themselves up for literally being blown into pieces by a population driven eventually to complete frustration.

Not long ago I read a book where the author was talking about how the rich today (compared to those in the past) are forced to live pretty pathetic lives in the sense that they are always "in hiding".

The biggest/richest homes are no longer in the center of a city - like they used to be... place of honor and stature in the community; they are always hidden far away, in remote suburbs, as far away as possible from the hungry eyes of the regular folks who - unlike the past ! - are now told: "if only you were trying a bit better, you too could, blah, blah, blah".
When the pure scientific truth is that most of them WILL NOT manage to climb "up there".

...And when on top of this you also tell them that "as far as you're concerned, they can starve to death if it comes to that"...talk about creating fury in people. Relying on the legal system to protect you from that fury - doesn't always work, isn't that pretty clear.

Of course, a lor of rich/capable people know better than spitting such poisonous remarks.

But regardless of record or who they really are in real life, or what they really think and feel...which of these "nasty millioniares" do you think that I, - like "the pathetic shmuck" that I am - am most likely to want to rob / hate / shoot / not elect etc:

1) Bush family who tells me that everything will be "all right" for me, even though his no 1 concern is with how to create a more acommodating system for people like him ...while for those who struggle ..."try better!" is all he has to say?

or

2) Kerry-Heinz family - who despite having shitloads of money - they say "I got a mega tax cut, I sure as Hell did not need one, I think that this money should go to shmucks like you, 'cause you obviously need it more than I do; I have enough to bathe in it for the rest of my life, with or without tax cut".

Chances are the likes of Heinz-Kerry will have a much nicer time enjoying their mega fortunes on this Earth than these dumb "laissez-faire" artists who think they know all about human nature when in reality, they are only digging their grave: slowly but surely.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Suburbanite+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>... a crying woman ...[/b] Whoa! Bingo! Here we're getting to the nub, eh? It's the women who are making sense in this part of the thread. Human civilization doesn't exist for the concentration of wealth in the hands of the Biggest Bruisers. That's the jungle. One of the main functions of government (my view) is to redistribute wealth away from Greedheads. It isn't really theirs anyway.[/b]

I’m glad you have the “my view” clause in there, because it just sounds stupid. They did earn it, so who else’s could it be? And Government has never been about redistributing wealth.

Originally posted by syracusa, Suburbanite, The reason you don't see any more substance is because both of us already said everything there was to be said on this issue.

That’s a damn shame cause you didn’t say much.

Originally posted by syracusa, One point on which we might agree is that...well, obviously - look at the two of us! - people are incredibly different. I do believe however that overall there are more people with my type of psychology than with your type. I mean... you don't encounter every day a person who thinks that "the weak should just starve to death 'cause they won't pay for them to survive anyway".

I’m glad about that. And it isn’t that they should starve, it is that I don’t care if they do, I just don’t want to pay for them.

Originally posted by syracusa, In regards with what Prettyredhead posted, I am glad and grateful that her kids did not have to starve when she was in that difficult situation. A tiny little bit of the taxes that I paid to the gov. went towards her welfare - and it makes me feel at peace knowing that it worked out that way.

I’m ashamed she even had kids, very irresponsible; the government should take her children away.

Originally posted by syracusa, I might not have been able to locate her, had the government left the charity up to me. Otherwise suburbanite, let's just accept that we have very different psychologies or...souls, if you prefer a more metaphysical term...and we'll leave it at that.

I don’t believe in the soul, but yes, we clearly do have different psychologies.

Originally posted by syracusa, (The "terrorist attack" was a joke, evidently. My "weak woman" morals would certainly prevent me from actually ACTING on it...even if I were presented with such an opportunity; but boy, do people like you make me fantasize about it or what!).

hah.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Read very carefully monsterman... it says basically dont like being charitable, move the F out of the US, to a country like oh, say, Africa. Which lets its own children die a painful, terrible death from starvation. They eat their own shirts. .. nice place to live for greedy elitist like you. ... so, pack up.

You let your children starve to death and if it wasn’t for you being an American they would have. You’ve failed as a mother and a human. Have a real point you’d like to bring up?

Originally posted by Lava, I doubt that such social constructs can de proved or disproved. All that can be offered as evidence is that America is antisocial towards its poorest, so it doesnt surprise me one bit that the poorest react to mainstream America with so much hatred. Doesnt surprise me at all. Hence so much crime compared to here. Lava

What does me being an American have to do with anything? I’d hate to spend my dollars, my shillings or my pesos on someone like this.

Originally posted by syracusa, I agree and I really see where you are coming from. It is quite amazing to me that all these people who talk in harsh "laissez-faire" terms - it's a jungle out there, the fittest survive, we do not care if the weak suffer, not our business to save them, we have the right to amass as much fortune as we can, etc etc - fail to see how by being so anti-social and cold towards the poor / weak / etc, they in fact sabotage themselves by arousing further hatred and jealousy in these people.

I’m not a laissez-faire capitalist.

Originally posted by syracusa, And theh they wonder where crime and terrorism is coming from...

Yea, terrorist hate us because we have no regard for people’s lives. Laughable suggestion. The reason is because we have no regard for THERE lives, as they have none for outs.

Originally posted by syracusa, Not long ago I read a book where the author was talking about how the rich today (compared to those in the past) are forced to live pretty pathetic lives in the sense that they are always "in hiding".

Probably because they are made to feel ashamed of their wealth, as Sean put it, it is a soulless pursuit.

Originally posted by syracusa, When the pure scientific truth is that most of them WILL NOT manage to climb "up there".

So lets encourage them by just giving them things.

<!--QuoteBegin-syracusa,@

...And when on top of this you also tell them that "as far as you're concerned, they can starve to death if it comes to that"...talk about creating fury in people. Relying on the legal system to protect you from that fury - doesn't always work, isn't that pretty clear.
[/quote]

That above all should inspire them! If death was knocking maybe they’d get a job.

<!--QuoteBegin-syracusa,

Chances are the likes of Heinz-Kerry will have a much nicer time enjoying their mega fortunes on this Earth than these dumb "laissez-faire" artists who think they know all about human nature when in reality, they are only digging their grave: slowly but surely.[/quote]

Since I’ve adopted this philosophy my life has improved ten fold. I take better care of my body, I educate my mind, and I even practice being social. I am making more money, getting better grades, more attention from women, more friends. Life’s good. Know what my mentality hasn’t gotten me? Welfare.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Suburbanite Government has never been about redistributing wealth.

For the past 70 years in the US and other Western democracies, it has been mostly about exactly that. (Think about the effects of what it does -- its programmes, one way or another, put money in the pockets of ordinary people.) And these 70 years have been a period of unparalleled prosperity in those countries.

[castille]

If EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world:

1) Thought about himself/herself before others
2) Strives to make a better life
3) Works hard
4) Instead of whining and blaming, they actually find new solutions to their problems

We would have an infinitely better world.


Is it selfish to think of yourself? Yes. It is selfish to improve yourself when you could be helping some Ethiopian build another water well (only to watch it bombed by terrorists)? Yes.

But this type of selfishness, in which every man and woman strives to become a better person, is the key factor in driving our living standards up.


Like Bill Gates said, before you think about saving the rainforests, clean up your room.

[prettyredhead]

Take MY kids away? Why, cuz I was on welfare for a while. Nice try. My kids know how to remain humble, and are compassionate, even to the likes of you.
I teach my kids not to resent the wealthy, rather to solicit them to help others. The wealthy hide much of their assets with paranoid fury. I dont want their things, But I do expect and demand they contribute more than average Joe, simply because NO ONE gets so rich allll alone. .... mostly off of others hard work.
Even mogul Donald Trump said that hard work is not enough. You MUST have alot of luck as well. ....

By the way, I wish compassion came in a pill. You could use some. Your attitude may well be your downfall. What if Money was no longer of use? The poorest would survive, not you.

[syracusa]

Mr. Suburbanite brands anything that doesn't comply with his sick world view as "lacking in substance".

Let's end this thread. I don't even know why we debate what we debate.
I just hope that what I posted earlier was seen by enough eyes (those who lurk, don't post).

As for the likes of these we've been talking to...they will never change their sick views, they refuse to believe they are living in a human society instead of a "survival-of-the-fittest" jungle - and this is just psychotic denial period.

But then again...I used to be against the death penalty because I thought there is a grain of undiscovered goodness in absolutely ANY human.
Later I realized I was wrong. It is not.

Any person who says that they'd rather see a person starving to death than paying for them to help (and acts on this belief) is deserving of the death penalty as much as a robber who shoots someone to get their wallet is.

[Lava]

A fine ending.

Lava

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Suburbanite+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Government has never been about redistributing wealth.[/b] For the past 70 years in the US and other Western democracies, it has been mostly about exactly that. (Think about the effects of what it does -- its programmes, one way or another, put money in the pockets of ordinary people.) And these 70 years have been a period of unparalleled prosperity in those countries.[/b]

Social programs are hardly the purpose of government.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, I teach my kids not to resent the wealthy, rather to solicit them to help others. The wealthy hide much of their assets with paranoid fury. I dont want their things, But I do expect and demand they contribute more than average Joe, simply because NO ONE gets so rich allll alone. .... mostly off of others hard work.

And getting others to do that hard work for them took a lot of effort I’m sure. Don’t teach your kids to solicit the rich, teach them to become rich… or just don’t teach them at all what kind of message do you really want them to get? It’s okay to be on welfare?

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,@

Even mogul Donald Trump said that hard work is not enough. You MUST have alot of luck as well. ....[/quote]

I read Donald Trump’s book and I think he got a different message across, but even if he did say this, then it doesn’t mean it is true, it means he is wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,

By the way, I wish compassion came in a pill. You could use some. Your attitude may well be your downfall. What if Money was no longer of use? The poorest would survive, not you.[/quote]

I have compassion for those I love, which are currently few in numbers, but not for a total stranger. If money was no longer of use, somehow magically, I would survive so much better than some woman on Welfare. I have learnt to climb one social ladder; I’d be able to climb the second. If there was no money who would you beg to feed you?

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by syracusa, Mr. Suburbanite brands anything that doesn't comply with his sick world view as "lacking in substance". Let's end this thread. I don't even know why we debate what we debate. I just hope that what I posted earlier was seen by enough eyes (those who lurk, don't post). As for the likes of these we've been talking to...they will never change their sick views, they refuse to believe they are living in a human society instead of a "survival-of-the-fittest" jungle - and this is just psychotic denial period. But then again...I used to be against the death penalty because I thought there is a grain of undiscovered goodness in absolutely ANY human. Later I realized I was wrong. It is not. Any person who says that they'd rather see a person starving to death than paying for them to help (and acts on this belief) is deserving of the death penalty as much as a robber who shoots someone to get their wallet is.

What a ridiculous notion.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Social programs are hardly the purpose of government.

I hear that a lot, and have come to the conclusion you are only partly correct. Social programs may not have BEEN a part of the government, or shouldn't BE a part of it, but they are NOW and have been for a long time. I hear the argument that we have a welfare class, but this is greatly due to the involvement of government.

This simply means that as the government has helped create an underclass of people who need services such as welfare, they cannot simply pull the plug and walk away.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, Social programs are hardly the purpose of government.

I hear that a lot, and have come to the conclusion you are only partly correct. Social programs may not have BEEN a part of the government, or shouldn't BE a part of it, but they are NOW and have been for a long time. I hear the argument that we have a welfare class, but this is greatly due to the involvement of government.

This simply means that as the government has helped create an underclass of people who need services such as welfare, they cannot simply pull the plug and walk away.[/b][/quote]

not "part of" "purpose of". Of course they are now apart of it.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Scribbler As the government has helped create an underclass of people who need services such as welfare, they cannot simply pull the plug and walk away.

Somehow we always end up discussing the extreme case. There is and always was a "welfare class". If it's sizeable in the US, I imagine that has something to do with the race situation ("Psssst! 'Welfare' is code for black. So is the word 'crime'.")

But, even in the US, there is a whole range of social programmes that reach far into other sectors of society than the dead-enders. These programmes (among others) are aspects of a wealth-redistribution engine that keeps money in people's pockets and the economy ticking over. The alernative is increasing concentration of wealth, with all the ills that go along with it.

It's part of the etiquette of political discourse in North America faithfully to put in a word deploring "big government". ("Now don't get the idea I support them lazy bureaucrats in Washington/Ottawa!") But I honestly can't imagine by what other means that engine can run.

[Lava]

Seems to me that social programs are one of the core big things government should be about. The purpose of govt is to reduce suffering by implemeting law and order, and taking people's money to take care of those that fail to look after themselves. Such people have always and will always exist.

I said should be - what actually is is simply down to whoever has the power to make the decisions.

In a country with no welfare ilke Africa, you either work or die. In countries with welfare, some more people will go on welfare by choice. Thats the downside of welfare programs. The upsides are 2:
* People get to survive whatever goes wrong in their lives
* We dont live in fear of death or a life of prostitution if something goes wrong in our own lives - as in reality it does, however bullet proof you think you are.

Lava

[Nono]

In Africa, too many people work like hell and then die. So the real purpose of welfare is to put some of the general wealth aside for a rainy (or drought-stricken) day for people so close to the edge that they don't have the resources to make these provisions themselves.

Social programmes generally have the broader goal of keeping things fluid and circulating throughout society. This way, fewer people ever need welfare as such.

[Gracchus]

Should we give money to the poor?

Of course, I am not a Christian, but: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." -- KJV Luke 6:30

:rolleyes:

I am not a Christian either but I prefer the Chinese proverb

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life." -Chinese Proverb"

Give him money or the means by which to make money?...i'd much rather see a man stand up on his own two feet then at my knee begging.

[giuliano]

conservatives often confuse giving someone nothing at all with teaching him to fish.

conservatives also seem to prefer stockpiling huge masses of wealth to using any of it to better the society that supports them, or considering where that wealth came from.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by ACause, I am not a Christian either but I prefer the Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life." -Chinese Proverb" Give him money or the means by which to make money?...i'd much rather see a man stand up on his own two feet then at my knee begging.

Chinese Proverb? I think Jesus said that.