However, poverty is not an excuse for stealing, any more than power is an excuse for corruption.
So if something was stolen should it be given back? What if that was land, other property, and people that your ancestors stole so they could live fat while the ancestors of the people your ancestors decimated are still struggling to get their next meal? How narrow the view for those rose-tinted glasses you wear?
My post was a rebuke of government solutions, not individual solutions. Use your own actions to help others, don't rely on the stupidity of throwing money away on wasteful programs which feed into government growth and wasted tax dollars when your individual response makes more of an impact.
But as you've correctly pointed out many times in the past, people act in their own self-interest and is something you promote. Government employees are employed to act in the interests of the people whether it's in their own interests or not. Not all government programs are wasteful. State education is not wasteful at all. Social security for the elderly could be considered wasteful but a significant portion of them have paid taxes every year their whole working lives. If you take that support away, they either get kicked out on the street or go back to work. Presumably kind hearted souls like yourself will then house and feed them at a cost of say $15k per year each? I doubt it.
You only need to look at poorer countries with weak welfare programs to see what would happen:
Paris Hilton was born into wealth and fame and has always been condescending to the poor. Kim Kardashian used to work for her and she has claimed they owe her their entire lives. The link above shows her taking a trip to India seeing babies sleeping on the streets. Half the country's children are malnourished. Is that what you'd rather have, everywhere you go you'd be swamped by beggars asking for help, some even trying to rob you? If that happened, you'd speak out against it. The Indian government wants to help (since y'know these things don't work themselves out if you just leave them alone as you suggest):
but you'd criticize that move. Industrialists are against it claiming the same thing you do about not being able to afford it but where do they think healthy, educated workers come from? How can someone malnourished, possibly homeless start a business?
Your do-nothing solutions to poverty are not new, they are tried and tested the world over and they don't work.
“good fortune” has nothing to do with deserving or earning.
That's sort of what I was saying but there are things that people would label as deserved or earned that are in fact fortunate circumstances. Getting a good job is good fortune regardless of earning the skills to qualify for it - the provision of training is fortunate too. Being able to start a successful business is good fortune that there happens to be a target market for your product or service.
poverty is not an excuse for stealing, any more than power is an excuse for corruption.
Poverty causes desperation. If your choices are to starve or to steal then what do you expect people to do? Power doesn't necessitate corruption. Survival is a basic human need.
Government employees are employed to act in the interests of the people whether it's in their own interests or not.
Employed to, but don’t.
If you take that support away, they either get kicked out on the street or go back to work.
Or they could save up, like everyone else. SS can’t really be a sole source of income, anyway.
You only need to look at poorer countries with weak welfare programs…
Yeah, it’d be pretty great if people actually worked for a living.
Your do-nothing solutions to poverty are not new, they are tried and tested the world over and they don't work.
How on earth can you come to that conclusion? They don’t work elsewhere in the world, for various reasons. We know it works here. It’s how we used to operate until someone got it in their heads that it’s better for poor people to perpetually vote a certain way than to ever feel like they need to do anything ever again.
This thread is thoroughly depressing. The usual suspects spreading the sadly unsurprising cynicism and purveyance of human misery. Government is so ideologically evil that we'd rather see our fellow man starve and wither than support it. Hideous, impractical and morally bankrupt thoughts
Government employees are employed to act in the interests of the people whether it's in their own interests or not.
Employed to, but don’t.
The majority do work in the interests of the people they serve. Millions of teachers and doctors for example. The majority of expenditure is for people who are sick or old, people who would never be supported by private individuals voluntarily, they'd be looked down on and left to suffer.
Or they could save up, like everyone else. SS can’t really be a sole source of income, anyway.
Social Security is a way of saving up. Money that is taken from earnings during a working life is used to pay for the elderly who are retired and the next generation then pays for those people. If people were taxed less, they simply wouldn't save their money and yes it would be their fault but the outcome is that they become a burden on society. You can't then say throw them out on the street to beg or starve to death and move them far enough away from the wealthy people so they don't have to see their suffering.
Whenever people who only think of themselves end up in the same situation or see first hand how cruel it is, that's when they change their minds. There are natural events like floods or earthquakes or simply a family bread-winner dying that necessitate a support network.
Yeah, it’d be pretty great if people actually worked for a living.
People who get government assistance are not all unemployed. Some jobs just pay so little that they can't afford to buy the basics and not every country has an abundance of jobs relative to the population.
There are people who have no intention of working and use having children as their support mechanism:
Your do-nothing solutions to poverty are not new, they are tried and tested the world over and they don't work.
How on earth can you come to that conclusion? They don’t work elsewhere in the world, for various reasons. We know it works here. It’s how we used to operate until someone got it in their heads that it’s better for poor people to perpetually vote a certain way than to ever feel like they need to do anything ever again.
Lack of welfare never worked unless by it working you mean making people suffer for being poor:
Comments
So if something was stolen should it be given back? What if that was land, other property, and people that your ancestors stole so they could live fat while the ancestors of the people your ancestors decimated are still struggling to get their next meal? How narrow the view for those rose-tinted glasses you wear?
But as you've correctly pointed out many times in the past, people act in their own self-interest and is something you promote. Government employees are employed to act in the interests of the people whether it's in their own interests or not. Not all government programs are wasteful. State education is not wasteful at all. Social security for the elderly could be considered wasteful but a significant portion of them have paid taxes every year their whole working lives. If you take that support away, they either get kicked out on the street or go back to work. Presumably kind hearted souls like yourself will then house and feed them at a cost of say $15k per year each? I doubt it.
You only need to look at poorer countries with weak welfare programs to see what would happen:
http://uk.eonline.com/news/266044/paris-hilton-pimps-handbags-in-india-nips-poverty-in-the-bud-by-handing-out-cash
Paris Hilton was born into wealth and fame and has always been condescending to the poor. Kim Kardashian used to work for her and she has claimed they owe her their entire lives. The link above shows her taking a trip to India seeing babies sleeping on the streets. Half the country's children are malnourished. Is that what you'd rather have, everywhere you go you'd be swamped by beggars asking for help, some even trying to rob you? If that happened, you'd speak out against it. The Indian government wants to help (since y'know these things don't work themselves out if you just leave them alone as you suggest):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-biggest-welfare-programme-in-history-indian-government-gives-800-million-citizens-a-legal-right-to-cheap-food-in-new-bill-8796961.html
but you'd criticize that move. Industrialists are against it claiming the same thing you do about not being able to afford it but where do they think healthy, educated workers come from? How can someone malnourished, possibly homeless start a business?
Your do-nothing solutions to poverty are not new, they are tried and tested the world over and they don't work.
That's sort of what I was saying but there are things that people would label as deserved or earned that are in fact fortunate circumstances. Getting a good job is good fortune regardless of earning the skills to qualify for it - the provision of training is fortunate too. Being able to start a successful business is good fortune that there happens to be a target market for your product or service.
Poverty causes desperation. If your choices are to starve or to steal then what do you expect people to do? Power doesn't necessitate corruption. Survival is a basic human need.
Employed to, but don’t.
Or they could save up, like everyone else. SS can’t really be a sole source of income, anyway.
Yeah, it’d be pretty great if people actually worked for a living.
How on earth can you come to that conclusion? They don’t work elsewhere in the world, for various reasons. We know it works here. It’s how we used to operate until someone got it in their heads that it’s better for poor people to perpetually vote a certain way than to ever feel like they need to do anything ever again.
This thread is thoroughly depressing. The usual suspects spreading the sadly unsurprising cynicism and purveyance of human misery. Government is so ideologically evil that we'd rather see our fellow man starve and wither than support it. Hideous, impractical and morally bankrupt thoughts
The majority do work in the interests of the people they serve. Millions of teachers and doctors for example. The majority of expenditure is for people who are sick or old, people who would never be supported by private individuals voluntarily, they'd be looked down on and left to suffer.
Social Security is a way of saving up. Money that is taken from earnings during a working life is used to pay for the elderly who are retired and the next generation then pays for those people. If people were taxed less, they simply wouldn't save their money and yes it would be their fault but the outcome is that they become a burden on society. You can't then say throw them out on the street to beg or starve to death and move them far enough away from the wealthy people so they don't have to see their suffering.
Whenever people who only think of themselves end up in the same situation or see first hand how cruel it is, that's when they change their minds. There are natural events like floods or earthquakes or simply a family bread-winner dying that necessitate a support network.
People who get government assistance are not all unemployed. Some jobs just pay so little that they can't afford to buy the basics and not every country has an abundance of jobs relative to the population.
There are people who have no intention of working and use having children as their support mechanism:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/21/peter-rolfe-father-with-26-children-attacks-welfare-cuts-on-benefits-britain-life-on-the-dole-channel-5-documentary-4770712/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/387308/Working-is-not-worth-it-Benefits-mum-rakes-in-70-000-in-welfare
Those type of people are reprehensible and there should be limits on the support they get.
Lack of welfare never worked unless by it working you mean making people suffer for being poor:
Poverty pre-welfare