Archaic_Entity
Sharpshooter
- Nov 9, 2008
- 626
- 16
Rather than attempt to respond to the whole post, I'll just hit my points. I feel like everyone else will do the same. I just am amazed that you're responding to just about everything. My text in some different color... we'll go with red.
tuodor said:I remember that one. It was the Dave Chappelle show. I tried to find video online, but I couldn't find it. There are just too many good clips to wade through.
I enjoy his show. I think a lot of people missed the fact that he was giving comedic satire to the state of a nation, they just saw something funny.
I think I get what Fletch is trying to say, and he's mostly correct. I just don't think private charity can help everyone worth helping. Also, when times are tough, as they are now, charitable contributions fall. There is simply less that people have that they can give. This leads to good workers not being able to find jobs, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. But if you introduce a little temporary intervention, it can be stopped.
Times are tough, so people need to save money to make it through everything. That becomes harder to do when they're taxed more, and when their money is less valuable due to inflation (if I understand everything correctly). Therefore, they're less likely to be charitable because their money is being taken, and what money they have is worth less than it was before so they need to save more.
If, on the other hand, they were not taxed and they were able to save more money. If the government was not creating the inflation by introducing fake billions of dollar (that they can't back up) to 'stimulate' the economy. And if the government's spending was aimed at making the dollar more valuable via eliminating debt then I think you would find multiple things happening. Now, this is an uneducated guess on things, to be honest, but I could see that people are able to save more to live comfortably themselves. Those that are on hard times despite their character would find help from private charity due to people knowing they're good for it, or just good people in general. Private, widespead charities would most likely see increased donations to help end suffering. And with the value of the dollar rising, that would more likely stimulate the failing economy and start producing more jobs that are longer term than many of the jobs designated by stimulus packages.
If you can find family or friends to help you and support you, of course that's better than relying on government help, but it should be there as a last resort. Not everyone has family or friends or even a church that has much to spare. In the most poverty-stricken areas, this is more likely than not the case.
To be honest, I dreaded even asking for money from my family. My dad's family is out of jobs, too. They live in Charlotte, NC and Charlotte has one of the highest lay-off/unemployment rates. It wasn't that people had much to spare, it's that people know my character and know I'll do whatever I can to help them as well.
I understand that welfare is good in some ways. A man laid off and trying to look for work in a bad economy can rely on unemployment and welfare temporarily. The problem is that the system is so unchecked that many people are simply welfare addicts. They know it'll get them by and they don't care about trying to get off of it, and they squeeze the system. What that does is make the system bad... because I guarantee that it happens on such a wide scale that there's no way to justify it.
I agree that it taking of property, and even that it is regular, just on that it is wrong, and so it isn't theft.
I assume you're saying it's not wrong. Where I disagree is that it's the government attempting to play the modern day Robin Hood when it has no right. We're not looking a feudal system where the rich simply are and the poor simply are not. We're looking at a system where people earn their keep. Some people are definitely pampered by their parents' money, but like Fletch said, they shouldn't be blamed for that. Their parents succeeded, so what right do you or the government have to say that their success is a mute point? What right does the government have to 'take from the rich and give to the poor'? As far as I'm concerned, none. And I am the poor. I have >$30 in my account right now, and I will continue to eek by until something turns in my favor, by my hands... not by 'Robin Hood'. Redistribution of wealth without consent is theft, and therefore it is wrong.
I was posing a hypothetical situation to make a point. If you are given the choice, you'll choose to live. Life can be that clear cut.
People do die of hunger in this country. Do you think they didn't fight for their life?
Living and dying is different from stealing and not, as I think many people have clearly proved. To quote Tupac in the song 'Changes'
But some things will never change
try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me what's a mother to do
bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
"I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way
sellin' crack to the kid. " I gotta get paid,"
Well hey, well that's the way it is
The point illustrated is that many people choose the easy way, and the easy way is to play the outlaw's game. Steal and deal. Tupac's message in that song was on point (and I'm a Biggie fan, so that's saying a lot): many poor people are perfectly fine to instigate and perpetuate their own plight because it's easier than doing what it takes to get out of that system.
Also... we're still definitely not ready to see a black President, it clearly wasn't heaven sent.