Or maybe if you end welfare entirely you will find those babies on the street dead of starvation or exposure since now that cant be supported after birth or aborted prior to it.
Maybe. A more logical view would probably be that charity and such would carry children while giving the deadbeat parents a nice dose of get your *** together. Americans won't let children starve in africa what makes you think they'll just sit around and watch it happen here?
Not sure why your saying they can't be aborted no where in any of my posts did I say abortion should be illegal. I will say tax payers should in no way every pay for it.
Kids aren't starving in Africa anymore? When did that happen?
I get the point you were making, but there are kids starving in Africa AND in N. America right now as we discuss this.
Is there ANY place or time in history where you can show that charity in the manner you described has worked? Seriously. I can't think of ANY, but I may be wrong so please if anyone knows of such an place and period of time please enlighten us.
I should add here that I agree 100% with your last statement. Tax payers never got her pregnant, they shouldn't be on the hook for the cost of an abortion either. If charity were to pay for an abortion, would that save taxpayers untold amounts in the future? Not saying I advocate this, but it is something to consider. There's charity and then there is charity. Or maybe this is a case where charity really should begin at home, for the benefit of all later on?
I would have no problem with a charity providing that service, I wouldn't donate to it but that's the difference between charity and tax. I can choose what charity I want to support, or not support. With tax I give to the charities someone else deems or I go to jail.
Or maybe if you end welfare entirely you will find those babies on the street dead of starvation or exposure since now that cant be supported after birth or aborted prior to it.
Maybe. A more logical view would probably be that charity and such would carry children while giving the deadbeat parents a nice dose of get your *** together. Americans won't let children starve in africa what makes you think they'll just sit around and watch it happen here?
Not sure why your saying they can't be aborted no where in any of my posts did I say abortion should be illegal. I will say tax payers should in no way every pay for it.
Kids aren't starving in Africa anymore? When did that happen?
I get the point you were making, but there are kids starving in Africa AND in N. America right now as we discuss this.
Is there ANY place or time in history where you can show that charity in the manner you described has worked? Seriously. I can't think of ANY, but I may be wrong so please if anyone knows of such an place and period of time please enlighten us.
I should add here that I agree 100% with your last statement. Tax payers never got her pregnant, they shouldn't be on the hook for the cost of an abortion either. If charity were to pay for an abortion, would that save taxpayers untold amounts in the future? Not saying I advocate this, but it is something to consider. There's charity and then there is charity. Or maybe this is a case where charity really should begin at home, for the benefit of all later on?
Actually I can tell of an exact case where the government wouldn't pay for something, and private citizens stepped in and picked up the slack. (Sometimes being a history nerd pays off for me! lol)
In 1887 Texas farmers were suffering through one of the worst droughts in history when Congress passed a bill to give money to these farmers to help them through an impossible growing season. However at the time we had President Grover Cleveland in office and he wasn't going to have this. Part of his response to congress was:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by the bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard, the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
And people had the nerve to b*tch about Bush's response to Katrina! lol
But in the end, President Cleveland was exactly right. After he shot down this appropriation of funds, private citizens donated money in droves to the struggling Texas farmers. In the end charitable donations to the farmers equaled 10 times the amount vetoed by President Cleveland. It was a great example of people coming together to take care of each other instead of relying on the government.
Or maybe if you end welfare entirely you will find those babies on the street dead of starvation or exposure since now that cant be supported after birth or aborted prior to it.
Maybe. A more logical view would probably be that charity and such would carry children while giving the deadbeat parents a nice dose of get your *** together. Americans won't let children starve in africa what makes you think they'll just sit around and watch it happen here?
Not sure why your saying they can't be aborted no where in any of my posts did I say abortion should be illegal. I will say tax payers should in no way every pay for it.
Kids aren't starving in Africa anymore? When did that happen?
I get the point you were making, but there are kids starving in Africa AND in N. America right now as we discuss this.
Is there ANY place or time in history where you can show that charity in the manner you described has worked? Seriously. I can't think of ANY, but I may be wrong so please if anyone knows of such an place and period of time please enlighten us.
I should add here that I agree 100% with your last statement. Tax payers never got her pregnant, they shouldn't be on the hook for the cost of an abortion either. If charity were to pay for an abortion, would that save taxpayers untold amounts in the future? Not saying I advocate this, but it is something to consider. There's charity and then there is charity. Or maybe this is a case where charity really should begin at home, for the benefit of all later on?
Actually I can tell of an exact case where the government wouldn't pay for something, and private citizens stepped in and picked up the slack. (Sometimes being a history nerd pays off for me! lol)
In 1887 Texas farmers were suffering through one of the worst droughts in history when Congress passed a bill to give money to these farmers to help them through an impossible growing season. However at the time we had President Grover Cleveland in office and he wasn't going to have this. Part of his response to congress was:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by the bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard, the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
And people had the nerve to b*tch about Bush's response to Katrina! lol
But in the end, President Cleveland was exactly right. After he shot down this appropriation of funds, private citizens donated money in droves to the struggling Texas farmers. In the end charitable donations to the farmers equaled 10 times the amount vetoed by President Cleveland. It was a great example of people coming together to take care of each other instead of relying on the government.
While I agree this is an example of charity coming through for people where govt. would not, I was asking about a system or society where such events happen as an everyday event and is looked upon as normal. Not an isolated incident as in this case. Sorry for the confusion Puro.
Or maybe if you end welfare entirely you will find those babies on the street dead of starvation or exposure since now that cant be supported after birth or aborted prior to it.
Maybe. A more logical view would probably be that charity and such would carry children while giving the deadbeat parents a nice dose of get your *** together. Americans won't let children starve in africa what makes you think they'll just sit around and watch it happen here?
Not sure why your saying they can't be aborted no where in any of my posts did I say abortion should be illegal. I will say tax payers should in no way every pay for it.
Kids aren't starving in Africa anymore? When did that happen?
I get the point you were making, but there are kids starving in Africa AND in N. America right now as we discuss this.
Is there ANY place or time in history where you can show that charity in the manner you described has worked? Seriously. I can't think of ANY, but I may be wrong so please if anyone knows of such an place and period of time please enlighten us.
I should add here that I agree 100% with your last statement. Tax payers never got her pregnant, they shouldn't be on the hook for the cost of an abortion either. If charity were to pay for an abortion, would that save taxpayers untold amounts in the future? Not saying I advocate this, but it is something to consider. There's charity and then there is charity. Or maybe this is a case where charity really should begin at home, for the benefit of all later on?
Actually I can tell of an exact case where the government wouldn't pay for something, and private citizens stepped in and picked up the slack. (Sometimes being a history nerd pays off for me! lol)
In 1887 Texas farmers were suffering through one of the worst droughts in history when Congress passed a bill to give money to these farmers to help them through an impossible growing season. However at the time we had President Grover Cleveland in office and he wasn't going to have this. Part of his response to congress was:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by the bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard, the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
And people had the nerve to b*tch about Bush's response to Katrina! lol
But in the end, President Cleveland was exactly right. After he shot down this appropriation of funds, private citizens donated money in droves to the struggling Texas farmers. In the end charitable donations to the farmers equaled 10 times the amount vetoed by President Cleveland. It was a great example of people coming together to take care of each other instead of relying on the government.
While I agree this is an example of charity coming through for people where govt. would not, I was asking about a system or society where such events happen as an everyday event and is looked upon as normal. Not an isolated incident as in this case. Sorry for the confusion Puro.
Well this is actually just one example, but in the mid-late 1800's this was very common because they didn't have a government to rely on for everything. The American people had a sense of brotherhood that bonded us as a nation. The more the government has started "taking care" of people the less the people stood up for each other. The entitlement mentality damaged the spirit of charity and brotherhood.
That was kinda my whole point. I think a lot of that change is due to increasing reliance on government rather than our fellow citizens. People don't give, whether it be time, labor or money, like they did before because they know the government will take the money and "help" as the government sees fit. Another problem with that is the government does so many unnecessary things that the money doesn't go near as far as it would if it was given voluntarily.
That was kinda my whole point. I think a lot of that change is due to increasing reliance on government rather than our fellow citizens. People don't give, whether it be time, labor or money, like they did before because they know the government will take the money and "help" as the government sees fit. Another problem with that is the government does so many unnecessary things that the money doesn't go near as far as it would if it was given voluntarily.
So I'm guessing that there are no real examples of this situation.
I just don't buy the arguement that because the Govt. is willing to come forward to help people in need (sometimes) that this would cause people who would otherwise help to stand back and choose not to.
In my experience people who will help are always ready to help regardless of the level of assistance being offered. These types of people jump right in there and help, they don't wait until they assess a situation to see if someone else is going to do it and then decide to pitch in. They get in there.
That was kinda my whole point. I think a lot of that change is due to increasing reliance on government rather than our fellow citizens. People don't give, whether it be time, labor or money, like they did before because they know the government will take the money and "help" as the government sees fit. Another problem with that is the government does so many unnecessary things that the money doesn't go near as far as it would if it was given voluntarily.
So I'm guessing that there are no real examples of this situation.
I just don't buy the arguement that because the Govt. is willing to come forward to help people in need (sometimes) that this would cause people who would otherwise help to stand back and choose not to.
In my experience people who will help are always ready to help regardless of the level of assistance being offered. These types of people jump right in there and help, they don't wait until they assess a situation to see if someone else is going to do it and then decide to pitch in. They get in there.
I just showed you a real example, however you chose to ignore it. You can deny it all you want but the evidence is very clear if you look at history. And yes, many people do still pitch in and help, but that used to be something everyone did... Not anymore. I'm also not saying this is entirely because of government involvement and intrusion, I am simply saying that it is one factor that has contributed.
Its because we are less of a connected society with less care for community----it has nothing to do with government reliance....and if it does, it is no bigger a factor than the decline of the traditional american family, religion, or any other factor that may somehow be related to good natured giving. People dont give anymore because we are more materialistic, self centered, and disconnected for any number of reasons from greed, the desturction of the middle class, to simple me-me--me syndrome (see Paris Hilton types). The conclusion you are drawing is like saying that ice cream consumption contributes to kids drowning----just because they both happen in the summer. One does not have any effect on the other, and any effect it may have on some is not statistically significant.
Comments
In 1887 Texas farmers were suffering through one of the worst droughts in history when Congress passed a bill to give money to these farmers to help them through an impossible growing season. However at the time we had President Grover Cleveland in office and he wasn't going to have this. Part of his response to congress was:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by the bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard, the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
And people had the nerve to b*tch about Bush's response to Katrina! lol
But in the end, President Cleveland was exactly right. After he shot down this appropriation of funds, private citizens donated money in droves to the struggling Texas farmers. In the end charitable donations to the farmers equaled 10 times the amount vetoed by President Cleveland. It was a great example of people coming together to take care of each other instead of relying on the government.
I just don't buy the arguement that because the Govt. is willing to come forward to help people in need (sometimes) that this would cause people who would otherwise help to stand back and choose not to.
In my experience people who will help are always ready to help regardless of the level of assistance being offered. These types of people jump right in there and help, they don't wait until they assess a situation to see if someone else is going to do it and then decide to pitch in. They get in there.