rolling7

There would be no need to raise taxes if spending (read: wasted non-necessities) was brought under control. Ever notice how when spending cuts are mention some folks will bring in the argument that the spending is necessary but won't give a thought to waste?

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

JabberJay

I had to post this on my facebook.

__________________

Grayma

I think many people here agree with conservatives on the food stamps issue more than they think, based on comments on the thread about snack foods on food stamps. I saw people who here can find nothing to question about food stamps, over there insisting that their tax dollars should not be spent on cokes. But they are. And that's the kind of thing conservatives say.

Most conservatives I know and have read think the problem isn't that people are on them fraudulently, it's that the rules are too lax, and that there are no controls on what people buy with them.

Up until last week, when my husband joined the unemployed, he spent the last few years as a grocery store manager. He sees what the majority of people buy on their food stamps. It doesn't matter how much they 'meet the rules of eligibility' when they are buying cases of cokes, chocolate bars, twinkies, frozen convenience foods with zero nutritional value, and- really oddly, loads of crab legs. He sold more crab legs to people on food stamps than anybody else. In fact, I think in our county, you can only afford crab legs if you are on food stamps.

We went from 1 in 10 Americans on food stamps four years ago, to 1 in 7 last year.
My husband and I have been deeply involved in the lives of some of these people for the last five years. We're watching generational dependency, and it's destructive. We've been asked by school aged children why anybody in our family works when you get groceries, medical care and housing for free. They've sweetly offered to take us to the food pantry to show us how to get free food. We've watched the government reward their parents when they make foolish decisions and punish them when they try to save, or get jobs.

When my husband was regional manager of the little grocery chain where he worked, he tracked the food stamps income and found that one of the stores got 40% of their income from food stamps, one about 30-35%, one 25%, and one less than ten. We see how destructive this system is unless you are very, very strong and have some skills the government wn't provide to get free of it. This reliance on government income does not bode well for the future.

I don't find the Welfare State any more compassionate than the Slave State, honestly. It's cruel, it creates dependence and it weakens people.

It's also not compassionate at all to take money from one person and give it to another. True compassion digs into your own pockets.

I don't think the immense effort of using one's pinky finger to press a particular button in a private voting booth says anything at all about how much one cares for the poor. It's what you do personally. And as it happens, conservatives donate at least 30% more out of their own pockets, personally, than liberals do.
It's easy to say that because you vote a certain way you care more about the poor, but it's not true. I don't prove I care more about my poor neighbor Jill by smacking my other neighbor Jack and stealing his wallet to give to her, nor do I prove my compassion by voting for somebody else to take his wallet and give the contents to her (and often to myself).

Some people prefer to rely on propaganda points (the Republicans don't care about the poor) instead of facts to inform their thinking. Happily, Brooks wasn't one of them:

DeafCaroline

I read Brooks' article: "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

Grayma

How odd that you left the next statement out:Hmmmm.

Grayma

It also makes little sense to eliminate religious donations because they also help the poor. Here are some examples of the 'religious' institutions that warmhearted liberals who care about the poor think shouldn't count:

Ghana West Africa Missions- which helps give clean working wells to villages that don't have them.
The Shoebox Project- families (or churches) prepare shoeboxes of gifts for poor children in third world countries. We usually include school supplies and some first aid supplies in ours.
Prison Fellowship Ministries- the Christmas Tree thing, where needy children, and often children of prison inmates, are given Christmas gifts and other donations.
Haiti Christian Development Project- they help with micro projects in agriculture, and other projects building towards self sustaining lives
Manna Global Ministries- they do several things, our interest was in the children's home which provides religious instruction as well as food, shelter, and education
Healing Hands International-
Hope for Haiti's Children- rebuilding homes, orphan care, nutrition, and so much more

During Hurricane Katrina, when the Red Cross and other secular agencies were insisting they could only use money, our then tiny church (30 people) collected thousands of dollars in blankets, baby clothes, diapers, formula, paper products and basic first aid and mailed it to another tiny church in the area, where they delivered the products to people who needed them within hours.

The Christian crisis pregnancy center where we adopted our daughters- the center, even 15 years later, still provides counseling and other services to our girls' birth mother. they provide job training, help with clothing and housing and a food pantry to mothers in need, and adoption is not their first goal. They prefer to help mothers keep their kids.

The local crisis pregnancy center in town, different denomination from the one where we adopted our girls, but they have the same goals and practices.

My kids once collected a thousand dollars and wanted to give it anonymously to a family in need, so they spoke to the leadership at our church, who accepted the money from the kids and then gave it to the family, telling them it was an anonymous donation. On paper, that was a donation to a religious institution.

We are not unique. Among the people we know, I think we probably donate less than most (largely because we have seven kids, and five are still at home).

There's no compassionate reason to eliminate organizations like these from consideration when looking at how much money people donate to charitable causes.

The facts are, conservatives do donate more of their own personal time and money to the needy than liberal do. This is hard to accept if one prefers demonizing and marginalizing those who disagree. Brooks didn't like the findings of his own research, either, but he did the honest thing and changed his mind.

You don't have to believe this is because one group cares more about the poor than another. Brooks himself believes it's a matter of different views about *how* to best meet charitable obligations.
Liberals believe that the government should do the job.
Conservatives believe people in private should do this.

Both sides act on those beliefs in a way that is consistent. Liberals agitate for more government, but don't donate as much, and Conservatives donate more, but agitate for less government.

SteveMcGarrett

I AGREE!!! Thats why i want Obama get the DOJ on Florida ban on using food stamps on sodas. Sales taxes just like things expensive to buy like the Gas tax for example. If the wealthy can find loopholes by hiring lawyers and putting their money in swiss bank accounts instead of paying the I.R.S why cant the poor find loopholes too? Like you dont pay sales taxes with Food Stamps?

SteveMcGarrett

Right!!! Seat Belt laws,Parking Meter violations,Traffic violations and trapping prositution has nothing to do with public safety. It has everything to do with REVINUE!

DeafCaroline

Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do. Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans. It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country. Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.

DeafCaroline

Every time the government, usually the Republicans, cut taxes, the federal deficit goes up.

Grayma

That's because the government refuses to cut spending.

In my own household, if I reduce my income but don't reduce my spending, the same thing happens.

Grayma

Or, Democrats prefer to make other people pay to support their pet programs, but don't help people out themselves.
Conservatives do not agree those programs help Americans. I believe they are harmful.

There is no evidence that this is true.
There is no evidence that church organizations do not spend money feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in their own countries. There is no evidence that individual conservatives don't do this. FYI, we have had homeless people live with us in our own home for months at a time, at least three different families, and a few singles. The singles were.... vets.

A hefty share? I doubt your figures, but it really doesn't matter. The point is not that there are no people left who still need help. It's that your comic book characterizations of people who differ from you politically are not well informed, not based on facts, and not really useful for a meaningful discussion.

You know, your argument is really with reality, as Brooks discovered. Conservatives personally give more to charity than liberals do. That's simply a fact. Nothing you have said has disproven Brooks' research.

There are probably perfectly legitimate reasons for that, as I said.

DeafCaroline

How is Obama reducing income?

DeafCaroline

comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?

Reba

Support? As in, donate their money to?

Whose money are they spending? Their own?

What's wrong with helping both? Whose says that they help others abroad to the exclusion of helping those at home?

What are the numbers behind that statement? I know of lots of charities that are sponsored by churches that provide for the homeless, disabled, and poor in America.

The Republicans can't do it all by themselves.

Veterans shouldn't have to depend on charity for their battle-related aftercare. The military services and Veterans Administration are supposed to be responsible for that.

However, there are many charities that do provide services and housing for veterans. I donate to several of them myself.

Are you saying that conservatives are racist hypocrites?

DeafCaroline

some of them, yes. especially when they use the word "illegals".

Reba

Grayma is comparing a family's income to the Federal government's revenue.

When a family's income goes down, they cut back on expenses.

When the Federal government's revenue goes down, it should cut back on expenses.

TWA

Two observations.

1) Individual anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate like this.
2) Quibbling over specific words and semantics in an attempt to derail argument.

DeafCaroline

yes, i understand what she was comparing and was wondering exactly what she was referring to in terms of reduced income.

Obama did a lot of budget cuts and compared to Bush, he's spent way less than half. Bush spent 5.7 trillion. Obama spent 1.3 and with all the budget cuts, subtracted from that, his total expenditure is actually $983 billion.

and USA's national revenue has actually gone up, not down.

Reba

That's interesting since illegal aliens come in all races and ethnicities, some being the same races and ethnicities as American citizens. I thought the divide was between legal and illegal status, not between races since both statuses include all races.

The term "illegals" is slang and not proper English usage, in my opinion.

TXgolfer

What?

__________________
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21


Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

DeafCaroline

In my opinion, "illegals" is a slur.

Doug5

yep, and drug abuse is a symptom of ptsd. Theyre probably haunted by intrusive thoughts and self medicate to make them go away.

Grayma

I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.

kokonut

Absolutely correct.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

Grayma

No Carolyn, the name-calling you do is not respectful.
Differing from you is not the same as refusing to take the time to inform myself, and glossy propaganda pictures are not informed discussion.

My husband is a vet who served 20 years. My son-in-law is a vet who lost most of the hearing in one ear serving in Iraq. We have many, many vets among our friends, and some among our late friends.
I am far from, what was that name you called me? Oh, clueless. No. I am not.

You made a claim without a citation. I always doubt uncited claims, but as I pointed out, it was irrelevant (and really, a strange thing to pull out of the air and toss in the pot, as it had nothing to do with what we were discussing). It's irrelevant because my point of discussion is Brooks' research, which has nothing to do with homeless Vets.

Nowhere did I say that conservatives or Republicans have taken care of all of society's problems. Nowhere did I say there are no vets with problems.:


My points are:
You cannot honestly or accurately say that Republicans don't care about the poor, because the facts are that conservatives, including Republicans, donate more to the poor than liberals do. You have presented absolutely no counter-evidence that disproves Brooks' research, which is widely accepted even among liberals who have actually looked at it.

What you can say is that liberals prefer government programs for addressing social problems and conservatives don't. This is kind of like saying that boys have external plumbing and girls don't, as in, it's kind of self identifying. If you prefer government programs, that generally means you are liberal by definition. If you prefer private charity, that generally means you are conservative, by definition.

The real issue is *why*. The reasons why are probably as varied as the individuals. Reasons like, "Because anybody who doesn't like what I like politically is a selfish jerk and an idiot," well, those aren't reasons, are they? They're just naked, baseless assertions.

While dragging homeless Vets into the discussion is a distraction and a red herring, it is interesting to note what happens if we are to agree with you that the existence of homeless vets is proof of compassion or lack thereof. If that is true, we must lay that on the door of the Democrats, who controlled both House and Senate before a Democratic President was elected, and who controlled both for another year or two after he was elected. With that trifecta, there was nothing stopping them from doing anything they liked. Did they not solve the homeless vet problem because they lacked compassion?

Hint: I don't think so. But if they were Republicans, you would. Since they are Democrats, must be some other reason?

kokonut

I'll say this, Grayma, please give thanks to your hubby and SIL for their service. Just as I thank my brother and his son, and my sister who are vets, too.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

Grayma

I am not sure what kind of debate this is.

I think individual anecdotes do mean something when, as I saw it, the debate is really about a particular stereotype, such as:
X political party hates the poor (or doesn't care about them or whatever).

Examples of members of that political party who do not fit that stereotype are useful, IMO.
I am not a Republican, much to my husband's chagrin. He is. He is the primary breadwinner in our family, and is deeply involved in all the charities I mentioned- the one giving wells to villages in Africa is his particular pet charity. So I think our individual anecdotes are antidotes to the baseless stereotype that I saw offered here.

I've seen anecdotes used in a similar way to counteract other claims or assumptions here on AD- claims about the reading level of deaf children, the benefits or lack thereof to various orally based methods, the use of ASL as a benefit to language development. These discussions are generally answered by both appeals to personal experience and research.

Brook's research showing that conservatives give more to the poor than liberal do is more than anecdotal, of course.

As for semantics, I do think words mean something. I am not a fan of Humpty Dumpty's approach.

rolling7

A different way to look at it is that when the governments income goes up the personal income of the taxpayers goes down.

DeafCaroline

All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.