Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[Apollo]

His address the nation speeches would all be 6-7 hours long.Can you imagine Soulmonster as the leader of the world?

Your speeches would be short, but it would the same speech, 12 times a day, every day.

Maybe I would name you my Minister of Music, then you could put everybody in jail that didn't like the same exact music that you did!

No, Groghan, please, no, seriously, not him, not music, please, don't do this do us, PLEEEEEEEEEEASE, fuckin' Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits, Status Quo, oh somebody put me out of my misery please

Don't worry Len. He would also give you long rants explaining why your music sucks and why you aren't smart enough to enjoy "good" music. So it would be very educational for all of us.

[Len Cnut]

I should talk anyway, I'm a big one for that, condescending about music.

[bran]

bullshit im the minister of music

[Len Cnut]

Oh no you fuckin' ain't Thats all we fuckin' need innit, a bunch of shredding over lyrics about vikings and ocean waves and fuckin'...the One Eyed God of the Kingdom of Eucalyptus or whatever

[Apollo]

I should talk anyway, I'm a big one for that, condescending about music.

You just like to argue though!

At the end of the day I think you enjoy all the back-and-forth, and you know that it all comes down to the simple fact that people like what they like. And we all think our music is the "best" music.

Some people are of a bit of a different mindset. They really do get angry or offended if you don't like their music.

Arguing about bands is fun, just like arguing about sports and such. But the meat of the dinner is still the same. We all like what we like.

You know what songs just randomly played on my Ipod?

Maybe Baby - Buddy Holly

Ooom-pop - Hanson

Train of Consequences - Megadeth

The Beach - Afrika & the Zulu Kings

What a wonderful world - Sam Cooke

I would Die For You - Prince

[Len Cnut]

I should talk anyway, I'm a big one for that, condescending about music.

You just like to argue though!

At the end of the day I think you enjoy all the back-and-forth, and you know that it all comes down to the simple fact that people like what they like. And we all think our music is the "best" music.

Some people are of a bit of a different mindset. They really do get angry or offended if you don't like their music.

Arguing about bands is fun, just like arguing about sports and such. But the meat of the dinner is still the same. We all like what we like.

You know what songs just randomly played on my Ipod?

Maybe Baby - Buddy Holly

Ooom-pop - Hanson

Train of Consequences - Megadeth

The Beach - Afrika & the Zulu Kings

What a wonderful world - Sam Cooke

I would Die For You - Prince

Thats creepy, i'm listening to what a wonderful world by Sam Cooke right now, right this second, shit

[bran]

Oh no you fuckin' ain't Thats all we fuckin' need innit, a bunch of shredding over lyrics about vikings and ocean waves and fuckin'...the One Eyed God of the Kingdom of Eucalyptus or whatever

thats exactly what the world needs

[GivenToFly]

His address the nation speeches would all be 6-7 hours long.Can you imagine Soulmonster as the leader of the world?

Your speeches would be short, but it would the same speech, 12 times a day, every day.

Maybe I would name you my Minister of Music, then you could put everybody in jail that didn't like the same exact music that you did!

No, Groghan, please, no, seriously, not him, not music, please, don't do this do us, PLEEEEEEEEEEASE, fuckin' Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits, Status Quo, oh somebody put me out of my misery please

Don't worry Len. He would also give you long rants explaining why your music sucks and why you aren't smart enough to enjoy "good" music. So it would be very educational for all of us.

Are you sure you don't have me mistaken for somebody else?

[Len Cnut]

Oh no you fuckin' ain't Thats all we fuckin' need innit, a bunch of shredding over lyrics about vikings and ocean waves and fuckin'...the One Eyed God of the Kingdom of Eucalyptus or whatever

thats exactly what the world needs

Yeeeeeeeeeesss..

*plots Brans death*

[Apollo]

His address the nation speeches would all be 6-7 hours long.Can you imagine Soulmonster as the leader of the world?

Your speeches would be short, but it would the same speech, 12 times a day, every day.

Maybe I would name you my Minister of Music, then you could put everybody in jail that didn't like the same exact music that you did!

No, Groghan, please, no, seriously, not him, not music, please, don't do this do us, PLEEEEEEEEEEASE, fuckin' Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits, Status Quo, oh somebody put me out of my misery please

Don't worry Len. He would also give you long rants explaining why your music sucks and why you aren't smart enough to enjoy "good" music. So it would be very educational for all of us.

Are you sure you don't have me mistaken for somebody else?

Actually yes - sorry about that.

[OmarBradley]

Surprised there's no love for SoulMonster in this thread. I wish more world leaders based their decision on verifiable information rather than partisan ideology.

Give me a SoulMonster/Graeme dictatorship!

So SoulMonster and Graeme no longer hold partisan ideologies?

When did that happen?

lol

"Partisan" is the new "they don't agree with me, they're a poopyhead."

Exactly times 10000000.

But I think Downzy was just being "funny" with his post. There are a few posters that you know are joking (or taking a piss at themselves) if you see them use the words "partisan ideologies."

Nope. Outside some of his GNR related posts, most of his arguments are based on data/facts/figures that can be scrutinized. It's how he so soundly took on and invalidated those who were purporting 9/11 to be a conspiracy theory.

Not to say that I agree with everything SM says, but at least he goes through the trouble of providing evidence, and not just generalizations and hyperbole that are born out of partisan rhetoric, to prove his point.

I'm of the belief that good leaders aren't those who strictly follow a policy platform because it's what ideology tells them to. Adherence to fact and scrutiny and pushing through policies that are effective, pragmatic, and realistic are traits that I think great leaders possess. Those, plus resolve, commitment, and perseverance when acting in good faith, are the basic tenets that I wish more world leaders had.

As long as they aren't republicans.........

(I kid, I kid)

I have a problem with the Republican Party because it's largely grown reactionary over the past 40 years. This wasn't always the case. There use to be progressive Republicans.

But getting back on track, if someone could provide me concrete proof that supply-side economics works, that it's the solution to a recession and an economic boom, that it doesn't further inequality, that government is almost never needed, then I would wholeheartedly support those positions. Conservatives lambast universities and colleges for having a liberal bias, but perhaps in some cases truth has a liberal bias. Economics isn't as relative as some make it out to be, and world leaders, whether they be liberal or conservative, who support economic policies simply out of fealty to an ideological dogma, aren't going to get my support.

Start with the evidence, the realities of a situation, and build a policy platform around that. Don't bend reality so that it fits an ideology. Ask any sitting Republican legislator what to do during a recession and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. Ask that same Republican congressman what we should do during good economic times and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. And that's fucking nonsense.

I know you're being light-heardeted in all of this, but I do really what to emphasize why I think the way I do. If Democrats/liberals are just as wooden to the facts on the ground, if they're supporting drastic spending measures during boom times, then they too are just as delusional. I want world leaders who can assess the situation at hand and decide what the best course of action is regardless of what their partisan leanings are. It's not easy, few can do it, but when it does happen, such leaders are generally and justifiably considered worthy of immense credit and praise.

[Iron MikeyJ]

I would vote for Len, but than regret it immediatly.

[AdriftatSea]

On second thought, maybe I would vote for Val22 instead of Downzy/Dazey.

She would get rid of all the "black monkeys" in the United States. Then I would feel safe to walk the streets again.

Last Train to Clarksville! Can't get rid of that tune! It's a classic!

And I'm not talking about you Groghan, my new friend!

How can you do that Val? The Monkey's are a Band! Don't call people monkey's Val. You don't really mean that. Don't do that anymore please? And please don't think that.

Someone I know was killed by someone of a different race. Do I think everyone of that race is the equivalent of an animal that has a different color skin? No, I don't. Stop that Val. You don't really mean it.

Edited November 14, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[AdriftatSea]

Surprised there's no love for SoulMonster in this thread. I wish more world leaders based their decision on verifiable information rather than partisan ideology.

Give me a SoulMonster/Graeme dictatorship!

So SoulMonster and Graeme no longer hold partisan ideologies?

When did that happen?

lol

"Partisan" is the new "they don't agree with me, they're a poopyhead."

Exactly times 10000000.

But I think Downzy was just being "funny" with his post. There are a few posters that you know are joking (or taking a piss at themselves) if you see them use the words "partisan ideologies."

Nope. Outside some of his GNR related posts, most of his arguments are based on data/facts/figures that can be scrutinized. It's how he so soundly took on and invalidated those who were purporting 9/11 to be a conspiracy theory.

Not to say that I agree with everything SM says, but at least he goes through the trouble of providing evidence, and not just generalizations and hyperbole that are born out of partisan rhetoric, to prove his point.

I'm of the belief that good leaders aren't those who strictly follow a policy platform because it's what ideology tells them to. Adherence to fact and scrutiny and pushing through policies that are effective, pragmatic, and realistic are traits that I think great leaders possess. Those, plus resolve, commitment, and perseverance when acting in good faith, are the basic tenets that I wish more world leaders had.

As long as they aren't republicans.........

(I kid, I kid)

I have a problem with the Republican Party because it's largely grown reactionary over the past 40 years. This wasn't always the case. There use to be progressive Republicans.

But getting back on track, if someone could provide me concrete proof that supply-side economics works, that it's the solution to a recession and an economic boom, that it doesn't further inequality, that government is almost never needed, then I would wholeheartedly support those positions. Conservatives lambast universities and colleges for having a liberal bias, but perhaps in some cases truth has a liberal bias. Economics isn't as relative as some make it out to be, and world leaders, whether they be liberal or conservative, who support economic policies simply out of fealty to an ideological dogma, aren't going to get my support.

Start with the evidence, the realities of a situation, and build a policy platform around that. Don't bend reality so that it fits an ideology. Ask any sitting Republican legislator what to do during a recession and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. Ask that same Republican congressman what we should do during good economic times and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. And that's fucking nonsense.

I know you're being light-heardeted in all of this, but I do really what to emphasize why I think the way I do. If Democrats/liberals are just as wooden to the facts on the ground, if they're supporting drastic spending measures during boom times, then they too are just as delusional. I want world leaders who can assess the situation at hand and decide what the best course of action is regardless of what their partisan leanings are. It's not easy, few can do it, but when it does happen, such leaders are generally and justifiably considered worthy of immense credit and praise.

Welcome to The Libertarian Party Downzy!

[downzy]

Surprised there's no love for SoulMonster in this thread. I wish more world leaders based their decision on verifiable information rather than partisan ideology.

Give me a SoulMonster/Graeme dictatorship!

So SoulMonster and Graeme no longer hold partisan ideologies?

When did that happen?

lol

"Partisan" is the new "they don't agree with me, they're a poopyhead."

Exactly times 10000000.

But I think Downzy was just being "funny" with his post. There are a few posters that you know are joking (or taking a piss at themselves) if you see them use the words "partisan ideologies."

Nope. Outside some of his GNR related posts, most of his arguments are based on data/facts/figures that can be scrutinized. It's how he so soundly took on and invalidated those who were purporting 9/11 to be a conspiracy theory.

Not to say that I agree with everything SM says, but at least he goes through the trouble of providing evidence, and not just generalizations and hyperbole that are born out of partisan rhetoric, to prove his point.

I'm of the belief that good leaders aren't those who strictly follow a policy platform because it's what ideology tells them to. Adherence to fact and scrutiny and pushing through policies that are effective, pragmatic, and realistic are traits that I think great leaders possess. Those, plus resolve, commitment, and perseverance when acting in good faith, are the basic tenets that I wish more world leaders had.

As long as they aren't republicans.........

(I kid, I kid)

I have a problem with the Republican Party because it's largely grown reactionary over the past 40 years. This wasn't always the case. There use to be progressive Republicans.

But getting back on track, if someone could provide me concrete proof that supply-side economics works, that it's the solution to a recession and an economic boom, that it doesn't further inequality, that government is almost never needed, then I would wholeheartedly support those positions. Conservatives lambast universities and colleges for having a liberal bias, but perhaps in some cases truth has a liberal bias. Economics isn't as relative as some make it out to be, and world leaders, whether they be liberal or conservative, who support economic policies simply out of fealty to an ideological dogma, aren't going to get my support.

Start with the evidence, the realities of a situation, and build a policy platform around that. Don't bend reality so that it fits an ideology. Ask any sitting Republican legislator what to do during a recession and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. Ask that same Republican congressman what we should do during good economic times and they'll tell you that we need to cut taxes and slash spending. And that's fucking nonsense.

I know you're being light-heardeted in all of this, but I do really what to emphasize why I think the way I do. If Democrats/liberals are just as wooden to the facts on the ground, if they're supporting drastic spending measures during boom times, then they too are just as delusional. I want world leaders who can assess the situation at hand and decide what the best course of action is regardless of what their partisan leanings are. It's not easy, few can do it, but when it does happen, such leaders are generally and justifiably considered worthy of immense credit and praise.

Welcome to The Libertarian Party Downzy!

Good God no. While there's certain aspects of the libertarian party that's appealing to me (i.e., keeping government out of one's social life), their views on economics and social welfare are downright scary. It's as though history started in 1945.

[AdriftatSea]

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

[Ace Nova]

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

No, he doesn't. Downzy is as liberal (borderline socialist) as it gets.

[downzy]

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

I don't mean to sound offensive or condescending Adrift, but please read up on what America was like between 1870 and 1939.

If private charity could actually replace government subsidies, it would have occurred in the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s. But it didn't. In fact, it came no where close to doing what was necessary. Poverty rates were far greater prior to the introduction of social safety nets than they are today.

Modern day analysis prove this to be true as well. Read this article that does a pretty bang up job explaining the discrepancy between fantasy and reality when it comes to private versus public charity.

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

No, he doesn't. Downzy is as liberal (borderline socialist) as it gets.

I believe that people should take care of people. But this notion that it can all be left up to the private sector is factually not true. Not suggesting that all aid should be funnelled through government bureaucracy, but were we to abandon the social safety nets, if we were to forgo public assistance, private giving and community outreach would not make up the gap. That has been proven time and time again.

[Ace Nova]

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

I don't mean to sound offensive or condescending Adrift, but please read up on what America was like between 1870 and 1939.

If private charity could actually replace government subsidies, it would have occurred in the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s. But it didn't. In fact, it came no where close to doing what was necessary. Poverty rates were far greater prior to the introduction of social safety nets than they are today.

Modern day analysis prove this to be true as well. Read this article that does a pretty bang up job explaining the discrepancy between fantasy and reality when it comes to private versus public charity.

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

No, he doesn't. Downzy is as liberal (borderline socialist) as it gets.

I believe that people should take care of people. But this notion that it can all be left up to the private sector is factually not true. Not suggesting that all aid should be funnelled through government bureaucracy, but were we to abandon the social safety nets, if we were to forgo public assistance, private giving and community outreach would not make up the gap. That has been proven time and time again.

I don't necessarily disagree with you... as a matter of fact, I think that Social Security is necessary on so many different levels that it's not even debatable. Anyone that thinks otherwise is naive.

That being said, you are totally a liberal.....

[AdriftatSea]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Another edit: Yes, social security is necessary. I'm not speaking of SS. I'm speaking of unemployment benefits that go on for 99 weeks. What is that about? People that go 99 weeks without getting a job are not going to get a job!

Edited November 14, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[downzy]

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

I don't mean to sound offensive or condescending Adrift, but please read up on what America was like between 1870 and 1939.

If private charity could actually replace government subsidies, it would have occurred in the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s. But it didn't. In fact, it came no where close to doing what was necessary. Poverty rates were far greater prior to the introduction of social safety nets than they are today.

Modern day analysis prove this to be true as well. Read this article that does a pretty bang up job explaining the discrepancy between fantasy and reality when it comes to private versus public charity.

You don't believe people should take care of people? You believe in welfare lines and such? You don't think community can take care of people? That's what you mean by 'social welfare' and the scary part? Social welfare isn't doing such a bang up job in my opinion what with all the homeless people. Leave it to the private sector and we can get all these people off the streets. Stop taxing the crap out of the middle class and let us have our money and we can take care of the people on the streets if the govt would stop taking 1/3 of our paycheck. The govt damn sure isn't taking care of the people that need help. Social Welfare Programs are a JOKE! It may as well be 1945 as far as the down trodden and hopeless in this country are concerned. Just ask any one of them.

No, he doesn't. Downzy is as liberal (borderline socialist) as it gets.

I believe that people should take care of people. But this notion that it can all be left up to the private sector is factually not true. Not suggesting that all aid should be funnelled through government bureaucracy, but were we to abandon the social safety nets, if we were to forgo public assistance, private giving and community outreach would not make up the gap. That has been proven time and time again.

I don't necessarily disagree with you... as a matter of fact, I think that Social Security is necessary on so many different levels that it's not even debatable. Anyone that thinks otherwise is naive.

That being said, you are totally a liberal.....

Well, you've got me there. Especially relative to American politics, you're right, I would be considered socialist. But compared to the rest of the world, I'd say I'm a moderate liberal to moderate conservative (again, relative to where in the world we're talking about).

[Ace Nova]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

[downzy]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

[AdriftatSea]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best? Do you think the studies you've posted are true and factual? How do you know?

Edited November 14, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Ace Nova]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best?

Exactly....look at all the homeless people we have. If people were as "generous" as you perceive them to be, then why do we have homeless people?