[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by ingelein

It is our duty and privilege as a advanced society to give a helping hand up that ladder.

I agree.

So tell me again, HOW is kicking that ladder out from underneath our poor help?

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by twotrees2

id really like to know what states give out cash monies- i know a few who are sinking quick cause there isnt "monies" out there so they arent able to pay thier house payment and thier car was repossed cause they couldnt pay the payemnt - then i could tell em what state to go to to survive well.

If the government is paying for a service, it serves the same purpose as money. If the government is buying food, then the recipient doesn't have to spend money on that item. If the government is spending X amount of dollars on housing; the recipient isn't. Etc.

There is a basic 'fungibility' of commodities. What that means is that things interchangeable in value are essentially interchangeable as a function of trade. The reason why money works is because it is the ultimate 'fungible' asset - it is ultimately interchangeable. Nevertheless, spending money on somebody that receives a benefit from that money is the same as giving money.

It certainly is the same as spending money.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I agree.

So tell me again, HOW is kicking that ladder out from underneath our poor help?

~faith,
Timothy.

Well, herein lies our fundamental difference, you believe it would be kicking the ladder out, I believe it would be holding the ladder up. We have polar opposite opinions of what constitutes HELP. We will have to agree to disagree. Back to square one.

[HM2Viking]

Somehow I think TomPaine in The Rights of Man argued for well designed social supports for the least fortunate to improve their lot in life:

Whatever the form or constitution of government may be, it ought to have no other object than the general happiness. When, instead of this, it operates to create and increase wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-05.htm

Stop supporting the well to do...Get rid of the conservative nanny state

To all these are to be added the numerous dependants, the long list of younger branches and distant relations, who are to be provided for at the public expense: in short, were an estimation to be made of the charge of aristocracy to a nation, it will be found nearly equal to that of supporting the poor.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-052.htm

Direct financial relief...

The first step, therefore, of practical relief, would be to abolish the poor-rates entirely, and in lieu thereof, to make a remission of taxes to the poor of double the amount of the present poor-rates,
...
It is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large families of children, and old people past their labour.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-053.htm

Child nutrition and welfare spending....

It is certain, that if the children are provided for, the parents are relieved of consequence, because it is from the expense of bringing up children that their poverty arises.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm

For public schools and vocational education to relieve poverty....

To pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to send them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic
...
By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth, with good natural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade, such as a carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc., is prevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a little common education when a boy

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm

For a publicly funded retirement system such as SS and right to retirement at 60:

To pay to every such person of the age of fifty years, and until he shall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty.
...
This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm

Democracy depends on well educated citizens....Government has a responsibilityto provide this education!

After all the above cases are provided for there will still be a number of families who, though not properly of the class of poor, yet find it difficult to give education to their children; and such children, under such a case, would be in a worse condition than if their parents were actually poor. A nation under a well-regulated government should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm

Job training and food programs:

First, To erect two or more buildings, or take some already erected, capable of containing at least six thousand persons, and to have in each of these places as many kinds of employment as can be contrived, so that every person who shall come may find something which he or she can do.
Secondly, To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what they are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so many hours' work, each person shall receive so many meals of wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack. That a certain portion of what each person's work shall be worth shall be reserved, and given to him or her, on their going away; and that each person shall stay as long or as short a time, or come as often as he choose, on these conditions.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm

Calls for a moral obligation to intervene on behalf of the poor:

The enumeration is as follows:--
First, Abolition of two millions poor-rates.
Secondly, Provision for two hundred and fifty thousand poor families.
Thirdly, Education for one million and thirty thousand children.
Fourthly, Comfortable provision for one hundred and forty thousand aged persons.
Fifthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.
Sixthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand marriages.
Seventhly, Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of persons travelling for work, and dying at a distance from their friends.
Eighthly, Employment, at all times, for the casual poor in the cities of London and Westminster.
By the operation of this plan, the poor laws, those instruments of civil torture, will be superseded, and the wasteful expense of litigation prevented. The hearts of the humane will not be shocked by ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty years of age, begging for bread. The dying poor will not be dragged from place to place to breathe their last, as a reprisal of parish upon parish. Widows will have a maintenance for their children, and not be carted away, on the death of their husbands, like culprits and criminals; and children will no longer be considered as increasing the distresses of their parents. The haunts of the wretched will be known, because it will be to their advantage; and the number of petty crimes, the offspring of distress and poverty, will be lessened. The poor, as well as the rich, will then be interested in the support of government, and the cause and apprehension of riots and tumults will cease.- Ye who sit in ease, and solace yourselves in plenty, and such there are in Turkey and Russia, as well as in England, and who say to yourselves, "Are we not well off?" have ye thought of these things? When ye do, ye will cease to speak and feel for yourselves alone.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-055.htm

Mr. Paine also argued for progressive taxation at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-055.htm

Every single of these ideas is reflected in our government...

[Woodenpug]

Could we have a "health care reform" forum. I'd like to see these various threads in one place.

[HM2Viking]

Jefferson certainly wrote of the duty to aid the poor both as individuals and through government:

"With respect to marine hospitals... such establishments have been made by the General Government in the several States,... a portion of seaman's wages is drawn for their support, and the government furnishes what is deficient." --Thomas Jefferson to James Ronaldson, 1813. ME 13:205
"This world abounds indeed with misery; to lighten its burthen, we must divide it with one another." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:441
"Among the first of [nature's] laws, is that which bids us to succor those in distress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8:22
"Though we cannot relieve all the distressed, we should relieve as many as we can." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Copway, 1786. ME 5:443

"Those who want the dispositions to give, easily find reasons why they ought not to give." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:444

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jeffer...s/jeff1310.htm

The Marine hospitals were the antecedents of USPHS and a form of universal care for seaman.

(He also argued for a system of progressive taxation.)

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jeffer...s/jeff1330.htm

Pretty clearly old Tom would have been in favor of relieving poverty and poor health through public investments.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

HM2Viking, aka 'Threadkiller'.

[Woodenpug]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

HM2Viking, aka 'Threadkiller'.

too true. validated facts presented in a logical manner seem to kill threads on allnurses.com. wonder why i haven't subscribed?

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

Originally Posted by Woodenpug

validated facts presented in a logical manner seem to kill threads on allnurses.com. wonder why i haven't subscribed?

Sorry to disappoint, but this nasty 'ole Libertarian just hasn't had time to read and reflect--three admissions (Home Care) yesterday and still have 12 hours of paperwork to do!

NOt to worry, the weekend is coming, rebuttal likely to follow!!

[ZASHAGALKA]

I'm reading a book that I think provides fascinating insight to this issue:

Boundaries by Dr. Henry Cloud.

Galations 6:2-5 (NIV) - "2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5for each one should carry his own load."

The words for 'burden' and 'load' have two different meanings in Greek.

Burden is an overbearing weight, something that cannot be borne alone. As in: Jesus died for us because we could not save ourselves.

Load means the everyday burdens we are MEANT to carry. As in: The apostle Paul, in Thessalonians: You don't work, you don't eat.

It is a violation of boundaries NOT to offer assistance to those that cannot meet their burdens alone. Agreed. It is also, however, a violation of boundaries to meet the needs of somebody in their stead.

So, this is a moral debate, but each side views itself as supporting one boundary and accuses the other side of violating the other. We both own the moral superiority of our arguments, from our viewpoints.

For the left, using the government to aid those that cannot help themselves supports a critical boundary, a necessary element of the human condition, to offer such aid. The fact that the government is a poor fit to support THAT boundary without simultaneously violating the boundary of some doing their share is not as important, by comparison. It is a necessary side-effect. The support of those less fortunate outweighs any incidental damage to fostering sloth in those that can do for themselves, but would default to gov't aid, if given.

For the right, using the government to aid those that CAN do for themselves violaties a critical boundary, a necessary element of the human condition, that each be motivated to carry his own weight, if able. The fact that such aid might help those that cannot do for themselves does NOT outweigh the damage done to those who can, but now don't. To support those less fortunate does NOT outweigh the damage done in fostering sloth in those that can do for themselves, but won't as a direct result of gov't aid.

There are two different but equal moral boudaries in play here and we each support one and decry the other side for its violation of the other. We BOTH claim ownership of the moral highground, for different reasons. And, we are both right, and both wrong, after its own fashion.

Of course, I'm LESS wrong because I think there are ways to support both boundaries, I just don't think the government can do so because such a distinction requires MORALITY, and the gov't is officially banned from having any such thing.

~faith,
Timothy.