Current Events > Do conservatives really think charities can handle 100% of the United States?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also all the orphans if abortion was illegal? That's just stupid.
---

bootstraps can handle 100%
---

They don't think that. They'd just rather the orphans die outside the womb. :o They don't have any intention of supporting them. Jesus just likes it better if the kids die after they're born.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

They don't think that. They'd just rather the orphans die outside the womb. :o They don't have any intention of supporting them. Jesus just likes it better if the kids die after they're born.

this is dumb. don't be dumb.
---

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point
---

ThyCorndog posted...

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point

yes, baby bootstraps :o
---

It's more like if you're making kids, you should rear them.

But excuse me, don't let me interrupt the act of being difficult.
---

Yeah because we all know how bad little kids sin on a daily basis. Kill an ant? go to hell. Stay up 5 minutes past your bedtime? Hell it is for you Jimmy.

DevsBro posted...

It's more like if you're making kids, you should rear them.

But excuse me, don't let me interrupt the act of being difficult.

what if they can't rear them? What if they don't have the means? Better they just starve to death to punish the parents' promiscuity right?
---

DevsBro posted...

It's more like if you're making kids, you should rear them.

But excuse me, don't let me interrupt the act of being difficult.

That's just stupid. You can't force people to do that. All that does is create more dumpster babies and dangerous back ally abortions.
---

It's pretty clear that a large chunk of pro lifers don't generally care about children once they are born. I've asked plenty of them multiple times "What are you going to do about the rise of children being put up for adoption? Are you willing to provide financial backing for the foster care system that's already struggling? Or shelters for kids? Provide these places with adequate food and clothing? How about the obvious increase in welfare programs that provide food for low income houses with more children than before?"

And it's either met with silence, the "charity will take care of it!" rationale, or "not my problem!" the majority of the time.

ThyCorndog posted...

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point

Actually I'm pretty sure unborn babies do have orginal sin. As I don't believe an unborn baby is capable of getting into heaven. It isn't until you are baptized that you have orginal sin.
---

DevsBro posted...

It's more like if you're making kids, you should rear them.

But excuse me, don't let me interrupt the act of being difficult.

This is what a stupid post looks like
---

Tmaster148 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point

Actually I'm pretty sure unborn babies do have orginal sin. As I don't believe an unborn baby is capable of getting into heaven. It isn't until you are baptized that you have orginal sin.

damn. that's some scary stuff. probably tons of babies in hell right now
---

Tmaster148 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point

Actually I'm pretty sure unborn babies do have orginal sin. As I don't believe an unborn baby is capable of getting into heaven. It isn't until you are baptized that you have orginal sin.

Religion is so fucking crazy.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

It's pretty clear that a large chunk of pro lifers don't generally care about children once they are born. I've asked plenty of them multiple times "What are you going to do about the rise of children being put up for adoption? Are you willing to provide financial backing for the foster care system that's already struggling? Or shelters for kids? Provide these places with adequate food and clothing? How about the obvious increase in welfare programs that provide food for low income houses with more children than before?"

And it's either met with silence, the "charity will take care of it!" rationale, or "not my problem!" the majority of the time.

Yep. It also proves their stance is nothing more than political when they're okay with abortions in the case of rape victims. If they really gave a fuck about the baby, how it was conceived wouldn't matter. If you're "pro-life" be completely pro-life, not just when it's convenient. To take their religious side for a quick second: it's not the babies fault they were a result of rape, God wanted them to exist, after all. But that stance is harder to defend and isn't as big a selling point to their religious crowd.

That's just stupid. You can't force people to do that. All that does is create more dumpster babies and dangerous back ally abortions.

Once again the ethical problem with teleological ethics. If you follow the premise logically, you can come up with horrifying conclusions as murder is good.

You're right. You can't force people to do anything. You can't force people not to steal stuff. The best you can do is pass laws that say it's illegal. But DevsBro, then they'll throw it away to remove the evidence and the owner will never get it back! You can't control that. But you do the right thing anyway.
---

DevsBro posted...

That's just stupid. You can't force people to do that. All that does is create more dumpster babies and dangerous back ally abortions.

Once again the ethical problem with teleological ethics. If you follow the premise logically, you can come up with horrifying conclusions as murder is good.

You're right. You can't force people to do anything. You can't force people not to steal stuff. The best you can do is pass laws that say it's illegal. But DevsBro, then they'll throw it away to remove the evidence and the owner will never get it back! You can't control that. But you do the right thing anyway.

You know dumpster babies and women die from those? I guess you're okay with the mothers dying but the babies starving to death just makes you a hypocrite.
---

You know dumpster babies and women die from those? I guess you're okay with the mothers dying but the babies just makes you a hypocrite.

Like I said, you can't control what people do. This doesn't mean you help them do it.
---

Lonestar2000 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

true. the unborn don't have original sin yet so it's unfair to kill them. once you're born it's a free for all, plus they can wear shoes at that point

Actually I'm pretty sure unborn babies do have orginal sin. As I don't believe an unborn baby is capable of getting into heaven. It isn't until you are baptized that you have orginal sin.

Religion is so fucking crazy.

Also getting into Heaven isn't about being a good person either. The requirements are:

1. Believe in God
2. Be Baptized
3. Attend Service
4. Spend time with God each day(prayer)

Like Hitler could theoretically be in Heaven if he was a devout Christian. The bible pretty much flat out says humans are flawed and are bad compared to God. Now the bible may teach how to be a good person, but it doesn't actually make it a requirement.
---

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.
---

DevsBro posted...

You know dumpster babies and women die from those? I guess you're okay with the mothers dying but the babies just makes you a hypocrite.

Like I said, you can't control what people do. This doesn't mean you help them do it.

So let get this completely straight. You'd prefer more babies starve to death just for a stupid "moral" "victory"?
---

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

OR... they'll just spend the extra money on themselves. :u I wish I could believe in the conservative Neverland where people donate all this money to help the needy and downtrodden but I'm just not crazy enough.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

OR... they'll just spend the extra money on themselves. :u I wish I could believe in the conservative Neverland where people donate all this money to help the needy and downtrodden but I'm just not crazy enough.

Why would those liberals who say they support those programs spend that tax savings on themselves? Even if they're the only ones who care (let's cut out conservatives entirely), their ability to give directly would still result in much more money for those organizations than if everyone was giving it to the federal government.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?

You clearly do, since you're on this site most of the day.
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

These are the same people you call lazy and selfish. Now they're perfect citizens because bootstraps?
---

So let get this completely straight. You'd prefer more babies starve to death just for a stupid "moral" "victory"?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? What part of any of this looks like a moral victory?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

OR... they'll just spend the extra money on themselves. :u I wish I could believe in the conservative Neverland where people donate all this money to help the needy and downtrodden but I'm just not crazy enough.

Yeah, this. I'd be 100% for huge tax cuts to the 0.1% if what conservatives said would happen actually happened. Instead they just pocket the money and use it on diamond studded bath tubs.
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't see why not. If liberals who want higher taxes end up with lower rates under conservative policies, they now have extra income to divert specifically to the charities and pet causes that they value -- Planned Parenthood, LGBT rights, the arts, etc. Lower taxes just cut out the inefficient middle man (i.e. federal bureaucracy) and allow these folks to help those whose causes they value.

I see no problem at all. The "let's raise taxes crowd" spends the same amount and ends up ensuring their causes are funded.

OR... they'll just spend the extra money on themselves. :u I wish I could believe in the conservative Neverland where people donate all this money to help the needy and downtrodden but I'm just not crazy enough.

Why would those liberals who say they support those programs spend that tax savings on themselves? Even if they're the only ones who care (let's cut out conservatives entirely), their ability to give directly would still result in much more money for those organizations than if everyone was giving it to the federal government.

Because people are selfish and a charity/Kickstarter world would collapse in no time.
---

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?

You clearly do, since you're on this site most of the day.

Pot, meet kettle...

Ampelas posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?

You clearly do, since you're on this site most of the day.

Pot, meet kettle...

Unless you saw me complaining about my lack of free time to volunteer, you probably shouldn't be using expressions you don't fully understand.
---

DevsBro posted...

So let get this completely straight. You'd prefer more babies starve to death just for a stupid "moral" "victory"?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

It's what you're saying.

What part of any of this looks like a moral victory?

It's not. That's why I put quotes.
---

Of course not. Just whatever percentage it is the charities handle.
I seriously doubt charity highways or charity postal service will ever really be a thing.

Came across this article a while back, seems relevant here

http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy/

One reason Progressives looked to the state to provide social insurance was that it was seen as necessarily compulsory. By making it universal, low-wage workers could be included. Also, forcing employers to participate was fair because they would directly benefit from such coverage. As Rubinow argued, American workers “must learn to see they have a right to force at least part of the cost and waste of sickness back upon the industry and society at large, and they can do it only when they demand that the state use its power and authority to help them, indirectly at least, with as much vigor as it has come to the assistance of the business interests.” Because of all this, insurance had a direct public purpose, and should in turn be publicly provided.
Progressives’ original argument for social insurance also wasn’t a matter of simple redistribution. Instead they saw social insurance as having a public interest. Insurance to protect against poverty, disease, unemployment, and the other risks of life would benefit both individuals and the greater public. Progressives argued that all parties have a stake in the efficient provision of insurance.
...
If the Progressive movement helped shrink the elaborate system of voluntary fraternal societies, the Great Depression all but killed it. The Great Depression had a one-two-three punch that made it uniquely able to destroy this private infrastructure of support. The demand for income support skyrocketed at exactly the moment the Depression decreased the supply of private aid. And the usual way that workers dealt with bad times—to increase the amount of hours they worked—was not an option in a time of mass unemployment.

Informal networks of local support, from churches to ethnic affiliations, were all overrun in the Great Depression. Ethnic benefit societies, building and loan associations, fraternal insurance policies, bank accounts, and credit arrangements all had major failure rates. All of the fraternal insurance societies that had served as anchors of their communities in the 1920s either collapsed or had to pull back on their services due to high demand and dwindling resources. Beyond the fact that insurance wasn’t available, this had major implications for spending, as moneylending as well as benefits for sickness and injuries were reduced.
...
The more Hoover leaned on private agencies, the more resistance he found. Private firms and industry did not want to play the role that the government assigned them, and even those that did found it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out those responsibilities.
...
If people like Mike Lee are correct, then the start of the Great Recession would have been precisely the moment when private charity would have stepped up. But in fact, private giving fell as the Great Recession started. Overall giving fell 7 percent in 2008, with another 6.2 percent drop in 2009. There was only a small uptick in 2010 and 2011, even though unemployment remained very high. Giving also fell as a percentage of GDP (even as GDP shrank), from 2.1 percent in 2008 to 2.0 percent in 2009 through 2011. (The high point was 2.3 percent in 2005.)

Long story short: those most in need of social assistance naturally have the least ability to fund it privately. This shortage of private capacity for charity is worst during economic downturns, when more people need help and even fewer can afford to. Widescale state intervention allows for private efforts to be more targeted, more effective.
---

The Admiral posted...

Ampelas posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?

You clearly do, since you're on this site most of the day.

Pot, meet kettle...

Unless you saw me complaining about my lack of free time to volunteer, you probably shouldn't be using expressions you don't fully understand.

You're calling him out for having free time because he's on this site most of the day when the same could be said of you.

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?
---

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What if I support more causes than I have expendable income?

Then volunteer your time instead of your money.

What if I don't have the time?

You clearly do, since you're on this site most of the day.

I was not really only asking about me personally. Also, I have a job, jackass, and my hours are only going to be increasing.

The point is there just isn't enough money and time for everyone to fund everyhing they support, and that is assuming they are completely selfless. The only way this world would work is if the charity wasn't so voluntary.
---

Antifar posted...

Long story short: those most in need of social assistance naturally have the least ability to fund it privately. This shortage of private capacity for charity is worst during economic downturns, when more people need help and even fewer can afford to. Widescale state intervention allows for private efforts to be more targeted, more effective.

The question then is: if the people can't afford these things, why assume the state can?

Monday posted...

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?

The liberal mindset of "my bad decisions are your responsibility" is the crux of a lot of the conservative push back against social welfare programs. It's not really rooted by callousness the way liberals like to pretend, it's rooted by a sense of unfairness that certain folks are working hard and sacrificing money that could go to their families to support others who are reckless or lazy.
---

Monday posted...

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?

We try to teach them about safe sex. Conservatives don't like it. :o They want to teach them abstinence instead. Because that always works and is 100% effective.

Because teaching horny teenagers to abstain from it entirely is the smart thing to do and it is what Jesus wants.
---

Monday posted...

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?

But they do it. Would you rather these fucking idiots raise children? Or are we going to force them to give up the baby when it's born? Abortion is logical and necessary.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The only way this world would work is if the charity wasn't so voluntary.

It's no longer charity when it's mandatory.

The Admiral posted...

Monday posted...

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?

The liberal mindset of "my bad decisions are your responsibility" is the crux of a lot of the conservative push back against social welfare programs. It's not really rooted by callousness the way liberals like to pretend, it's rooted by a sense of unfairness that certain folks are working hard and sacrificing money that could go to their families to support others who are reckless or lazy.

"It is liberals' fault that I support destroying safety nets to spite those that abuse them. I never have any responsibility for my own beliefs. They are forcing my hand."
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The question then is: if the people can't afford these things, why assume the state can?

It both can, through deficit spending, and is more willing to than private actors. The article notes that relying on private charity places significant power and responsibility in the hands of those with the most resources, who are not as in tune or beholden to society's needs as the state. Existing private philanthropy largely goes not to those most in need, but to the pet causes of the wealthy: their churches (who often do good work on their own, to be fair), their alma maters, their political causes.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Monday posted...

I'm pro-choice, just wanna get that out of the way.

What's up with stupid fucking people getting pregnant and then treating abortions like a form of birth control?
Jesus fucking Christ those people annoy me. Stop getting knocked up you fucking idiots. Maybe put some effort into practicing safe sex once in a while, yeah?

But they do it. Would you rather these fucking idiots raise children? Or are we going to force them to give up the baby when it's born? Abortion is logical and necessary.

I just wish sex education in this country was more consistent and better structured. As it stands, every single school has it's own way of doing things, and there's no real plan out there. Abortion is absolutely necessary, but I'd like to see a world where people aren't having to fall back on it because they're constantly making bad decisions.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

"It is liberals' fault that I support destroying safety nets to spite those that abuse them. I never have any responsibility for my own beliefs. They are forcing my hand."

This is Admiral's go to move: deny conservative agency, explain away their faults as instinctive reactions to some liberal wrongdoing.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Antifar posted...

Long story short: those most in need of social assistance naturally have the least ability to fund it privately. This shortage of private capacity for charity is worst during economic downturns, when more people need help and even fewer can afford to. Widescale state intervention allows for private efforts to be more targeted, more effective.

The question then is: if the people can't afford these things, why assume the state can?

That's a dumb question. Right in the quote government and private work together.
---