"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sava
... It shouldn't even be a question of whether or not public resources and power should be used for the general welfare of the people. The question should be to what extent. I believe the most prudent answer is to give people the equal opportunity to succeed by providing education, health care, job training, and forms of assistance to unemployed individuals who are actively seeking employment. It's not the state's job to support the public, but it's in the state's best interest to give people that opportunity because a productive citizenry can produce revenue in the form of taxes, promotes stability, and can provide for themselves; thus reducing the need for such welfare.

Hello John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, and Ralph Klein.

You'd make a great Tory.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
37 million Americans continue to live in poverty despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964. That doesn't seem all that effective.

The percentage of people below the poverty rate decreased significantly during the War on Poverty.

[DinoDoc]

Well it's +/- 12% now. What was it in 1964?

[Arrian]

I don't get the same thing you are from the article.

I don't think it says anything like your second paragraph.

Of course it doesn't, because the article is a hachet job vs. liberals. But is my second paragraph incorrect? Is it untrue that (US) Conservatives generally feel that the needy should receive assistance from charity and not the government (via wealth redistribution and/or various social programs)? I wasn't trying to attack them, but rather to lay out their general position w/o drawing any particular conclusions.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian



So you were saying that (liberal-backed) taxes = charity. I won't get into whether or not you "pwnd" yourself, but you appear to be having trouble with consistency.

-Arrian

Liberals want to direct a substantial portion of my taxes to charity. That doesn't mean taxes=charity.

[Arrian]

No, it means that (to you) various government programs = charity. Government programs are funded (theorectically, anyway) by taxes.

Your original comment:

Liberals like to donate other people's money to charity. How generous.

Donation was sarcastically used in place of taxation. Liberals pay taxes too. It's not like they are staying you have to pay but not them.

It's consistent with the idea that, to a liberal, the government should provide certain services... services you think of as the propery province of charities.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, it means that (to you) various government programs = charity.

Since liberals pay taxes that are used for those programs too, it's not exactly like they are just taking your money and giving it to others. They're also contributing.

That was my point.

-Arrian

I agree. They are contributing too. But that doesn't make their seizure of my money for these purposes any less immoral.

[Arrian]

Whereas the seizure of your (and my) money for other purposes is a-ok, eh? I'm sure glad I paid my taxes so Bush could go off on a half-baked adventure in Iraq. Yay!

As for the "immorality" of wealth redistribution, a liberal might counter that it's immoral for the government to not provide basic social services (which you see as charity), or that it's immoral to leave the cost of helping the needy to those who are willing to volunteer their money - whilst others give nothing... that a social safety net is a moral obligation. I'm not really wedded to either philosophy, personally, but neither am I up in arms about the terrible immoral libruls taking my money.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
37 million Americans continue to live in poverty despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964. That doesn't seem all that effective.

The war on poverty ended when Johnson left office "OMG!!! They haven't effectively instituted the policy for 40 years so it hasn't worked!". That argument gets a big rolleyes. :roll:

There are two main ways to help the needy. 1) direct cash payments 2) Longer term self development aid. The first is to get them over the hump of day to day existance while the second makes up things like education and job training. The second part is how people transition off of welfare or state assistance. Johnson's problem is he did a lot of the first but almost none of the second so when Nixon took over and slashed the direct payments those people were right back to where they started without an education, without job skills, and without hope.

Yes, some money will need to be given to the needy for daily living or for medical care but the long term solution is education and job training both of which are terribly underfunded in this country. Both of them are a joke by international standards.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well it's +/- 12% now. What was it in 1964?

The statistic commonly heard is that Johnson halved the poverty rate in America. That remains Johnson's greatest accomplishment though most of his welfare system either got dismantled or suffered such large spending cuts that it stopped working.

I have problems with the welfare system Johnson created (as I said in my last post) but no one can take away the fact that Johnson did half the poverty rate in America.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
Whereas the seizure of your (and my) money for other purposes is a-ok, eh? I'm sure glad I paid my taxes so Bush could go off on a half-baked adventure in Iraq. Yay!

Who says I support the war in Iraq? Just because I lean conservative on some issues does not mean I support anything Bush does. On the contrary, I think Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had for a long time.

As for the "immorality" of wealth redistribution, a liberal might counter that it's immoral for the government to not provide basic social services (which you see as charity), or that it's immoral to leave the cost of helping the needy to those who are willing to volunteer their money - whilst others give nothing... that a social safety net is a moral obligation. I'm not really wedded to either philosophy, personally, but neither am I up in arms about the terrible immoral libruls taking my money.

-Arrian

Helping ones fellow man is a moral obligation. Forcing others to do it is immoral. Government is the only entity that can legally use force, so I'm naturally suspicious of any attempts to expand its powers and responsibilities. Maybe you don't care what is done with your money, but I do, and it seems that the more money that is seized by the government, the more wastefully it is spent. By what authority does the government presume to take MY money from my family and give it to another? It's legalized theft.

[Arrian]

The question is one of sustainability, which is the issue between your options 1 and 2 above. I think we agree that just giving money to the poor doesn't solve the problem. Job training programs and the like make a lot more sense to me.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Who says I support the war in Iraq? Just because I lean conservative on some issues does not mean I support anything Bush does. On the contrary, I think Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had for a long time.

Actually, IIRC you didn't. That wasn't really my point. It's just that ALL taxes are coercive, and different people are going to be upset at different uses of their taxes. You and I happen to agree vis-a-vis Bush and Iraq, but disagree (to a point - I'm not a raging liberal on fiscal matters) vis-a-vis wealth redistribution.

Helping ones fellow man is a moral obligation. Forcing others to do it is immoral. Government is the only entity that can legally use force, so I'm naturally suspicious of any attempts to expand its powers and responsibilities. Maybe you don't care what is done with your money, but I do, and it seems that the more money that is seized by the government, the more wastefully it is spent. By what authority does the government presume to take MY money from my family and give it to another? It's legalized theft.

By what authority? By authority of the representative government of the United States of America. You don't like it, and I understand why. But I, and a majority of the population, disagree with you. If you can convince enough that it's "legalized theft" then you might change the way your money is spent. Vote Libertarian (you do, right?). Or, if you get really fed up, you could always take the Slowwhand express to Cuba

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
The question is one of sustainability, which is the issue between your options 1 and 2 above. I think we agree that just giving money to the poor doesn't solve the problem. Job training programs and the like make a lot more sense to me.

-Arrian

I am all for giving people a helping hand. Just don't apply force in the name of charity. It cheapens the whole concept of charity.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The statistic commonly heard is that Johnson halved the poverty rate in America.

I don't really care what is commonly heard, Oerdin. I'd actually like to see the information for myself and if it is so common it shouldn't be hard for people to source it.