My brother will sure be surprised

[Dr.Who]

, but NONE of the candidates in the debates bothered to call those few people who were cheering on their lack of compassion or sensitivity.

Ron Paul tried to describe his experiences as a doctor who was very familiar with pro bono work but was cut off by the moderator.

Candidates do have a responsiblity to express themselves and they do fail at times. They also have a responsibility to stand against others who misrepresent the cause but admonishing the audience is a reduces responsibility. Now on the other hand admonishing a key note speaker like Obama failed to do with the union leader is a more serious offense.

Y

ou are correct, there will ALWAYS be a certain amount of poverty, the question is how wide spread and how deep! Charity certainly has its place in our world, it should not take the entire responsibility of the government away from assuring that everything is done to bring the WHOLE citizenship forward away from poverty, not just the top 2%.

You have that backwards. The fed gov has not been given any power at all to address poverty or to spend money trying to correct poverty. Therefore the fed should not take any responsibility away from charity for doing all that can be done to help those in poverty.

The gov is doing a horrible job of it now and should be fired.

And, no, I do not consider myself an extremist. In fact, if you had taken the opportunity to read my full answer to your question in the other thread, and maybe even comment on it, you should know that I am not an extremist.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the things you post here are extreme taken as a whole.

 

[Openmind]

, but NONE of the candidates in the debates bothered to call those few people who were cheering on their lack of compassion or sensitivity.

Ron Paul tried to describe his experiences as a doctor who was very familiar with pro bono work but was cut off by the moderator.

Candidates do have a responsiblity to express themselves and they do fail at times. They also have a responsibility to stand against others who misrepresent the cause but admonishing the audience is a reduces responsibility. Now on the other hand admonishing a key note speaker like Obama failed to do with the union leader is a more serious offense.

Y

You have that backwards. The fed gov has not been given any power at all to address poverty or to spend money trying to correct poverty. Therefore the fed should not take any responsibility away from charity for doing all that can be done to help those in poverty.

The gov is doing a horrible job of it now and should be fired.



Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the things you post here are extreme taken as a whole.

I obviously disagree on all counts. Private charity has NEVER been sufficient to make a real dent in poverty, and especially not without separating people who need help in two basic category: The worthy and the unworthy!

It is not right for a person to have to depend on judgment of "worthiness" to receive assistance because that judgement is too subjective and can lead to real control over the most disenfranchised (i.e.,)The Baptists will give to their Church, who will distribute the charity to the "poor Baptists." The Catholic will use their charity to profit poor people who are willing to fall within their "standard" of what is good and bad).

Personally, I prefer a government elected by the people to draw clear and unbiased guideline for public assistance.

And, I may appear to you to be "extreme," but I hope you realize that this may be the consequence of where YOU stand.

There is obviously a very big gap between your beliefs and mine. . .but only an unbiased, non-political, non-judgemental person could accurately tell which one of us is the closer to falling off the cliff of rationality!

So, you keep YOUR middle of the road beliefs, and I'll keep mine!

 

[dogtowner]

Personally, I prefer a government elected by the people to draw clear and unbiased guideline for public assistance.

If only that existed. Instead we have a government that gives us affirmative action. As biased a program as ever existed. Including Jim Crow.

 

[Dr.Who]

I obviously disagree on all counts. Private charity has NEVER been sufficient to make a real dent in poverty, and especially not without separating people who need help in two basic category: The worthy and the unworthy!

I would like to see you support that statement. Not so much that charity has not made a dent in poverty but that it has done any worse than gov. After all if gov also does not make a dent in it then it really does not matter that they both don't make a dent in poverty.

So show us that gov does a better job than private charity. I do think we need to exclude times of war for example as not representative of the norm.

It is not right for a person to have to depend on judgment of "worthiness" to receive assistance because that judgement is too subjective and can lead to real control over the most disenfranchised (i.e.,)The Baptists will give to their Church, who will distribute the charity to the "poor Baptists." The Catholic will use their charity to profit poor people who are willing to fall within their "standard" of what is good and bad).

I doubt the various charities are as selective as you imagine. But if they were and there are a hundred or more of them then that is exactly the reason they are better. The gov too has its standards of worthiness but there is only one gov. When you do not meet their standards then you are out of luck. But if you fail to meet the baptists standards ten you can always go to the catholics...

Personally, I prefer a government elected by the people to draw clear and unbiased guideline for public assistance.

I prefer the opoosite and my preference is constitutional while yours is not.

And, I may appear to you to be "extreme," but I hope you realize that this may be the consequence of where YOU stand.

Where I stand doing things that are contrary to the constitution is extreme.

There is obviously a very big gap between your beliefs and mine. . .but only an unbiased, non-political, non-judgemental person could accurately tell which one of us is the closer to falling off the cliff of rationality!

Or one could read the constitution.

So, you keep YOUR middle of the road beliefs, and I'll keep mine!

Your belief always leads to mine being trampled so no thank you. I believe that people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor except under strictly defined circumstances and you want the gov to take it away.

 

[GenSeneca]

I watched the cheering about the above incident as it was happening, and the fact is that it did happen.

Perhaps it's your "extremist" viewpoint that leads you to believe they were cheering about a man dieing for lack of insurance, rather than understanding the fact that people cheer when someone stands up for personal responsibility and points out that exercising freedom comes with certain risks.

You are correct, there will ALWAYS be a certain amount of poverty, the question is how wide spread and how deep!

Government is helpless to do anything about that.

Charity certainly has its place in our world, it should not take the entire responsibility of the government away from assuring that everything is done to bring the WHOLE citizenship forward away from poverty, not just the top 2%.

The only limits placed on charity are those imposed upon it by our federal government and the limitations placed on our federal government are placed on it by our Constitution - which does not authorize the US government to act as a charity.

As a retired social worker, I can tell you that I am very proud, and very satisfied to have selected that career, even if it limited my personal income. I was one of the lucky one who could afford to forgoe the income that a career based on an MBA would have provided, because my husband was happy to follow the "executive track" in the computer industry, with all the (very sizeable) financial rewards. HE allowed me to feed my soul by contributing to the most needy in society, while allowing me to still enjoy a very comfortable life style. And, contrary to your remark, not only have I never regretted my selection, but neither did ANY of my clients or their family.

How much money per year would you say you gave up? $10k? $20k? More?

And, no, I do not consider myself an extremist. In fact, if you had taken the opportunity to read my full answer to your question in the other thread, and maybe even comment on it, you should know that I am not an extremist.

Would any "extremist" admit to being one? I doubt it...

Are you an extremist?

Extremist is a term that's entirely subjective and void of substance. I'm a Radical for Individual Rights, I believe every single individual should be treated equally under the law, have equal protection under the law, and I reject the notion that compromising on these core beliefs and allowing the violation of rights, or unequal treatment of individuals at the hands of government, is somehow a "moderate" position.

Do you feel uncomfortable making extreme, generalized, judgemental, disparaging remarks about the Left? It seems that you do not consider those remarks "extreme!"

The pot and the kettle.

I have often stated that I was certain that in all parties, in all ideologies, there were some good, and some bad people, and that unfortunately, the most extreme were usually the most vocal. I stand by that, for the tea party, for the Left, and for the Right. We are all human.

You know how you can tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.