Public Assistance Programs

[FreakyLocz14]

You speak as though the first amendment allows any action by the church. It doesn't. If, let's say, a particular religious belief allowed for the keeping of slaves, should they be permitted to do so under the first amendment? No, because the keeping of slaves is unconstitutional. If a particular religious belief allows for a man to marry as many wives as he wants, should he be permitted to do so under the first amendment? No, because polygamy is illegal. What about a religion that allows human sacrifice?

The fist amendment does not grant a church the absolute right to practice their beliefs. There are limits, and rightly so.

Also, I should point out to you that anti-discrimination laws have been upheld repeatedly by the courts as constitutional. Your claim that they aren't constitutional is incorrect.

Your analogies are flawed. Slavery and murder are criminal actions. In most cases, a church proclaiming their disapproval of homosexuality, on the other hand, is protected by the constitution. While there are limits to that, it is also true that anti-discrimination laws are also not unlimited in their scope.

 

[Dakotah]

Your analogies are flawed. Slavery and murder are criminal actions. In most cases, a church proclaiming their disapproval of homosexuality, on the other hand, is protected by the constitution. While there are limits to that, it is also true that anti-discrimination laws are also not unlimited in their scope.

You stated, and I quote:

The Church cannot be prevented from practicing its religious beliefs.

All I did was provide you with several examples where a religious organization could be prevented from practicing its beliefs. I made no analogy.

With regards to the anti-discrimination laws, while it's true the law does carve out religious exemptions for churches, it does NOT carve out exemptions for any organization (religious or not) that receives public funding. The Catholic adoption agencies were organizations taking in public funding and as such were prohibited from violating legally enacted laws. Where anti-discrimination laws have prevented organizations run by religious institutions from discriminating against a minority group, the courts have repeatedly upheld those laws as constitutional. I'm sorry if you disagree, but these organizations are NOT the church. They are separate entities that happen to be run by the church that receive public funding, and as such are subject to the laws a set out by the government. There is a clear legal distinction here between the church and an organization that it runs. The two are not the same. One is exempt from anti-discrimination laws, the other is not.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You stated, and I quote:



All I did was provide you with several examples where a religious organization could be prevented from practicing its beliefs. I made no analogy.

With regards to the anti-discrimination laws, while it's true the law does carve out religious exemptions for churches, it does NOT carve out exemptions for any organization (religious or not) that receives public funding. The Catholic adoption agencies were organizations taking in public funding and as such were prohibited from violating legally enacted laws. Where anti-discrimination laws have prevented organizations run by religious institutions from discriminating against a minority group, the courts have repeatedly upheld those laws as constitutional. I'm sorry if you disagree, but these organizations are NOT the church. They are separate entities that happen to be run by the church that receive public funding, and as such are subject to the laws a set out by the government. There is a clear legal distinction here between the church and an organization that it runs. The two are not the same. One is exempt from anti-discrimination laws, the other is not.

I'm not familiar with Illinois case law, so I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not sure about here in California. I'm assuming that they currently don't have to act against their religious beliefs, since they still have operations in the state.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue since the law seems to vary from state to state.

 

[Oryx]

Freaky it's a little disappointing to see that your political side comes before your LGBT support. :/

As far as welfare, there are definitely limits that they can impose. I know a woman who has 3 kids and is pregnant with her 4th. She was sick when she was a teenager so the government started giving her money so she could live on her own. Now she's not sick anymore, but the government keeps giving her money for some reason. It's insane. Meanwhile I've been on welfare myself and I really needed it then, so I wouldn't say to abolish it entirely. It's easy if you're middle-class to say "let's abolish welfare, the government shouldn't give money to the people" but then you're showing your ignorance of the life of someone that actually needs it. My family went to charities. We went to a lot of charities. Food banks gave us pasta and rice and tomato sauce and sometimes paid our bills. But despite ALL the places we went, it wasn't enough when my mom was unemployed. Between going to all the places which was nearly a job in itself (the food banks were on certain days of the month and she was out every other day or so trying to get us food from them) and trying to find a job herself, she was struggling to pay the bills that the private charities wouldn't pay for whatever reason. That was where her unemployment kicked in and she was able to at least scrape by until she got a job. It's easy to speak from privilege without knowing what being really poor is actually like.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Freaky it's a little disappointing to see that your political side comes before your LGBT support. :/

As far as welfare, there are definitely limits that they can impose. I know a woman who has 3 kids and is pregnant with her 4th. She was sick when she was a teenager so the government started giving her money so she could live on her own. Now she's not sick anymore, but the government keeps giving her money for some reason. It's insane. Meanwhile I've been on welfare myself and I really needed it then, so I wouldn't say to abolish it entirely. It's easy if you're middle-class to say "let's abolish welfare, the government shouldn't give money to the people" but then you're showing your ignorance of the life of someone that actually needs it. My family went to charities. We went to a lot of charities. Food banks gave us pasta and rice and tomato sauce and sometimes paid our bills. But despite ALL the places we went, it wasn't enough when my mom was unemployed. Between going to all the places which was nearly a job in itself (the food banks were on certain days of the month and she was out every other day or so trying to get us food from them) and trying to find a job herself, she was struggling to pay the bills that the private charities wouldn't pay for whatever reason. That was where her unemployment kicked in and she was able to at least scrape by until she got a job. It's easy to speak from privilege without knowing what being really poor is actually like.

Food banks used to get much of their food from the government. Food stamps came along because the grocery stores wanted to make money off poor people. So I believe that we can tackle this issue with less government, not more government.

 

[Dakotah]

Food banks used to get much of their food from the government. Food stamps came along because the grocery stores wanted to make money off poor people. So I believe that we can tackle this issue with less government, not more government.

I know pretty much all of the food banks here rely heavily on donations for food. They are regulated by government to ensure the food that they do provide is safe for consumption (nothing given that is past its best by dates for example.) The only assistance from the government some of these food banks require, is funding to lease space in which to operate.

It would be great if food banks could be self sufficient and not require any help from the government. It would also be great if food banks didn't have to exist at all as people would be able to afford to eat. Sadly, reality is somewhat different. We do need food banks, and it costs money to operate these food banks. That money has to come from somewhere, and as we've seen, the private sector is not so generous as to ensure these places can exist. That, unfortunately, leaves it to the government to provide the necessary funding.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I know pretty much all of the food banks here rely heavily on donations for food. They are regulated by government to ensure the food that they do provide is safe for consumption (nothing given that is past its best by dates for example.) The only assistance from the government some of these food banks require, is funding to lease space in which to operate.

It would be great if food banks could be self sufficient and not require any help from the government. It would also be great if food banks didn't have to exist at all as people would be able to afford to eat. Sadly, reality is somewhat different. We do need food banks, and it costs money to operate these food banks. That money has to come from somewhere, and as we've seen, the private sector is not so generous as to ensure these places can exist. That, unfortunately, leaves it to the government to provide the necessary funding.

How it used to work is instead of farmers being paid to not grow food, the government would buy their surpluses at discounted rates and provide the food to food banks to distribute to the needy.

 

[Oryx]

How it used to work is instead of farmers being paid to not grow food, the government would buy their surpluses at discounted rates and provide the food to food banks to distribute to the needy.

Are you saying that's what you'd like it to be now? But how does "government buys food, gives food to people" fit into your original statement of "It is not the government's job to give people handouts"? Do you believe they're not "technically" government handouts because the government gave them to a private food bank first?

 

[Mr. X]

You know how much food that restaurants and fast food joints throw away at the end of the day? A lot. If they would donate that food, or give it away at the end of the day to the poor, then you'd put a nice big dent in the hunger rates in this country.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Are you saying that's what you'd like it to be now? But how does "government buys food, gives food to people" fit into your original statement of "It is not the government's job to give people handouts"? Do you believe they're not "technically" government handouts because the government gave them to a private food bank first?

The approach before cost a lot less because food was being purchased straight from the farmers instead or from a secondary source (grocery stores). Also, the prices were even lower since the food was surplus and thus sold and a lower price than the crops that were sold to supermarkets.

 

[Oryx]

The approach before cost a lot less because food was being purchased straight from the farmers instead or from a secondary source (grocery stores). Also, the prices were even lower since the food was surplus and thus sold and a lower price than the crops that were sold to supermarkets.

So your stance isn't that the government shouldn't give out handouts then? You didn't make any exceptions when you said that for cheaper handouts vs. more expensive handouts. I'm just confused on exactly what you're saying; is this like "ideally the government wouldn't have to give out anything, but they do have to to keep people from starving so they should give it out this way"?

 

[sims796]

So your stance isn't that the government shouldn't give out handouts then? You didn't make any exceptions when you said that for cheaper handouts vs. more expensive handouts. I'm just confused on exactly what you're saying; is this like "ideally the government wouldn't have to give out anything, but they do have to to keep people from starving so they should give it out this way"?

This is actually how I'm reading your posts as well, Freaky. It's a tad confusing.

As for my views, I agree with the british lad who posted earlier. Welfare should be used when needed. My family once found it as a necessity. The second we were back on our feet, we ended it, even returning the extra money when they were hellbent on giving it to us (Welfarre needs to get it's act together). As to the OP, it's annoying. But you have no idea whether or not that person was disabled in any way. They say it right on the bus; just because you cannot see the injury, doesn't mean they are healthy. Still sucks, though.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The ideal situation is to get the government out of public assistance, but contemporary political culture wouldn't allow that to happen. We should still aim for the most cost-effective way to approach the issue, and not demonize the idea of private charities being a part of that effort.

 

[sims796]

The ideal situation is to get the government out of public assistance, but contemporary political culture wouldn't allow that to happen. We should still aim for the most cost-effective way to approach the issue, and not demonize the idea of private charities being a part of that effort.

But is that the most practical? I'm not arguing with you whether or not government programs are good. that's a tomato tomaato issue.

But unless you're saying 'screw people who needs the assistance, let them fend for themselves' (which doesn't seem to be the case), then what would be the most effective way to handle this without the government?

I've got no problems with alternative means, unless they are practical. Jay's post are a pretty clear way of why private charities aren't the most reliable (though very helpful), and even then, they still rely on the government one way or another.

 

[Dakotah]

The ideal situation is to get the government out of public assistance, but contemporary political culture wouldn't allow that to happen. We should still aim for the most cost-effective way to approach the issue, and not demonize the idea of private charities being a part of that effort.

The problem is, unless there is profit involved, private companies have little to no incentive to run these programs. Most charities are run as non-profit organizations, which rely on a mix of government funding and private donations. During rough economic times, the amount of government funding these organizations rely on is greater than when the economy is doing well. This is primarily because during an economic downturn there is a significant drop in private donations. Also, during this downturn, these same charities also face a dramatic increase in clientele, which really stretches the budget even further.

I know you are personally adverse to government programs, but the reality of it is they are necessary. So while I agree with you that ideally we should look for the most cost effective means to provide these services, depending on the state of the economy, that may not always be possible.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The problem is, unless there is profit involved, private companies have little to no incentive to run these programs. Most charities are run as non-profit organizations, which rely on a mix of government funding and private donations. During rough economic times, the amount of government funding these organizations rely on is greater than when the economy is doing well. This is primarily because during an economic downturn there is a significant drop in private donations. Also, during this downturn, these same charities also face a dramatic increase in clientele, which really stretches the budget even further.

I know you are personally adverse to government programs, but the reality of it is they are necessary. So while I agree with you that ideally we should look for the most cost effective means to provide these services, depending on the state of the economy, that may not always be possible.

I find it funny that the needy have trouble getting shelter, healthcare, food, etc., but criminals have all of that provided to them. Something isn't right there. We should take away free healthcare for prisoners and make them work for their food and shelter. Criminals who have lots of money (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) should have to pay for the cost of their incarceration.

 

[Dakotah]

I find it funny that the needy have trouble getting shelter, healthcare, food, etc., but criminals have all of that provided to them. Something isn't right there. We should take away free healthcare for prisoners and make them work for their food and shelter. Criminals who have lots of money (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) should have to pay for the cost of their incarceration.

See, this is where ideology doesn't work in realty. Your idea may have merit on paper, but the law won't allow it. The government is mandated by law to ensure that each prisoner in the justice system is treated fairly and humanely. That means food, health care, etc must be given to each prisoner while they are incarcerated. And you would have almost next to no support, except by extremists, to do away with such laws, especially since if the U.S. were to make such a move, it could result in the international community issuing sanctions against the U.S. for human rights abuses. If you think the economy is bad now, imagine what would happen if such sanctions were to be imposed. And don't think it couldn't happen. It can, and it does.

We do not need to return to the days where our prisons are nothing more than over-sized concentration camps, where abuses were routinely committed by prison officials, and where food and health care was denied the prisoners.

I may not like the fact that some people take it upon themselves to break the law, but if they do, I as a human being demanded they be treated as human beings. Because the moment we treat them any way less than human, we become no better.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

See, this is where ideology doesn't work in realty. Your idea may have merit on paper, but the law won't allow it. The government is mandated by law to ensure that each prisoner in the justice system is treated fairly and humanely. That means food, health care, etc must be given to each prisoner while they are incarcerated. And you would have almost next to no support, except by extremists, to do away with such laws, especially since if the U.S. were to make such a move, it could result in the international community issuing sanctions against the U.S. for human rights abuses. If you think the economy is bad now, imagine what would happen if such sanctions were to be imposed. And don't think it couldn't happen. It can, and it does.

We do not need to return to the days where our prisons are nothing more than over-sized concentration camps, where abuses were routinely committed by prison officials, and where food and health care was denied the prisoners.

I may not like the fact that some people take it upon themselves to break the law, but if they do, I as a human being demanded they be treated as human beings. Because the moment we treat them any way less than human, we become no better.

I believe the Constitution does give us the authority to do what I am proposing.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Kura]

I find it funny that the needy have trouble getting shelter, healthcare, food, etc., but criminals have all of that provided to them. Something isn't right there. We should take away free healthcare for prisoners and make them work for their food and shelter. Criminals who have lots of money (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) should have to pay for the cost of their incarceration.

I agree. I couldn't care less about criminals and those who have committed heinous actions. Maybe I sound cruel for saying this, but for the ones who are sentenced to life or more for murder or worse, well I rather we actually do ship them off to some jungle or something where they'd have to fend for themselves and learn the proper meaning of life and death.

People are having kids without thinking, though sometimes I wonder about like.. some crazy future where mothers were only allowed to have children on a basis. It's not that unconceivable, but at the same time it doesn't really work that well. Think of China and the 1-child restriction, for example. It's in place but people still have kids. But.. Imagine if mothers were required to abort their children if they weren't up to financial standards? Sure as heck that would be crazy, but at the same.. in some cold weird alternate future, and laying human right laws aside for a minute, it actually makes sense. They're not bettering the future of our race, they'd be holding it back. In nature, there would be natural selection. The dumb ones or the ones that were unwilling to make an active effort would just die off. Our people would grow and develop because we would wean off the weak. Now we don't have that because everyone is protected, and in turn, everyone suffers. Instead the people who are outcasted in society are those like gay couples who can't even adopt a child without judgement. It's pretty ridiculous.

Anyways I think I just watch too much Dr. Who and think of possible crazy alternate futures for the planet.. hahaha. I sound pretty mad.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I agree. I couldn't care less about criminals and those who have committed heinous actions. Maybe I sound cruel for saying this, but for the ones who are sentenced to life or more for murder or worse, well I rather we actually do ship them off to some jungle or something where they'd have to fend for themselves and learn the proper meaning of life and death.

People are having kids without thinking, though sometimes I wonder about like.. some crazy future where mothers were only allowed to have children on a basis. It's not that unconceivable, but at the same time it doesn't really work that well. Think of China and the 1-child restriction, for example. It's in place but people still have kids. But.. Imagine if mothers were required to abort their children if they weren't up to financial standards? Sure as heck that would be crazy, but at the same.. in some cold weird alternate future, and laying human right laws aside for a minute, it actually makes sense. They're not bettering the future of our race, they'd be holding it back. In nature, there would be natural selection. The dumb ones or the ones that were unwilling to make an active effort would just die off. Our people would grow and develop because we would wean off the weak. Now we don't have that because everyone is protected, and in turn, everyone suffers. Instead the people who are outcasted in society are those like gay couples who can't even adopt a child without judgement. It's pretty ridiculous.

Anyways I think I just watch too much Dr. Who and think of possible crazy alternate futures for the planet.. hahaha. I sound pretty mad.

The state prison system here in California is so expensive to operate and maintain, that it is in receivership by the federal government. Our state is literally bankrupt.

If liberals who preach that these social programs are necessary to help the poor are sincere, we can save major money for those programs by making criminals fend for themselves.