Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[Mountaineer]

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

Where is evidence of this? Show me one point in time that the majority of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly, etc were taken care of by charity alone?

I don't believe InsuranceGuy said charity alone (he added communities). And for my definition of communities, I'd say ones family is the closest community. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say before the advent of the automobile, when extended families for the most part lived relatively (pun intended) close together. I expect they took care of each other as the primary means of care, charity secondly. This was also before the advent of widescale governmental social engineering programs and before the do gooders pressed the government to free the mentally ill from containment so they could wander the streets.

[pmward]

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

Where is evidence of this? Show me one point in time that the majority of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly, etc were taken care of by charity alone?

I don't believe InsuranceGuy said charity alone (he added communities). And for my definition of communities, I'd say ones family is the closest community. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say before the advent of the automobile, when extended families for the most part lived relatively (pun intended) close together. I expect they took care of each other as the primary means of care, charity secondly. This was also before the advent of widescale governmental social engineering programs and before the do gooders pressed the government to free the mentally ill from containment so they could wander the streets.

Considering there has never been a period of time without a mass poverty problem... it doesn't look like it was enough to do the job to me. If it never worked in the past, isn't it kind of crazy to assume it would work today? I mean, we have the greatest wealth divide in history right now. The rich people in our country could cure poverty in our country if they wanted to, and not change their lifestyle one bit. But they don't. Why? Because humans are innately selfish and self centered. If the government doesn't stand up for these people they won't ever get the help they need and deserve. Why do most people on the right not support social spending? Because they would have to pay taxes. In other words, because they are selfish and self centered. They want more money in their pocket instead of that money helping someone who really needs it. Mind you, you can get too carried away and have too much social spending. But the government needs to be there. They have a responsibility to the needy. If you "leave it to the market to decide" it always ends in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[flyingpylon]

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

Where is evidence of this? Show me one point in time that the majority of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly, etc were taken care of by charity alone?

I don't believe InsuranceGuy said charity alone (he added communities). And for my definition of communities, I'd say ones family is the closest community. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say before the advent of the automobile, when extended families for the most part lived relatively (pun intended) close together. I expect they took care of each other as the primary means of care, charity secondly. This was also before the advent of widescale governmental social engineering programs and before the do gooders pressed the government to free the mentally ill from containment so they could wander the streets.

Considering there has never been a period of time without a mass poverty problem... it doesn't look like it was enough to do the job to me. If it never worked in the past, isn't it kind of crazy to assume it would work today? I mean, we have the greatest wealth divide in history right now. The rich people in our country could cure poverty in our country if they wanted to, and not change their lifestyle one bit. But they don't. Why? Because humans are innately selfish and self centered. If the government doesn't stand up for these people they won't ever get the help they need and deserve. Why do most people on the right not support social spending? Because they would have to pay taxes. In other words, because they are selfish and self centered. They want more money in their pocket instead of that money helping someone who really needs it. Mind you, you can get too carried away and have too much social spending. But the government needs to be there. They have a responsibility to the needy. If you "leave it to the market to decide" it always ends in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Except that the government is also selfish and self-centered. Being made up of humans and all...

[pmward]

that is a lot of assumptions about the minds of rich people and how they think.. all negative

It is a generalization yes. But we are talking about how things play out at a macro sense across the whole population, correct? So there can be a whole slew of individuals that act and think differently (I'm not exactly in a low tax bracket myself, if you catch my drift), but it's the macro level generalized effect that aggregates across the entire population that matters. The facts I stated that I used to draw that generalization are all irrefutable. There is 0 evidence that a lack of government assistance would magically make the sick, old, poor, needy, minorities, etc lives any better. All evidence throughout history is to the contrary.

[sophie]

Agree with Tom here.

I would really like to live in 1800 if it were possible to do so with modern conveniences (which are too numerous to list). (And if I didn't have to wear 15 pounds of restrictive clothing because of my gender.)

The layers of governmental intrusion that have been added on since then have made quality of life significantly worse than the above scenario. Criminals have more rights than victims, laws and regulations making it unreasonably difficult to run a business, coercion to take part in poorly justified preventive medicine procedures, corruption everywhere, and onerous taxes. Just to name a few things.

[doodle]

Agree with Tom here.

I would really like to live in 1800 if it were possible to do so with modern conveniences (which are too numerous to list). (And if I didn't have to wear 15 pounds of restrictive clothing because of my gender.)

The layers of governmental intrusion that have been added on since then have made quality of life significantly worse than the above scenario. Criminals have more rights than victims, laws and regulations making it unreasonably difficult to run a business, coercion to take part in poorly justified preventive medicine procedures, corruption everywhere, and onerous taxes. Just to name a few things.

Except you couldn't vote, would have probably been limited to secretarial work for which you would have been paid considerably less than a man, had little personal autonomy or control over reproductive choices, little societal recognition or respect for your opinions, certainly no chance of holding political office.

Corruption...probably better now than in the past.

Criminal rights?...maybe if you're the right color and social class...

Business regs...probably some overreach there but plenty of people still starting businesses. Some of the most successful and profitable businesses hail from this country as well as the wealthiest businessmen. So can't be all bad

[doodle]

How come European countries electing leaders like this...

dnftkz6mfjz51.jpg (75.06 KiB) Viewed 2668 times

sanna-marin-finland-medium-2-637x359.jpg (28.75 KiB) Viewed 2668 times

And we are still stuck on this?

original.jpg (67.59 KiB) Viewed 2668 times

79e215e4b15cf998ee57f77a098a265910-17-joe-biden.rsquare.w330.jpg (19.46 KiB) Viewed 2668 times

[Cortopassi]

I've seen that photo of Trump a few times. Anyone have any video of what he was actually saying at that point?

[glennds]

Don't forget New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern:



Recently re-elected in a landslide.

[Tortoise]

I've seen that photo of Trump a few times. Anyone have any video of what he was actually saying at that point?

He was either mocking a mentally challenged person or shouting, "Black lives will never matter!"

[doodle]

Or telling everyone how nobody knows more about (fill in the blank) than I do.

[Tortoise]

It just occurred to me that virtually every celebrity and politician has probably sneezed while on video, likely with at least one camera zoomed in on their face.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to identify a bunch of such on-camera sneezes, capture the most hideous-looking frame from each one, and compile them all in one place.

I would probably pay money to see that.

[vnatale]

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

Where is evidence of this? Show me one point in time that the majority of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly, etc were taken care of by charity alone?

I don't believe InsuranceGuy said charity alone (he added communities). And for my definition of communities, I'd say ones family is the closest community. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say before the advent of the automobile, when extended families for the most part lived relatively (pun intended) close together. I expect they took care of each other as the primary means of care, charity secondly. This was also before the advent of widescale governmental social engineering programs and before the do gooders pressed the government to free the mentally ill from containment so they could wander the streets.

Considering there has never been a period of time without a mass poverty problem... it doesn't look like it was enough to do the job to me. If it never worked in the past, isn't it kind of crazy to assume it would work today? I mean, we have the greatest wealth divide in history right now. The rich people in our country could cure poverty in our country if they wanted to, and not change their lifestyle one bit. But they don't. Why? Because humans are innately selfish and self centered. If the government doesn't stand up for these people they won't ever get the help they need and deserve. Why do most people on the right not support social spending? Because they would have to pay taxes. In other words, because they are selfish and self centered. They want more money in their pocket instead of that money helping someone who really needs it. Mind you, you can get too carried away and have too much social spending. But the government needs to be there. They have a responsibility to the needy. If you "leave it to the market to decide" it always ends in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11).

It is definitely open for debate and subject to interpretation for what Jesus meant.

However, in my personal experience many of the poor are their own worst enemies, sabotaging themselves at every turn.

A lot of bad choices, choices totally under their control.

You can give them tons of opportunities and money and, in the end, they are going to end up poor.

Whether it is due to as I stated above to choices totally under their control or to their inabiilty acquire the life skills to manage an un-poor life, they are always going to be poor.

Finally, for how many people in the rest of the world would the lifestyles of the U.S. poor look like they were living like royalty compared to the way that they live?

I'm all for giving money and opportunities to the poor but only the ones who are only going to use those resources to stop being poor. Otherwise I'd rather give that money to the most productive in our society because they will contribute to elevating overall society with those benefits trickling down to the ever lasting poor.

This is written by a political independent. Neither a liberal or a conservative.

Vinny

i suspect that this is what many wealthy people are thinking (although i am not a mind reader nor claiming the ability) at least it seems far more likely than thinking "mine mine my precious " as they dive into their swimming pool full of gold coins and laugh maniacally at the less fortunate..

[vnatale]

How come European countries electing leaders like this...

dnftkz6mfjz51.jpg

sanna-marin-finland-medium-2-637x359.jpg

And we are still stuck on this?

original.jpg

79e215e4b15cf998ee57f77a098a265910-17-joe-biden.rsquare.w330.jpg

LOVE IT!!!!

Baseball is celebrating because Major League Baseball just recently hired its first female general manager ever. Plus, an Asian woman.

My response: Rather than celebrating this as a huge achievement this should be viewed as only the first small rehabilitative step in reversing negligent, near criminal behavior!

That is one of my responses each time I hear that a woman or this race or this ethnicity has for the first time ever finally taken on a position in sports, government, anywhere else. It's so indicting that none of them had those positions prior to 2020.

I many times hired women who I relied upon greatly to assist me in reaching organization's goals. I never viewed them as women. I viewed them as employees who were the best ones to assist me and better than all the male ones who had been available at the same time they were hired.

Vinny

[doodle]

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

Where is evidence of this? Show me one point in time that the majority of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly, etc were taken care of by charity alone?

I don't believe InsuranceGuy said charity alone (he added communities). And for my definition of communities, I'd say ones family is the closest community. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say before the advent of the automobile, when extended families for the most part lived relatively (pun intended) close together. I expect they took care of each other as the primary means of care, charity secondly. This was also before the advent of widescale governmental social engineering programs and before the do gooders pressed the government to free the mentally ill from containment so they could wander the streets.

Considering there has never been a period of time without a mass poverty problem... it doesn't look like it was enough to do the job to me. If it never worked in the past, isn't it kind of crazy to assume it would work today? I mean, we have the greatest wealth divide in history right now. The rich people in our country could cure poverty in our country if they wanted to, and not change their lifestyle one bit. But they don't. Why? Because humans are innately selfish and self centered. If the government doesn't stand up for these people they won't ever get the help they need and deserve. Why do most people on the right not support social spending? Because they would have to pay taxes. In other words, because they are selfish and self centered. They want more money in their pocket instead of that money helping someone who really needs it. Mind you, you can get too carried away and have too much social spending. But the government needs to be there. They have a responsibility to the needy. If you "leave it to the market to decide" it always ends in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11).

It is definitely open for debate and subject to interpretation for what Jesus meant.

However, in my personal experience many of the poor are their own worst enemies, sabotaging themselves at every turn.

A lot of bad choices, choices totally under their control.

You can give them tons of opportunities and money and, in the end, they are going to end up poor.

Whether it is due to as I stated above to choices totally under their control or to their inabiilty acquire the life skills to manage an un-poor life, they are always going to be poor.

Finally, for how many people in the rest of the world would the lifestyles of the U.S. poor look like they were living like royalty compared to the way that they live?

I'm all for giving money and opportunities to the poor but only the ones who are only going to use those resources to stop being poor. Otherwise I'd rather give that money to the most productive in our society because they will contribute to elevating overall society with those benefits trickling down to the ever lasting poor.

This is written by a political independent. Neither a liberal or a conservative.

Vinny

The issue with trying to solve poverty and homelessness is that it's a symptoms based approach which oftentimes glosses over the underlying causes...mental health, drug addiction, years of abuse, disability, criminal records. Fixing these issues is complicated...it requires more than just money. Oftentimes there will be no lasting solution other than a decent social safety net and resources to help them cope with their demons.

I think Lazyboy understood this reality when he wrote Underwear Goes Inside the Pants


https://youtu.be/ahlWufJqcSQ

[doodle]

I'd add that there are two sides to poverty. One is poverty stemming from education / skill issue. I was able to live a pretty decent life spending less than 15k a year...I could have probably pushed it to under 12k without too much additional sacrifice....poverty requires skills....I found the challenge enjoyable. I dove dumpsters, scavenged for free shit, bike instead of car (will turn you into an aerobic beast), simple healthy diet. A stable couple making 40k a year combined with good skills and intelligence can become millionaires by age 50 quite easily if they know what they are doing...unfortunately most don't.

Then there is the poverty due to underlying causes I mentioned before....that one is a bit more intractable.

[Mark Leavy]

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it’s better if the unskilled don’t survive.

Mark

[doodle]

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it’s better if the unskilled don’t survive.

Mark

Ultimately I agree. It's how you get from A to B that's the issue.... paid sterilization programs?

[doodle]

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it’s better if the unskilled don’t survive.

Mark

Ultimately I agree. It's how you get from A to B that's the issue.... paid sterilization programs?

OMG, that would solve soooo many problems. I could be on board with that.

Maybe send some charity this way then...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

[doodle]

Pretty blunt...

In interviews Harris said "We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children",[9] and that "we campaign to neuter dogs and yet we allow women to have 10 or 12 kids that they can’t take care of"

[Mark Leavy]

My approach would be to get rid of public assistance programs entirely.

And then, if you had no one in your life that was willing and able to assist you. Then, you’re in a bad spot.

And, if no one you know personally cares enough about you to help you live, then I probably don’t also. So please don’t take my money and give it to people that have no one who cares about them. I’m busy caring for the people I care about. That’s expensive enough - and I know the money isn’t wasted.

Mark

[doodle]

Now then, we have a similar organization here called planned parenthood that is trying to prevent unskilled individuals from popping out little miracles yet a certain segment of our population wants to defund them....can you explain that to me? Ironically it's the same people that seem to think the planet would be best served by getting rid of so many unskilled individuals. Ahh...the cognitive dissonance

[doodle]

My approach would be to get rid of public assistance programs entirely.

And then, if you had no one in your life that was willing and able to assist you. Then, you’re in a bad spot.

And, if no one you know personally cares enough about you to help you live, then I probably don’t also. So please don’t take my money and give it to people that have no one who cares about them. I’m busy caring for the people I care about. That’s expensive enough - and I know the money isn’t wasted.

Mark

Ahhh...so we can then spend billions on jails and police and private gated communities. Criminal justice welfare. Wouldn't it just be easier to give someone 10k to get sterilized than pay hundreds of thousands to process and jail their neglected offspring?

[Mark Leavy]

I am in favor of abortion up until the early teens.

[doodle]

I am in favor of abortion up until the early teens.

I'm sure many teachers feel similarly