Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

. ........a growing realization that there are just people that need to be taken care of not because they are lazy and don't want to work but because they have lacked opportunity, have had little to no hope and along the course of human history many have been systematically disadvantaged.

Ben Franklin had a concept of "the deserving poor." I don't know of any religious system that does not mandate taking care of the widows, orphans, and strangers. Jeff is saying the same type of thing above. Are there any people who have opportunity and advantages like education, but who choose not to avail themselves of these opportunities? Are there folks who just like to be indolent and like to live off the work of others? If those folks exist (and I believe most of you feel they do not exist), are our responsibilities different toward them than toward "the deserving poor"?

[CGVT]

I managed a warehouse at a food bank for a couple of years. There were definitely people who took advantage of us. Sometimes it was tough not to judge, but I learned that you might never really know who was legit and who was not.

We had a saying: Sometimes you have to feed the greedy to feed the needy.

[entropy]

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

I think we will end up with a system similar to the UK.... And supply will end up being controlled.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ Ben Franklin had a concept of "the deserving poor." I don't know of any religious system that does not mandate taking care of the widows, orphans, and strangers. Jeff is saying the same type of thing above. Are there any people who have opportunity and advantages like education, but who choose not to avail themselves of these opportunities? Are there folks who just like to be indolent and like to live off the work of others? If those folks exist (and I believe most of you feel they do not exist), are our responsibilities different toward them than toward "the deserving poor"?

Nothing pisses me off more than people who know how to work the system and do so. Disability abuse, Social Security abuse, Medicaid abuse, food program abuse, abuse of ER services ....... lots of this goes on but it does not lessen the need to be open to the idea of charity.

I found it curious, Geeze, that you used the term "religious" to qualify systems that take care of widows, orphans and strangers. I would expect that you do not see a role for government in that endeavor. I respect your view because there IS so much abuse and inefficiency in government programs that are designed to render aid.

To me, its like friction. For every action there is going to be some inefficiency. Recognizing that seems to help one accept that to achieve any level of good it does not come without a price. The issue in our country, and I do not think we are much different than most western democracies, is funding the cost ..... we can have a day long discussion about that but let's not.

[UMStan White]

Great contribution Doc. I agree wholeheartedly

[entropy]

http://www.wxyz.com/news/detroit-police-officers-at-11th-precinct-directed-to-meet-ticket-quota-action-news-investigates

Detroit Police directed to meet ticket quotas

[froot loops]

That is a corrosive element all across the US.

[entropy]

[The Oracle]

Too bad. Obama would be a huge help down there. Put at the front of the sand bagging line.

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

I found it curious, Geeze, that you used the term "religious" to qualify systems that take care of widows, orphans and strangers. I would expect that you do not see a role for government in that endeavor. I respect your view because there IS so much abuse and inefficiency in government programs that are designed to render aid.

I suspect I phrased it poorly, but I didn't mean for the term "religious" to imply that I believe charity is only do-able in the private sector. I just meant that it is widely accepted that we should, as a matter of morality, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

I do believe charity is at least as beneficial to the giver as to the recipient. And I don't believe that it is charitable to say "X is down and out and needs help, so I'm going to pass a law to allow tax money to be used to help X". I'd call that "cheapened charity". It is one thing to work on a house for Habitat. It is another to pass a law like the Community Redevelopment Act in order to help poor folks get housing. I have no doubt that the CRA put more poor folks in homes than Habitat did (at an enormous cost), but Habitat has benefits to the giver. I suspect we have all felt good when when we have done something that is charitable, and felt even better if we did it secretly. I think the benefits to the giver are underrated and unappreciated in today's culture.

And, I would still say that private or quasi-private charities are more subject to market influences than government "charities". After 9-11, I wanted to do something, so I sent money to the United Way, as was the request at the time. It turned out that UW kept much of the 9-11 money since to give it to the families of the dead and injured would have been a million dollars per family, or some large number. My feeling was "so what". I wanted to give directly to those affected, not to a perpetual care fund for the UW bureaucracy. When Katrina hit, I made sure I gave directly to the folks in La. BTW, you don't see many recommendations for the UW anymore, it is the Red Cross, an organization that has not betrayed the people's trust, that is now recommended. The market worked, not perfectly, but better than pure government largess.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Too bad. Obama would be a huge help down there. Put at the front of the sand bagging line.

Think of the lives Obama could've saved had he only gone down last Wednesday instead of this coming Tuesday. That said, I think he should've given a speech or something about the flooding. But until there's horror stories about FEMA's response to all this, it's a whole lot of whining about nothing.

[entropy]

Think of the hypocrisy of the left when they bashed Bush for his lack of timely response...

[Dr. Strangelove]

The market influences private charities more than it does government "charities".

Unfortunately that means that when the economy hits the toilet, donations to private charities inevitably go down, at the same time demand becomes the highest.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Think of the hypocrisy of the left when they bashed Bush for his lack of timely response...

Have there been major complaints with FEMA this go around as with Katrina? If so, I'll say shame on Obama.

[AlabamAlum]

A lot of the blame FEMA gets for Katrina is undeserved.