[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
The conservative in us will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of themselves. It is the people that are able to take care of themselves but refuse to take care of themselves are the ones that we do not want to take care of. We are on the side that charity needs to help these people, and not the federal government. Taxes are forced upon us, so taking care of these people are forced upon us whether we want to or not. I would prefer a local person who can watch these people more closely to handle the money. The government sends them a check in the mail or direct deposit. How closely can they truely watch these people.[/quote]
This ^^^ is 100% correct. [/quote]
we disagree, charitable notions are fine , but like now people do not have the extra money to be charitable , so they will not be so . I agree that we need to widdle down our charity. I just do not believe most people would take care of the truly needy[/quote]
So you think the Federal Government cares more about people then people in the public sector? It is a proven fact that americans give more to charity then any other country in the world. I even think it is all other countries in the world put together.
I believe in the human spirit. Humans are willing to help out people in need. The government wants to make sure they have voters willing to vote for them. Maybe instead of the government handing out checks the government starts to give double tax incentives to peopl that give to charity. You want to get people to give to charity, you start to give them a real tax incentive to do it. Bush IMO was on the right path. He wanted to make sure that all charitable contributions were tax deductible. Right now you have to itemize on your tax return to get the deduction. Not many people meet the standard deduction to be able to itemize.[/quote]
This is an interesting argument. Basically, I’m for public-private partnerships. I think both the government and private industry have their place when dealing with “those who need.”
Without question, some go too far and think of too many as “needy.” At the same time, others go to far and think that no one is “needy.” While I can somewhat understand a philosophical perspective, for example, that says that government should not be involved in charity whatsoever, it is hard for me to rectify that with the history of poverty around the world.
Without question, capitalism leads to prosperity. However, HOW capitalism is implemented is also important. When having these kind of discussions I always look at what happened in China and Vietnam vs Russia and the eastern block. The “how” is important.
Maybe one day we will live in a society where the government need not be involved in providing for the poor among us… I don’t think that day is today, but I would like to move toward it. [/quote]
I think we are coming to a common ground. I agree with you a little bit.
I tried to approach my Representative from my distric to try and put forth a bill. Basically the Bill would be to try and demand Non-Profits to help people get off of welfare. This is going to get sticky, but I see so many non-profits whether religious or not hording all the money. Not a dime is spent on helping the poor. All they do is pay salaries, and build buildings. My proposal would be that all non-profits would be forced to give 10% of their revenue annually to helping people on welfare. If they do not do this they loose their non-profit status. Being a Christian it hurts me to say the State should do this to the Church, but if the Church is not doing their job then they need to be nudged in the right direction. Either do the 10% or start being taxed like a business. This will not be a quick fix, but over the years the number of people will get off of welfare and then at that point we can repel this law. There are many ways to help the poor. You do not have to just give them money. Maybe pay for their rent and give them food while they go back to school, or help them find a job. There are many ways to help, but local people will go to the poor’s house and make sure they are truely poor, or have a handicap that prevents them from working.
My Representative told me “There is not a non-profit in the world that will ever take the place of the US Government in taking care of people.” I beleive the heart of the people can overcome, but their will always be poor people, but we have to define what truely poor is.
