On government charity, in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by From multiple sources

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it..."

---

Discuss...

I see your non thinking ass still cuts and pastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyMarzetti

I see your non thinking ass still cuts and pastes.

---

Yoni's convinced!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Discuss...

---

I think you have the liberals dumbfounded.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

Here's the other half of the equation. Not only should the government not be in the business of charity, the tax burden should be distributed equally among Americans.

Everyone should pay a proportional percentage of their income. If you make a dime per year and the tax is 10%, send in a penny. If you make $100 billion, send in ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

Here's the other half of the equation. Not only should the government not be in the business of charity, the tax burden should be distributed equally among Americans.

Everyone should pay a proportional percentage of their income. If you make a dime per year and the tax is 10%, send in a penny. If you make $100 billion, send in ten.

---

Absolutely true.

A 10% tithing would probably do it.

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

Here's the other half of the equation. Not only should the government not be in the business of charity, the tax burden should be distributed equally among Americans.

Everyone should pay a proportional percentage of their income. If you make a dime per year and the tax is 10%, send in a penny. If you make $100 billion, send in ten.

---

Burden? Someone who makes 100 billion, shit someone who makes a million dollars a year has 0 burdens. None whatsover. I don't care what anyone says, if you make a million dollars a year you have nothing to worry about.

On the last point in the OP, this is just not true. If you divide one trillion dollars by .5, then you have 2 trillion dollars which multiplies the original amount by 2.

Our fuckin problems are over, Dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

---

Stealing with others so you can feel like you be proud we are a giving nation? Is that it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

---

Actually it does. Government charity, or whatever you want to call it, gets financed through debt. Debt that will fall squarely upon the shoulders of future generations of Americans who currently have no say in the matter, thus lowering their standard of living.

Balance the fucking budget and then I will gladly entertain a debate as to who needs government assistance. But to just put the petal to the metal on the debt-mobile and "level out the income inequalities" by stealing from our children is something every single one of us should be ashamed of.

I agree CG.

Besides, what good has the war on poverty done over the last 40 years anyway, besides making poverty acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

Here's the other half of the equation. Not only should the government not be in the business of charity, the tax burden should be distributed equally among Americans.

Everyone should pay a proportional percentage of their income. If you make a dime per year and the tax is 10%, send in a penny. If you make $100 billion, send in ten.

---

why don't the dead enders run on that platform?

the govt has some responsibility to provide basic services for those who need it. how hard is that to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I agree CG.

Besides, what good has the war on poverty done over the last 40 years anyway, besides making poverty acceptable?

---

What good has any war done? War on drugs? Nothing. Poverty acceptable? To who? I don't think poverty is acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Actually it does. Government charity, or whatever you want to call it, gets financed through debt. Debt that will fall squarely upon the shoulders of future generations of Americans who currently have no say in the matter, thus lowering their standard of living.

Balance the fucking budget and then I will gladly entertain a debate as to who needs government assistance. But to just put the petal to the metal on the debt-mobile and "level out the income inequalities" by stealing from our children is something every single one of us should be ashamed of.

---

Since when have we ever cared about the debt of future generations? It's a novel concept that Republicans like to dream up that it's somehow immoral that we're burdening future generation with debt. Well sorry to burst your bubble that's exactly what every future generation has ever done. That's why problems haven't been solved nor will they probably ever. Every generation just constantly pushes problems further down the line. This one is no exception, and neither will the next be either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Stealing with others so you can feel like you be proud we are a giving nation? Is that it?

---

Stealing? Nobody is stealing anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Since when have we ever cared about the debt of future generations? It's a novel concept that Republicans like to dream up that it's somehow immoral that we're burdening future generation with debt. Well sorry to burst your bubble that's exactly what every future generation has ever done. That's why problems haven't been solved nor will they probably ever. Every generation just constantly pushes problems further down the line. This one is no exception, and neither will the next be either.

---

debt matters now because Obama is in the white house.. I didn't hear one complaint about not paying for the war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Stealing with others so you can feel like you be proud we are a giving nation? Is that it?

---

collecting taxes is stealing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Stealing? Nobody is stealing anything.

---

Well, I don't consider what I am forced to pay in taxes as my choice. I pay more than my fair share. I call it stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

debt matters now because Obama is in the white house.. I didn't hear one complaint about not paying for the war...

---

No shit. Nobody was or is now complaining about what the war is costing, which is more than likely more than what social programs are costing. Yet all the conservatives want to do away with the social programs.

Like I said, all we ever do is push problems further down each generation for future generations to push further down. It's nothing new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

collecting taxes is stealing?

---

When they are spent on things the government has no business in, sure, I'll call it theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

debt matters now because Obama is in the white house.. I didn't hear one complaint about not paying for the war...

---

Obama's debt is in a league of its own. Any thinking American should be outraged at the exponential increase in our debt, our deficit, and our spending since he took office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, I don't consider what I am forced to pay in taxes as my choice. I pay more than my fair share. I call it stealing.

---

maybe you should take up arms against the govt? I'm sure you could find a few good tea baggers to join you.. I'd give you a ride if you need it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Obama's debt is in a league of its own. Any thinking American should be outraged at the exponential increase in our debt, our deficit, and our spending since he took office.

---

:lmao

Yoni should try stand-up comedy. He doesn't need writers. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

the govt has some responsibility to provide basic services for those who need it. how hard is that to understand?

---

How hard is it to understand that when you're spending more than you're bringing in it's going to get you into trouble? The sad truth of the matter is that there are always going to be more worthy causes than there will be money to spend on them. Unfortunately that means someone's needs are going to have to go un-met. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. To deny that reality is naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Since when have we ever cared about the debt of future generations? It's a novel concept that Republicans like to dream up that it's somehow immoral that we're burdening future generation with debt. Well sorry to burst your bubble that's exactly what every future generation has ever done. That's why problems haven't been solved nor will they probably ever. Every generation just constantly pushes problems further down the line. This one is no exception, and neither will the next be either.

---

Even though I know you're right, I for one find the "every generation does it" argument unacceptable and do not wish to be a part of it.

And yes, when it comes to fiscal responsibility republicans are hypocrites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

debt matters now because Obama is in the white house.. I didn't hear one complaint about not paying for the war...

---

Had I been posting here at that time you would have heard me complain about it. For good measure, I'll do it right now. I have a problem that the Iraq war was not paid for. Bush should have either raised taxes or cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

collecting taxes is stealing?

---

No. But borrowing a bunch of money and sticking future generations with the tab is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Even though I know you're right, I for one find the "every generation does it" argument unacceptable and do not wish to be a part of it.

---

You're right..and I find it unacceptable that the last generation couldn't do jack shit about extreme poverty in the world. I find it unacceptable that the last generation allows starvation to occur in the world.

You may not wish to be a part of it, but you are. As am I.

"Obama's debt is in a league of its own."

Repug spin. Repugs' $2T+ unfunded debt from the Iraq war-for-oil is just fine by you.

hey, dumbfuck, the Banksters' Great Depression your lover boy dubya left him, and that he is successfully mitigating, is in a league of its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

You're right..and I find it unacceptable that the last generation couldn't do jack shit about extreme poverty in the world. I find it unacceptable that the last generation allows starvation to occur in the world.

You may not wish to be a part of it, but you are. As am I.

---

I find it unacceptable the United States government has thrown literally trillions of dollars at the problem since Lyndon Johnson's inception of the War on Poverty a few decades ago.

Maybe, just maybe, government isn't the answer. After all that would have been trillions of dollars Americans could have used to buy goods and services that would have kept people employed; trillions of dollars Americans could have given to charities that don't skim about 30% off the top through inefficiency, waste, and fraud.

That's what's unacceptable. Government doesn't know how to do charity. Period. They should quit trying.

LOL @ "taxed out of prosperity"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

---

So, are you also in favor of leveling out the production, innovation, intelligence, and entrepreneurial inequalities?

Dude, there's no such thing as an "income inequality." People inherit, earn, or create the wealth they deserve.

Except, of course, for criminals like Bernie Madoff...and, we have laws for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

---

http://i46.tinypic.com/206di.gif

I see one problem with the "flat tax". It's that the money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it.

To a person who makes $10,000 a year, every cent is valuable, as they're barely getting by. But to a person making $100,000 a year, alot of that is disposable income.

In other words, the person who makes $100,000 a year can afford to lose $10,000. The person making $10,000 can not afford to lose it.

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

I would like to agree that there seems no way for a government to lift up anyone out of poverty; the best it can do is provide temporary crutches for motivated individuals (ie. scholarships)

"money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it"

aka, the marginal/incremental value of the next unit of money. It declines.

That's why all industrial govts have progressive tax schedules, and most have substantial deductions for the bottom end, esp in countries wherever there is a VAT of 15% or more, so that 40% or 50% of population pays no income tax (but do pay a flat tax rate on their health and pension plans, even unemployment checks have health/pension deducted).

Whott's using the old Movement (wealthy) Conservative/St Ronnie canard of Welfare Queen-in-a-Cadillac to paint all poor people as lazy bastards and welfare cheats that have to punished.

"They can just be all be $B/year hedge fund managers, but they're lazy"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Maybe, just maybe, government isn't the answer. After all that would have been trillions of dollars Americans could have used to buy goods and services that would have kept people employed; trillions of dollars Americans could have given to charities that don't skim about 30% off the top through inefficiency, waste, and fraud.

---

:[email protected] Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

:[email protected] Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/

AP article:

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0407/hou...ed-income-tax/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

AP article:

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0407/hou...ed-income-tax/

---

boutons' article touches on one of those unpleasant topics not too many people like to talk about. The fact that there are way too many households on the lower end of the income spectrum not paying their fair share of taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Actually it does. Government charity, or whatever you want to call it, gets financed through debt. Debt that will fall squarely upon the shoulders of future generations of Americans who currently have no say in the matter, thus lowering their standard of living.

Balance the fucking budget and then I will gladly entertain a debate as to who needs government assistance. But to just put the petal to the metal on the debt-mobile and "level out the income inequalities" by stealing from our children is something every single one of us should be ashamed of.

---

whether there is charity or not that debt will still fall on our shoulders. if there are uneducated, we have to deal with that. if there is an unskilled workforce, likewise. if there is more crime...more malnurished infants...etc..

and the norm nowadays is for us to pay for what corporate america gets more than anything else so i can not understand why the poor are yoni's pariah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

whether there is charity or not that debt will still fall on our shoulders. if there are uneducated, we have to deal with that. if there is an unskilled workforce, likewise. if there is more crime...more malnurished infants...etc..

---

Operative phrase being "we have to deal with that". Right now, we aren't dealing with it. We're just passing the buck to future generations making it their financial obligation to deal with our uneducated and unskilled. That is absolutely selfish on our part because not only are we making them pay for our problems, we're reducing their capacity to help their generation's uneducated and unskilled.

Quote:

---

and the norm nowadays is for us to pay for what corporate america gets more than anything else so i can not understand why the poor are yoni's pariah.

---

Any talks about scaling back welfare should start with the corporate welfare that is so near and dear to both our political parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Operative phrase being "we have to deal with that". Right now, we aren't dealing with it. We're just passing the buck to future generations making it their financial obligation to deal with our uneducated and unskilled. That is absolutely selfish on our part because not only are we making them pay for our problems, we're reducing their capacity to help their generation's uneducated and unskilled.

---

that actually goes to what i am stating though; that there are going to be social issues confronting posterity unless there are programs in place to stem the tide. i certainly do not trust corporations enough when it comes to altruistic endeavors on such a wide scale.

Quote:

---

Any talks about scaling back welfare should start with the corporate welfare that is so near and dear to both our political parties.

---

that is something posters such as yoni tend to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

LOL @ "taxed out of prosperity"

---

But we are, and it's the fault of everyone with the "entitlement mentality."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I see one problem with the "flat tax". It's that the money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it.

To a person who makes $10,000 a year, every cent is valuable, as they're barely getting by. But to a person making $100,000 a year, alot of that is disposable income.

In other words, the person who makes $100,000 a year can afford to lose $10,000. The person making $10,000 can not afford to lose it.

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

---

I understand your sentiment completely. However, a primary reason we are in this sinking ship is because the poor pay no taxes. We need equal suffrage when it comes to taxes. Everyone needs to pay, so that they will stop voting in assholes who want to raise spending/taxes.

No entitlements.

Everyone pays taxes.

Until we adopt such a scheme, we will always have the poor electing politicians who are willing to legally steal other people's money and buy those votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

---

That's what I'm partial to. Maybe just use whatever the defined poverty cut off is and go flat tax on income above that amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

:[email protected] Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

---

It happens rather frequently, mostly to those who are temporarily needy and not those who work the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

---

Just because you are a stingy ass, doesn't mean we all are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

But we are, and it's the fault of everyone with the "entitlement mentality."

---

even those who willingly accept unemployment benefits? would they be at fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyMarzetti

I see your non thinking ass still cuts and pastes.

---

I dunno, all things considered this is actually a not too shabby invitation for an open discussion.

I am not so naive to believe, however, that the OP's choice of topic/quotes was anywhere near a fair attempt to put forth a balanced discussion showing both sides in the OP and allowing us as readers to actually see a side of the topic that the OP doesn't agree with..

That said, it is something worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/

---

Yep, the USA is number 1 if you go by private donations. Liberal pundits like to show the government donations, where the USA is sorely lacking. They purposely leave out the charity that is the discretion of the people rather than the politicians.

Also interesting that most are English speaking nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

that actually goes to what i am stating though; that there are going to be social issues confronting posterity unless there are programs in place to stem the tide. i certainly do not trust corporations enough when it comes to altruistic endeavors on such a wide scale.

---

I certainly agree that government has a role to play in this. I'm in no way advocating a total elimination of any and all welfare and just leaving it all up to charity. (even though I am a big believer in private charity) But we do need to accept that what we spend on the needs must be in line with what our means allow.

Quote:

---

that is something posters such as yoni tend to ignore.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

even those who willingly accept unemployment benefits? would they be at fault?

---

Will you please use a few more brain cells and separate entitlement type programs from insurance type.

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?


What about medicaid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yep, the USA is number 1 if you go by private donations. Liberal pundits like to show the government donations, where the USA is sorely lacking. They purposely leave out the charity that is the discretion of the people rather than the politicians.

Also interesting that most are English speaking nations.

---

I knew the USA was #1, but the USA being double the #2 surprised me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Will you please use a few more brain cells and separate entitlement type programs from insurance type.

---

so you are ok with the govt providing unemployment insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?


What about medicaid?

---

Maybe if it wasn't so easy for them to live off the fruits of other people's labor, they wouldn't have those kids to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Maybe if it wasn't so easy for them to live off the fruits of other people's labor, they wouldn't have those kids to begin with.

---

what do you think will happen if abortion is made illegal? I have always made the claim that conservatives are pro life until after birth..the child is on their own at that point... I guess this clarifies that..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

what do you think will happen if abortion is made illegal?

---

I never said that. I meant we need to mitigate reasons why kids have abortions.

Feeling safer about sex means more sex, and more abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I have always made the claim that conservatives are pro life until after birth..the child is on their own at that point... I guess this clarifies that..

---

You are insane, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

so you are ok with the govt providing unemployment insurance?

---

... or starvation insurance?

... or homelessness insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

... or starvation insurance?

... or homelessness insurance?

---

We used to have things like "poor farms" where people had to work to earn their food and lodging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it..."

---

It's like the conservative equivalent of "You can't hug someone with nuclear arms". :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?

---

The one's that are working are paying Fed taxes. But it's a fair argument to consider whether reaping a tax refund greater than what was paid in is a healthy practice, regardless of income level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

The one's that are working are paying Fed taxes. But it's a fair argument to consider whether reaping a tax refund greater than what was paid in is a healthy practice, regardless of income level.

---

There are people who game the system for as much as they can get and there is not doubt about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

There are people who game the system for as much as they can get and there is not doubt about that.

---

Unquestionably. A whole cottage industry exists for this very practice. However, the system is set up to game itself, in a sense.

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as hell gamed itself for her.
Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Unquestionably. A whole cottage industry exists for this very practice. However, the system is set up to game itself, in a sense.

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as hell gamed itself for her.
[B]Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?[/QUOTE]

---

I would support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

---

I think so. Putting someone on welfare is one thing. Allowing people to "make" money off of income taxes though is something else, and it shouldn't be allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as hell gamed itself for her.
Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

---

The only problem I see with this is that the money is (theoretically) supposed to be used to provide for the children, so you might be hurting the children. Tha'ts the only downside I see to that plan. (Just playing Devil's Advocate.)

Here then is a question:

In times of economic stress, donations to charity drop at the exact same time that need increases.

In the magic "no goverment entitlement" land, how do you then cover the shortfall?

Or do you simply let people on the margins go homeless and starve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dickens

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Here then is a question:

In times of economic stress, donations to charity drop at the exact same time that need increases.

In the magic "no goverment entitlement" land, how do you then cover the shortfall?

Or do you simply let people on the margins go homeless and starve?

---

I haven't followed everything on this thread, but has anyone advocated that?

Myself, and I bet other conservatives have no problem helping people in need at times of crisis. Even with tax dollars. The problem is that we have able bodied people who should work when the economy is good, and tax dollars spent an endless war on poverty, which only sustains it. Without the right motivation, there are plenty of people content with what they get from the government. This needs to stop. Subsidizing people should only be for the old and handicapped. Not for able bodied people except for short terms.