ASD folks secular,liberal or just WP

Post Reply New Topic

Ok a couple things...what if someone is on welfare because they are disabled? If the disability is not 'temporary' they are going to need continued welfare or finanancial help of some kind.....problem with charity is charity doesn't exactly have obligations they can pick and choose who they want to help based on anything since its privately ran and wouldn't probably be regulated as well to ensure people who need that sort of help have access to it, and of course if it is not sufficient then what are those people left with? At least with welfare they can't discriminate as much as they could with charity.

Also a lot of those people probably did not have a very high morality rate or ended up institutionalized or whatever....with the key thrown away, or resorted to crime or survived homeless or offed themselves. But I'd have to do some research on the history concerning that.

Then of course I know if I was not on SSI and getting medicaid I would not be in a very good situation at all....even that isn't a great situation but at least it gives me a little money to live on and access to medical/mental health treatment. I just don't see charity taking the place of that....I'd probably just end up worse off than I was before getting on SSI if they got rid of all welfare programs and attempted to replace it with charity.

So yeah obviously the prospect of function well enough to support yourself or depend on family or private charity.....with no option of government help if those things aren't sufficient is not something I am particularly comfortable with. Of course there are various sorts of welfare...not all has to do with trouble functioning per say. But yeah just skeptical that private chairity would effectively replace welfare.

Also where would the federal government get money for the tax credit for people who contribute to the chairity? from taxes? And why shouldn't the government have some responsibility towards the welfare of its citizens? Also especially for people with autism it might be hard to get the community to help you especially if the community doesn't like you, or what if you don't have a church, or church decides not to help and what if there are no private chairities one qualifies for?

I just see far too many issues with trying to entirely eliminate welfare...might as well get rid of regulations on job safety and rules that require compensation for injuries on the job bring it back to the good old days of even more employer exploitation of workers, child labor and no safety regulations so lots of deaths, injuries or illnesses due to unsafe conditions with no compensation for any of it, also why not privatize the fire department ect.

Sorry I took a little while to get back to you, bud.

Basically what your response seems to consist of is this: "your reforms aren't compassionate because of this party's alleged motive". Regardless of who suggests what solution, it is immaterial to us because the argument is proven by it's logic, not by the man. "I think it's a mistake", "if your interested in social justice", and "just looks to me like populist marketing" is merely a way of not engaging with the substance here friend. The only consideration that is material here is "does this idea work". And the evidence supports that it did, America was very similar to what Libertarians are proposing and the poor were taken care of without the help of the federal government.

Did the federal government belong to big business in the twenties or even before the federal reserve (which means extremely limited federal spending)? Nope, there weren't controlling corporate interests at the federal level any more than there is today, and it's easily arguable that there were less controlling interests in the absence of regulatory organizations such as the FDA, which obviously belongs to the food and medicine companies.

Now what do we have in the balance of wealth here as we see a more and more bloated federal government? More and more money is falling into the hands of the few, isn't it? Saying that cutting government spending will leave all the money in the hands of the corporations is silly, because who do you think the controlling interests are when they have a vote at capitol hill? Seriously folks, Robin Williams made a great point when he said that everyone in the Senate and Congress should wear jackets like NASCAR drivers so we can see their sponsors. Corporate America actually benefits in helping their elite class when the Fed spends more money, or chokes off this or that competitor (FDA, USDA, etc.). And why do you think that people suddenly skyrocket in the economic ladder when they go to capitol hill? It wasn't so long ago that it was even legal for lawmakers to know inside information on stocks, vote accordingly, and go right ahead and buy those stocks. Obviously they still do it, regardless of the law, because who is going to prosecute them?

People operate outside the profit motive, not for profit organizations operate outside of this motive. Clearly the government and corporations don't. America is the most charitable country in the world and we are pouring out money at crisis after crisis, it isn't atypical at all for us to respond first, leave last, and foot the biggest bill. We are clearly capable of picking up the tab for people here, and I am proud to participate in that, as I'm sure you are with whatever you personally do. Paying perfectly healthy people a meager wage just to sit around isn't helpful, it's anything but. I don't want so many individuals living on as little as 600 a month and neither do you, we both want better for them. I'm willing to take a personal role in improving that situation, and I'm sure I have no reason to assume I'm better than you in that regard. Just looking at the non profit efforts of the LDS church, we can see that they spend tons of money all over the world, and they also set up missions here and take care of their own pretty well. If folks like that had to foot the whole bill I'm sure they would, hell eventually things would improve enough that we'd be able to foot that bill and step up our spending worldwide.

Disability programs and welfare programs aren't one and the same. I don't know very many Libertarians who would agree to getting rid of SSID and neither would I. In fact, I'm not personally behind entirely getting rid of welfare either. The main reason that I supplied that is because you said you were never given any substantial answer on libertarians solutions to poverty. No Libertarian that I know would argue against work safety regulations, Worker's Comp, or laws prohibiting things such as child labor. If you believed that you would be believing in one hell of a hyperbolic straw man, eliminating welfare is in no way a slippery slope to that.

Also, you don't seem to have the best grasp on the spending habits of not for profit organizations such as those run by the LDS church, AMF (American Missionary Fellowship), etc. The reality is that in many prominent cases, and this is especially true with the biggest spenders like LDS, they tend to discriminate a lot less than government organizations (Black farmers, housing loans for minorities, fraudulent people taking advantage of welfare, perfectly healthy people who are surrounded by work opportunities spending as long as they can on unemployment, deals cut in the FDA for unsafe AIDS drugs in the 80s ring a bell anyone?).

Whoever comes in for help they receive it, and not only that but regardless even of the beliefs of the person being helped these missionary organizations take a personal interest in the needy. They don't just help them pay the bills or keep them fed. Us folks with AMF will build people homes, present them work opportunities offered through AMF, and try our best to see things through to the other end. Not once have I personally seen welfare or unemployment turn someone's life around like that.

I guess cop outs might be typical here in the politics forum, when we really get into the nitty gritty.

You claim that if we just give up the last vestiges of the welfare state, then you guys have a plan, and "trust us" you have the best interests of the 99% at heart. Implicitly, you ask us to disregard things like the class interests of the people who fund your movements, the policies of the parties they tend to support, and the ways that your "intellectuals" regard the poor and working class (have you actually read Ayn Rand?).

I recommend the video I put in my sig It explains the way conservatives deliberately mismanage government assets in order to prevent "communism" and provide a justification for privatisation and corporatisation.

Last edited by Stannis on 25 Aug 2014, 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Disability I get is technically welfare....there is SSDI where its based on what you've paid into the system while working before you became disabled, I have SSI which you can get if you haven't worked any consistent amount of time and paid into the system. Also I certainly am not opposed to chairity organizations but I think it would still be necessary for the government to have some form of welfare programs to supplement that, as i doubt chairity could entirely make up for it...but I could be wrong, don't know of any real studies on that senerio either.

We get ssi ,food stamps, housing , then food boxes, help with water/electricity/trash from chairities like a lot of other people so the same people that welfare helps charities help too. It takes both so no charities couldn't take over for welfare when they already use all their funds trying to help cover what welfare can't . and they can't even help all those people and have limits per month of people they help

"and "trust us" you have the best interests of the 99% at heart". Why don't you riddle me this then: do the feds have the best interests of the 99% at heart? And why don't you demonstrate how that libertarian funding has any more contributors with class interests than any other party's funding? Not to mention that we're failing to do something here: we're failing to actually discuss the particulars of how these things would work out because you are still interested in argumentum ad hominem and talking points. How droll. Moreover, have I brought up any of your supposed motives yet? Have I discredited you? Have I drawn untoward assumptions about your implications? No, and you can extend the same courtesy just as easily.

Btw, yes I've read Ayn Rand. I seriously tire of this crap that just because you disagree with my position, that means I can't be thinking on my own, I can't have the same sympathies for other people that you do, can't regard them the same way that you do. You and those similar to you don't have the monopoly on thinking and feeling. Other people do that too. Quite being so utterly solipsistic, people. This is what ruins political discourse and folks are guilty of it on all sides of the aisle. Have I "actually read Ayn Rand"? Yes, I'm literate, I can read. Other minds exist, and other minds have different ideas. If we can't even recognize and engage each other without making assumptions like "have you even read this", "do you even care about this group of people", "don't you know you're just a pawn" then there can be no meaningful dialogue, only pontificating, browbeating, and condescension.



Of course I don't believe it is a good idea to entirely do away with welfare either. Many libertarians think the same, the main difference being the level of confidence we have in not for profit organizations, not the level of compassion.

Thank you, I've been trying to get this point across for years with mixed success, but you put it much more succinctly than I do. I probably don't have to tell you that assumptions of bad faith, especially directed at non-liberals, are a bit of a problem here, but I'll always take the opportunity to point that out, as I'm well beyond frustrated by it.

I am me!

Stop stereotyping me!

Wait:.....

I'm going to go with chameleon!

Well what do you know, as soon as we start getting into more substantial points some individuals here like to make themselves scarce. Hmmm... Autistic people aren't necessarily any more open minded than anyone else, that much I've observed over the years.

I don't know why a lot of newbie posters here are shocked and horrified to discover that Aspies have as divergent opinions as NTs do, as of they somehow expected that we'd all think alike due to our shared unusual brain wiring.

Intelligent people are more likely to be both Liberal and secular. That is a given.

I would agree if you had said formally educated people. I know plenty of very intelligent people with quite extreme conservative views (fiscal, social, and religious). And even then, those who self identified as Tea Party (at least at their beginnings before being co-opted by the same radical conservatives trying to shore up the libertarian vote), were more likely to have higher education than any other self identified political demographic.

I definitely think the level of compassion needed is there, and I definitely think that charity organizations (as a whole) are significantly more cost effective and efficient. I have zero confidence in the capability. Most charities are struggling even with the billions the government shells out. If any reductions are going to be made in federal assistance programs, they are going to have to be very gradual and be very carefully planned and executed. And bill would also need a mechanism to adjust things based on economic indicators.

One thing I find amusing is the push to reduce government spending on social programs by the same people so vehemently opposed to raising the minimum wage at all, which with even a modest rise would take tens of millions above the income thresholds to qualify for benefits.

Being "educated" is not an indicator of intelligence.