Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

As has already been pointed out to you, the Christians are more than welcome to help out now. Why don't they? If that was such a good option, they could be showing it now. They're not, meaning it's not a good enough option. It's sad that you think leaving poor people to be helped solely by Christian services is a good idea.

They are being helped now with billions of dollars being spent to 'help' them. What you support has failed. And sadly, the reason I think some Christians haven't done more to help the poor is they think like you. They think that the system while having some flaws basically works. Except it doesn't work.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Smoke,



Talk about a lazy intellectual analysis. Do we have a dictator in the president? Does the party that controls Congress have any power?

That would be fine, if it was one or two terms. When it's a long term pattern over the course of 5 decades, it starts to mean something.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



They are being helped now with billions of dollars being spent to 'help' them. What you support has failed.

No, it hasn't. It's failed some, yes. However, you're not proposing anything that won't fail some people, too. Any system we have is going to miss some people. As has been shown, the current system can get that number fairly low when it's left to do its thing in peace.

And sadly, the reason I think some Christians haven't done more to help the poor is they think like you. They think that the system while having some flaws basically works. Except it doesn't work.

You have yet to show that it doesn't work. All you have to show is that it has failed some people. You have yet to show how leaving it up to Christians alone would have a 100% success rate or even a success rate higher than 85%. One story of a family helping a child who helped their football program a lot is hardly enough evidence to support your assertion that leaving it up to Christians is the way to go.

 

[linwood]

Republicans had a terrific Welfare Reform bill in 1996 that Bill Clinton, to his credit, signed. We have strayed from those principles.

Howso?

I thought we were still operating under that legislation.

 

[Smoke]

Talk about a lazy intellectual analysis. Do we have a dictator in the president? Does the party that controls Congress have any power?

The president has the veto, and the Democrats have their own problems. You won't find me defending the Blue Dogs and appeasers; I don't like the Democrats much more than the Republicans.

The fact remains that the greatest drop in poverty came under Kennedy and Johnson. If you're really concerned about the statistics that you introduced into this discussion, figure out what they were doing right.

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia,



Historical Poverty Tables

For the better part of 50 years the poverty rate has flunctuated between 15 and 20%. All the billions spent on helping the poor hasn't made any significant progress towards alleviating poverty.

Now you lost me.

What, EXACTLY, are you saying the tables in the link are evidence of AND how, EXACTLY, are they in support of the previous what?

Seems to me that they are nothing more than poverty level tables.
How do they show that the government system is a big enough failure to be scrapped and replaced with good hearted Christians?

If the good hearted Christians system you imply is so much better, why hasn't it caught all the people that fell through the governments cracks?
If the good hearted Christian system cannot even cover the ones the government missed, how the hell do you think it will be able to handle ALL of the people after the government system is scrapped?

 

[Dunemeister]

Talk about a lazy intellectual analysis. Do we have a dictator in the president? Does the party that controls Congress have any power?

Formally, yes. Actually, no. Congress is COMPLETELY in the grip of lobbyists, which is another way of saying that it has been 100% corrupted. The situation is so bad that the corruption has been legalized (lobbyists need only register with Washington). Get rid of special interest lobbying, and you'll have your Congress back.

 

[Smoke]

If the good hearted Christians system you imply is so much better, why hasn't it caught all the people that fell through the governments cracks?
If the good hearted Christian system cannot even cover the ones the government missed, how the hell do you think it will be able to handle ALL of the people after the government system is scrapped?

Now, now. They've only had 2000 years to work on it.

 

[Dunemeister]

It should be noted that Christians don't have a "system". We have a meal.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

No, it hasn't. It's failed some, yes. However, you're not proposing anything that won't fail some people, too. Any system we have is going to miss some people. As has been shown, the current system can get that number fairly low when it's left to do its thing in peace.

The point I'm making is the liberal talking point about how compassionate government is and how it helps poor people is completely wrong. The track record of government alleviating poverty has failed. The empirical data speaks for itself. For the better part of 40 years the poverty rate has remained stagnant. I am exploding the smug moral high ground that liberals like yourself have when talking about government helping the poor. In the course of this discussion you have all but admitted that government fails millions of poor people on a daily basis.

My system never has been tried because of the heavy hand of the government.

You have yet to show that it doesn't work. All you have to show is that it has failed some people. You have yet to show how leaving it up to Christians alone would have a 100% success rate or even a success rate higher than 85%. One story of a family helping a child who helped their football program a lot is hardly enough evidence to support your assertion that leaving it up to Christians is the way to go.

Out of modesty I propose one solution: stop doing what doesn't work. There are millions like Michael that the government fails. Let's stop what doesn't work.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi linwood,

Howso?

I thought we were still operating under that legislation.

At first it was a dramatic success, but as the Republican Party lost its way many of the principles surrounding the bill have been eroded.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

The president has the veto, and the Democrats have their own problems. You won't find me defending the Blue Dogs and appeasers; I don't like the Democrats much more than the Republicans.

The fact remains that the greatest drop in poverty came under Kennedy and Johnson. If you're really concerned about the statistics that you introduced into this discussion, figure out what they were doing right.

You failed to address any of the specifics. For example, did Kennedy's tax cuts cause a poverty decline or is it simply the Great Society programs?

Did NAFTA reduce poverty? If so, then much of the credit goes to Bush I. Did the Welfare Reform bill of 1996 reduce poverty? If so, then Republicans in Congress deserve most of the credit.

Simplistic partisan hackery disguised as an intellectual argument doesn't address any of the actual policies.

 

[Smoke]

Out of modesty I propose one solution: stop doing what doesn't work. There are millions like Michael that the government fails. Let's stop what doesn't work.

Deal. We've tried Christianity for 2000 years, and it hasn't worked. Let's stop it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

Now you lost me.

What, EXACTLY, are you saying the tables in the link are evidence of AND how, EXACTLY, are they in support of the previous what?

Seems to me that they are nothing more than poverty level tables.
How do they show that the government system is a big enough failure to be scrapped and replaced with good hearted Christians?

The empirical data show that despite the billions spent on reducing poverty, the rate has remained stable for the past 40+ years.

If the good hearted Christians system you imply is so much better, why hasn't it caught all the people that fell through the governments cracks?
If the good hearted Christian system cannot even cover the ones the government missed, how the hell do you think it will be able to handle ALL of the people after the government system is scrapped?

This is the hilarious thing. Government fails millions of poor people everyday and you defend the failed system tooth and nail. I would say one thing; the billions that are wasted not helping the poor would be put to much better uses.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Deal. We've tried Christianity for 2000 years, and it hasn't worked. Let's stop it.

LOL! Are we seeing that liberal tolerance again? Let's compare people freely exercising their religious beliefs with the monopoly of coercion that government enjoys. Almost makes as much sense as color-coding a graph.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dunemeister,

Formally, yes. Actually, no. Congress is COMPLETELY in the grip of lobbyists, which is another way of saying that it has been 100% corrupted. The situation is so bad that the corruption has been legalized (lobbyists need only register with Washington). Get rid of special interest lobbying, and you'll have your Congress back.

Like I was saying to Smoke. Does Kennedy's tax cuts factor into the reduction in poverty? Did Bush I negotiated and Clinton signed NAFTA reduce poverty? Did the 1996 Welfare Reform bill reduce poverty? If so, then liberals are being inconsistent. Because the very things they say would increase poverty are reducing it.

 

[Smoke]

You failed to address any of the specifics. For example, did Kennedy's tax cuts cause a poverty decline or is it simply the Great Society programs?

Probably a combination, but the Great Society only began to falter as war spending increased along with social welfare spending. Basically, we can't afford both military adventure and social welfare. You'll have no trouble guessing which I think is the better investment.

Did NAFTA reduce poverty?

Not to my knowledge.

Did the Welfare Reform bill of 1996 reduce poverty?

That's not really clear. Welfare reform involved a whole complex of changes which were implemented in various ways and at different times in different states. It's actually a pretty complex subject.

Simplistic partisan hackery disguised as an intellectual argument doesn't address any of the actual policies.

Spoken by the guy who wants us to trash our social welfare programs based on anecdotal evidence about Michael Oher. Just for future reference, whatever kind of hackery I may practice, it's hardly partisan hackery. I loathe the Democrats nearly as much as I loathe the Republicans.

LOL! Are we seeing that liberal tolerance again? Let's compare people freely exercising their religious beliefs with the monopoly of coercion that government enjoys. Almost makes as much sense as color-coding a graph.

You said why don't we stop doing what doesn't work, and I agreed with you. I didn't say anything at all to suggest that people should be coerced to give up their superstitions. And I'm sorry my color-coding offended your sensibilities. Does anything at all that might conduce to greater clarity have that effect?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The biggest problem I see is we spend too much money on the folks who decide who gets help and who does not.

You want to fight hunger? Cook some food and hand it out! Don't spend money paying people to decide who eats and who does not.

Everyone deserves a hot shower, shelter, food and clothing.

Your own condo with cable TV and internet? I'm not so sure.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
The point I'm making is the liberal talking point about how compassionate government is and how it helps poor people is completely wrong.

Where have you seen this talking point? Can you point it out to me in any place? Otherwise, I'll just continue to see it as the strawman it is.

The track record of government alleviating poverty has failed.

No, it has alleviated poverty, it just hasn't eliminated it.

The empirical data speaks for itself. For the better part of 40 years the poverty rate has remained stagnant.

No, it hasn't. It has gone down and up several times. As was pointed out to you, when democratic presidents have been in power and allowed to do something about poverty, it has gone down significantly. Then the republicans come back in and forget about the problem and it goes back up.

I am exploding the smug moral high ground that liberals like yourself have when talking about government helping the poor. In the course of this discussion you have all but admitted that government fails millions of poor people on a daily basis.

I've admitted that it has failed some people, yes. Millions on a daily basis? That's a bit much, unless you have something to back it up.

As far as the "smug moral high ground", what the hell are you talking about? Who are these people who act as though they're better than you because the government helps the poor? This is one of the craziest assertions I've seen in a while.

All I know about are people like me who say that the government does help poor people and with a few changes could help even more.

My system never has been tried because of the heavy hand of the government.

Out of modesty I propose one solution: stop doing what doesn't work. There are millions like Michael that the government fails. Let's stop what doesn't work.

You're right. Because the system fails 15 out of 100 people, we should just stop it. Never mind that those other 85 people are now screwed. We need to stop it because it doesn't work for those 15 people. Good call.

Tell me, have you ever thrown a baby out with the bathwater, by chance?

 

[Dunemeister]

Like I was saying to Smoke. Does Kennedy's tax cuts factor into the reduction in poverty?

I don't know enough to answer this question.

Did Bush I negotiated and Clinton signed NAFTA reduce poverty?

No. Arguably, it made it worse.

Did the 1996 Welfare Reform bill reduce poverty?

Again, I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment.

If so, then liberals are being inconsistent. Because the very things they say would increase poverty are reducing it.

I leave the details to others. I think the point that free-market capitalism is (a) a chimera, and (b) a false hope for those who seek economic justice.