I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

You are under the mistaken idea that just always leads to fair or vice versa..

(04-08-2016 04:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

It seems to me that if charities have to constantly send solicitations to people to get them to donate, that there's no way they could handle the increase in need that would happen if the government got rid of welfare. In fact, they always act like they're just barely hanging on.

(04-08-2016 02:54 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  That's a fair response. But I'd still say in a truly fair and just society there'd be no need for charity. Society would adjust and treat its 'least' as it does its 'most.' It would account for differences in talents and abilities and make sure people had the basics to survive.

The problem is that "What most people need to survive" is open to debate.

Quote:The old 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities' or something along those lines (I'm not looking it up).

popularised by Karl Marx because it's essential to state socialism.

(04-08-2016 04:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

I don't think that is generically true of "the cons" as you want to suggest. There may be some who insist on that, but they are in the distinct minority. This statement is like the overly broad invectives that get leveled at democrats from time to time.

Tell you what, why don't you try something? You probably think of me as a conservative. What do I advocate in this regard? Not hard, I've probably laid it out 100 times on here. So what is my position?

(04-08-2016 04:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

Complete and utter garbage. We want to see work requirements, limits to how many years you get food stamps, section 8, and capping the upper end. You should not be rewarded for and get more money for more babies out of wedlock. It is insane to have 2-8 kids out of marriage when you don't work and can't afford to take care of them.

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 04:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

I don't think that is generically true of "the cons" as you want to suggest. There may be some who insist on that, but they are in the distinct minority. This statement is like the overly broad invectives that get leveled at democrats from time to time.

Tell you what, why don't you try something? You probably think of me as a conservative. What do I advocate in this regard? Not hard, I've probably laid it out 100 times on here. So what is my position?

I know libertarians hate being called cons. however I'm not sure if that's because they truly believe they are moderates, or if they are so far on the right they don't want to be lumped in with traditional cons cuz they are too liberal for their tastes.

I put you guys as right of mainstream conservatives and are simply extreme right wing.

as to the original question: you have to be living under a rock if you don't think cons in large numbers think charities can pick up the slack of lowering welfare. it's a perfect example of "private sector doing a better job than the public sector" mentality.

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

John 12:8 For the poor always you have with you; but me you have not always.

(04-08-2016 02:54 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

I don't think that's fair to say.

There are always going to be the least intelligent, the least well equipped, the least prepared, and the least competent. Those will inevitably make up the poor and there is nothing justice or fairness can do to elevate them.

That's a fair response. But I'd still say in a truly fair and just society there'd be no need for charity. Society would adjust and treat its 'least' as it does its 'most.' It would account for differences in talents and abilities and make sure people had the basics to survive.

The old 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities' or something along those lines (I'm not looking it up).

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs![3][5][6]"
— 'Critique of the Gotha Program' by Karl Marx

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

don't agree. There is always a place for charity in the real world.

I don't trust a lot of charities, particularly large ones, but there are tons of charities that do amazing work in the world.

(04-08-2016 04:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 04:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the GOPers here are jerking off to. the cons have said time and time again that welfare should be done away with and charities will cover those in need. the libs always respond with that they don't think charities can fill that void. so what exactly is the issue here?

I don't think that is generically true of "the cons" as you want to suggest. There may be some who insist on that, but they are in the distinct minority. This statement is like the overly broad invectives that get leveled at democrats from time to time.
Tell you what, why don't you try something? You probably think of me as a conservative. What do I advocate in this regard? Not hard, I've probably laid it out 100 times on here. So what is my position?

I know libertarians hate being called cons. however I'm not sure if that's because they truly believe they are moderates, or if they are so far on the right they don't want to be lumped in with traditional cons cuz they are too liberal for their tastes.
I put you guys as right of mainstream conservatives and are simply extreme right wing.
as to the original question: you have to be living under a rock if you don't think cons in large numbers think charities can pick up the slack of lowering welfare. it's a perfect example of "private sector doing a better job than the public sector" mentality.

So you don't have a clue where I stand on the issue, but you are good at name-calling.

As I said before, you obviously have a much higher opinion of me than I do of you.

(04-08-2016 02:54 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

I don't think that's fair to say.

There are always going to be the least intelligent, the least well equipped, the least prepared, and the least competent. Those will inevitably make up the poor and there is nothing justice or fairness can do to elevate them.

That's a fair response. But I'd still say in a truly fair and just society there'd be no need for charity. Society would adjust and treat its 'least' as it does its 'most.' It would account for differences in talents and abilities and make sure people had the basics to survive.

The old 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities' or something along those lines (I'm not looking it up).

ahem, charity.

(04-08-2016 10:09 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

don't agree. There is always a place for charity in the real world.

I don't trust a lot of charities, particularly large ones, but there are tons of charities that do amazing work in the world.

And the lest trustworthy of them all is the largest. Government.

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

Jeez dude even in fairy tales you need charitable works.

(04-08-2016 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

I don't think that's fair to say.

There are always going to be the least intelligent, the least well equipped, the least prepared, and the least competent. Those will inevitably make up the poor and there is nothing justice or fairness can do to elevate them.

Even Jesus himself said the poor would always be with us (Mark 14:7).

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

The abject failure of the "Great Society" proves that we can not solve this problem with the force of government. In fact...it just made it worse. There will always be those less fortunate due to a myriad of reasons...many simply beyond their control.

I have no problem helping these people through government programs..but..private charity also plays a great role. The government simply does not have the manpower or resources to do everything. Bureaucrats love to pass out checks..but..when it comes to actually doing anything? Government fails miserably. Private charity also returns 70 percent of its funding to the individuals they target to help. Conversely...The government only returns 30 percent. Most of its money is gobbled up administering these programs. Id submit that other than just providing money government programs do very little to actually solve the "poverty" issue. Private charity does a much better job.

I reject the idea that America is not just and fair also. We have more safety nets for the less fortunate than any place on the planet. Are we perfect? Of course not. But to say that poverty is due to a lack of American fairness or justness is a bit hyperbolic. We have been leading the less fortunate to the water trough for decades...they somehow just can't figure out how to drink from it. Im afraid that is always going to be the case.

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

In a truly just and fair society, there would absolutely be a need for charity.

A just and fair society is one where individuals are properly rewarded for the fruits of their labors. Some people produce more, and should be entitled to more. Some people produce nothing, and should be entitled to nothing. Charity by the former group will always be required to support the latter.

So a just and fair society absolutely needs charity. The need for charity can be eliminated only by abandoning justice and fairness in favor of some sort of "from each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs" form of socialism/communism. Except that doesn't eliminate the need for charity, because then everybody ends up poor and needing it.

(04-08-2016 02:54 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  The old 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities' or something along those lines (I'm not looking it up).

The liberal/progressive icon Margaret Sanger had an interesting solution for taking care of the "least."

(04-08-2016 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He's a lunatic hippie.

He just offended his entire base and they don't even know it. I mean, they are the ones that want free everything and charities help provide that.

(04-09-2016 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  In a just and fair society there wouldn't be a need for charity.

In a truly just and fair society, there would absolutely be a need for charity.

A just and fair society is one where individuals are properly rewarded for the fruits of their labors. Some people produce more, and should be entitled to more. Some people produce nothing, and should be entitled to nothing. Charity by the former group will always be required to support the latter.

So a just and fair society absolutely needs charity. The need for charity can be eliminated only by abandoning justice and fairness in favor of some sort of "from each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs" form of socialism/communism. Except that doesn't eliminate the need for charity, because then everybody ends up poor and needing it.