Who cares about the poor the most?

What if I no longer have any more resources to give? It may be why I don't resort to fallacy for free as often as those of the opposing view.

 

Those who care about the poor the most are those who honestly acknowledge that both private and public initiatives are necessary to redress the consequences of inequality and relieve suffering, and that reviling and/or proscribing either one or the other due to some ideological dogma fails miserably from a pragmatic perspective. (That amounts to a one-armed paper hanger of methodology vs a two-fisted advocate of virtue.)

I suspect that Pope Francis cares more about the poor than did Ayn Rand, but their relative sincerity is not of consequence for anyone concerned with practical results that comport with the gospel message, the nation's Christian ethos, and the patriotic mandate to "promote the general welfare."



.




.

 

True, but it's also been shown when you give to much, you take away much of the initiative to help ones self. That is the problem we have today and why after trillions of dollars spent on the War On Poverty we have more people living in poverty than ever before and why we see things like this. What is the Liberal answer? Give even more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw

 

Only the right consistently refuses to recognize the laws of demand and supply under our form of Capitalism.

 

Unfortunately, the reality is that many are and have always been, through lack of opportunity, of education, age, or ill health, incapable of helping themselves, but those who can should be encouraged to do so via training programmes with resultant rewards and whatever additional transitional support is required. When one's realistic prospect is earning a minimum wage that sustains you no more effectively than a welfare cheque, there is little incentive.

We can't pretend that no one has been helped just to fit one's ideological bias when that is, demonstrably, not true:

I'm unaware of a "Liberal answer" but the pragmatist's one is to contribute, both privately and publicly, to alleviating poverty via those methods that have proven most efficacious, and to abandon those that have failed. Neither throwing money at the problem nor refusing to take on the challenge is about to succeed, and achieving total success is unrealistic.

 

No one is saying abandon them. I am saying when you give them to much, you take away any incentive of trying to better their lives. That's what we are doing today. What incentive does a person have to get a job when they can get cash, depending on how many kids they have, They get food, housing subsidies, cell phones, free health care, help with utilities, child care, etc. . When I last worked I was making about $15.80 an hour. I'd like it if someone could show me how much all that assistance given today in welfare adds up to an hourly wage. I would be it wouldn't be far off from what I made. A person today making something similar to what I made would be just as well off to lose his job and let the government keep them up like those guys in the video I posted. They have no desire to look for a job. Why should they if the can do as good or better staying on government assistance?

 

Yet, even the right is unwilling to simply, be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner, to lower our Tax burden. Why is that? Iron Age morals are less supreme than our supreme law of the land.

 

The "liberal answer" is for everyone else to give money/be taxed more except the liberal himself.

 

Only the right is that full of fallacy.

 

Projecting much, alleged conservative who believes more in drug tests on a for-profit basis than morals tests on that same basis.

 

I'll wait for you to quote me saying that.

 

What is that suppose to mean? Liberals haven't solved poverty after spending trillions on it. What they have done is keep the poor in poverty by making it so their is no incentive in going out looking for a job. They are still poor, just not as poor. They get enough to live on without having to work for it. All their vital needs are met.

 

.........or help anyone yourself. Charlatan altruism is such a neat internet game.

 

Even many folks with a reasonable level of work experience and qualifications who relentlessly seek employment these days cannot find it in many locales, and I doubt if depriving their children of food and shelter will make them suddenly succeed. "They have no desire to look for work" is an unwarranted judgement until the specific "they" is identified.

Until there is actual, reliable evidence that the poor are living opulent lives, I am more concerned about these families going without in America. There has never been a shortage of lurid anecdotal accounts, the generic "welfare queen" myths, but it is the actual abuses that need to be documented, exposed and stopped. "Let's give the poor less," is not a solution.

 

............................................................................................................
That really sounds like the answer of only that imaginary goofball version of a "Liberal! that festers in the noggins of some ideological fanatics, not that of actual liberals. As such, it's worthless.

​

 

One would wonder how Liberals would feel if they were just making it and the government wanted to take even more from you to give to those that didn't want to work because they were doing as well as you are by doing nothing and letting the government support them? Would that (*)(*)(*)(*) you off? That's how I feel when I see this and living on my small pension and S.S.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw

 

Here, they are identified Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw

 

How about this? How does this make you feel?

WTF I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GONNA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnU6PT-3nGU

 

Quite a few states pay more than $15.00 an hour in welfare benefits. How does that make you feel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pCOTlYPn0U

 

It is proven over and over that people on unemployment suddenly find work the last few weeks they are eligible.

 

What a coincidence, me too.

 

Now who asked them if they don't want to work? I say they all want to work when you bring the factories back from china. Got that done yet?? Get errr done!!!!

 

I have no idea why our senior elders have done such a Mickey Mouse job with the concept of employment at will; every junior elder should know that hack and whack is only a last resort and not politics as usual.

We should be correcting for laissez-fare Capitalisms' laziness regarding ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic, and has existed since the 1930s.

 

You can rail about your unspecific "those that didn't want to work," and insist that families you suspect should go hungry, but when a rightist proclaims that "the "liberal answer is for everyone else to give money/be taxed more except the liberal himself," I ignore such nonsense.

I'm grateful that I have work, and don't begrudge helping fellow Americans who may need assistance. There but for fortune ...

 

Not resorting to fallacy while diagnosing the Body politic may be considered a form of altruism, instead of merely a habit and custom.

Charlatan arguments are worse.