[Athens]

The average annual family income is $4,000 lower than it was in 2008.

Again blame greedy American businesses, they are paying less and less to maximize profits. Consolidation of business through purchases, take overs and bankruptcies has produced less market capacity, less choice for consumer and worker and that has driven down wages.

Poor Federal legislation has caused market uncertainty across the board. So much for the oversight authority of the Federal agencies we pay to enforce anti-trust. Not unlike the NHTSA waiting through 8 years of reports of Toyota's careening off the highway before action or the SEC asleep at the wheel during market meltdown, or the MMS in their wink-nod relationship with BP, or the FHA through housing crash, or... any other expensive bureacracy pedaled to the masses to address this travesty or that -- an apparent waste of money and only makes the ones willing to pay by the rules less apt to want to conduct business here.

I will partially agree with you on this. But the root of the problem, the part I think you and I will disagree on is corporate influence and ownership of government which uses government to help protect the corporations position by preventing competition.

[Athens]

The nightmare of socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is. Those TV ads you see about how bad it is, all garbage and lies. Ask some one who lives with "socialized" medicine for real opinions on it and what is preferred.

Ask a child who regularly receives free chocolate bars from their teacher what they think of their teacher. Otherwise, health care remains at the top of the list of voting concerns in Canada just as it does in the US. The Canadian Health Care system is not solvent and the incessant whining of your provinces for more money to keep up with increasing health care costs isn't fixing anything. It's hardly a revelation that people would come to love free sh!t.

Right and wrong. The biggest concern in British Columbia in regards to health care is the Americanization of the health care with private for profit clinics. The second major concern is rural access to timely care vs urban access. As long as you have communities scatted thousands of km apart with 100-300 people to small to have full care facilities in remote places you are going to have issues with delivery of care of those people. And some places its just growing pains resulting in situations. Education is also a major concern during elections. Health Care and Education will always be the 2 major concerns in every election here because its the 2 biggest pies of the budget. Still does not validate the lies, half truths and misconceptions Americans have of our health care or the UK's health care. For the record I am not a supporter of Obama care and think it will bankrupt the country. But my statement stands Americans in general don't have a clue about socialized health care because whats played on TV is biased full of lies or half truths with a agenda behind it to scare Americans away from it. Ebuddy you are a exception I think you are actually knowledgeable enough about it. The question is are you going to be honest about it or not.

Both systems on the surface have the exact same problems and a lot of those problems are related to PEOPLE and has nothing to do with it being private or public. There are absolute advantages to the UK system which is totally government run. The Canadian system which is partially government run most private business run with government insurance and some advantages to the US system if you are wealthy enough to take advantage of those advantages.

But its NOT a nightmare as the original poster claimed and to what I was responding to.

[Athens]

That started with Bush

Greece didn't start with Bush. Greece's financial disarray is not Bush's fault. You've been watching too many TV ads where virtually all the worlds ills can somehow be attributed back through Bush.

I thought he was talking about the US economy and comparing the US economy with Greece, but actually referring to Greece itself.

You dont know what liberty is. The World does not Want the US of A meddling in anywhere else. Seriously this is not a bad point this is a good point. Your kind is not wanted.

Your "kind"? That's an odd way to put it unless you're quoting from Star Wars. Is he the same "kind" as Netanyahu? I'll remember the world's distaste for US meddling when we're being accused of criminal negligence for not amassing our wealth of resources to address the human rights abuses and atrocities in this country or that.

Your Kind as in gun swingers that go in shooting first thinking later. Probably was not the best way I could have put it. As for the being accused of criminal negligence, are you referring to American citizens bitching about not doing anything or other political leaders. Because I do remember any of that internationally at any time. I do remember that Nato had to go into Bosnia because of the failings of the UN. The bigger problem is the failures of the UN, a system that as a world deals with issues. The problem with US intervention is that US intervention is only when it is beneficial to the US. The US ignores situations that have no economic or political gain and interferes when it does and usually the interference under the guise of good will is more to secure benefits to US corporations and economic activity. Usually not at the best interest of the local people either. US run organizations like the IMF assist in this as well. Example infrastructure money for water but the water system has to be privatized as a condition of the assistance. Beneficiary Global corporations. Losers, the users of that water. Corruption, local governments at the hands of the IMF outlawing the collection of rain water as a illegal act because citizens MUST pay for water.

How about installing leaders and funding militaries during the cold wars to prevent communism. Creating a slew of problems later. The current Iran, Saddam, Afghanistan are all problems created by the Americans and Russians during the cold war power struggles.

Global poverty is up and a lot of it has to do with the US or US agencies. The US and many global multinational companies, yes this includes Canadian companies as well benefit from the weakened depressed conditions around the world. When any leader stands up to the US to try and be independent its funny how they end up dead.

US Liberty means what ever is best for American business, American people and the people of the world be damned.

[Athens]

Benyamin Netanyahu is a idiot, should be arrested for stupidity. If I was the president I wouldn't bother with him either.

Considering all of the dignitaries a President is responsible for visiting with, what is so idiotic about Netanyahu that Obama should not meet with him?

I dunno lets start with negotiating with terrorists, trading captives for the lives of captured solders. This creates a dangerous pattern that leads to more violence.

War crimes under his leadership would be another.

[ironknee]

Hey Chongo,

Are you 100% German?

Because if not Hitler would not have accept you as part of the fascist movement (ie, right wing extremists)... Sorry to burst your bubble

President Obama is part black...again get over it

Why ru so angry about that?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Hey Chongo,
Are you 100% German?
Because if not Hitler would not have accept you as part of the fascist movement (ie, right wing extremists)... Sorry to burst your bubble
President Obama is part black...again get over it
Why ru so angry about that?

Hitler was a socialist. and an occultist.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hitler was a socialist. and an occultist.

So was Jesus.

[Wiskedjak]

What is the story of splitting the fish and the bread to feed the multitude about, if not redistribution of wealth?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What is the story of splitting the fish and the bread to feed the multitude about, if not redistribution of wealth?

You're kidding right? A. It was about a miracle for those believing it impossible to feed this number of people and B. there was no taking from one to give to the other. Why? Because that's not giving out of a loving heart, that's being taken from regrettably to distribute on any number of things having nothing to do with caring for "the least of us".

[Chongo]

Jesus also said

22 On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
23 However, boats from Tiber'i-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caper'na-um, seeking Jesus.
25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So was Jesus.

Is Jesus also a mysoginist and a homophobe since he chose no women for the 12, and said marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

[3]And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
[4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
[5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
[7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
[8] He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What is the story of splitting the fish and the bread to feed the multitude about, if not redistribution of wealth?

No one really knows.

The specific numbers of baskets, fish, bread, and people in the crowd seem to have symbolic meanings, but what those numbers refer to has been lost. For instance, the "two fish" might be a reference to the Two Great Commandments, and "twelve baskets" might be a reference to either the Twelve Tribes or the Twelve disciples, but that could also be coincidence, and besides, the other numbers have no easy symbolic correspondence. Add the problem that there are two different tales of miraculous feedings with different numbers, and the problem becomes unsolvable.

Most of the symbolic meanings of miracles in the NT have easy solutions, but the feedings remain bafflingly obscure.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is Jesus also a mysoginist and a homophobe since he chose no women for the 12, and said marrige is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Which only serves to prove that many of his followers pick and choose which of his teachings they pay attention to, as in the case of this thread. Socialism is somehow absolutely evil, even though it's more in line with the teachings of Christ than Capitalism

[Chongo]

The Church condems socialism as well as laissez faire capitalism. (Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and following encyclicals)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Church condems socialism as well as laissez faire capitalism. (Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and following encyclicals)

I guess they must enjoy ignoring the parts of the bible where Jesus was into caring for the poor.

[subego]

It doesn't strike me he felt that was a government function.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It doesn't strike me he felt that was a government function.

It didn't strike me that capitalism even existed back then. The whole argument of "what would Jesus do" is ridiculous when used both ways, I'm just turning the tables on what Chongo said.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hitler was a socialist. and an occultist.

the dumbing down of america

hitler was a fascist dummy

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess they must enjoy ignoring the parts of the bible where Jesus was into caring for the poor.

Whoa, whoa there. You can care for the poor, and I do, without pumping money into a shitty, inefficient government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Whoa, whoa there. You can care for the poor, and I do, without pumping money into a shitty, inefficient government.

There is a private sector or not-for-profit welfare, Medicare, or local shelter in your area?

Yes you can care for the poor in a number of ways, but that wasn't my point. My point is that pointing to religious arguments as they pertain to modern capitalism is just silly.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a private sector or not-for-profit welfare, Medicare, or local shelter in your area? 

Yep, several. We do a lot of work with them, including one of the largest food/clothing banks in the country. A couple of privately funded free clinics too.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess they must enjoy ignoring the parts of the bible where Jesus was into caring for the poor.

If you really want to know what the Church's social doctrines are, read for yourself.

COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

the dumbing down of america
hitler was a fascist dummy

It was the National Socialist Party of Germany

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a private sector or not-for-profit welfare, Medicare, or local shelter in your area? 

Yes you can care for the poor in a number of ways, but that wasn't my point. My point is that pointing to religious arguments as they pertain to modern capitalism is just silly.

Catholic Charities was taking care of the poor long before the "Great Society." Many of the hospitals in the world are run by the Church. The first hospital in Phoenix was started by the Sisters of Mercy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, several. We do a lot of work with them, including one of the largest food/clothing banks in the country. A couple of privately funded free clinics too.

That's pretty cool!

You're lucky that you have these sorts of things in your area.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Catholic Charities was taking care of the poor long before the "Great Society." Many of the hospitals in the world are run by the Church. The first hospital in Phoenix was started by the Sisters of Mercy.

Your point?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It was the National Socialist Party of Germany

And, if you really think *that* means anything, I give you the German Democratic Republic. I guess democracy is evil too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's pretty cool!

You're lucky that you have these sorts of things in your area.

That's pretty funny. No luck at all. They're here, in part, because we've worked 1000s of hours and contributed ~$10M to them in the last three years. My wife Kim helps them full-time now, and Sarra and I assist part-time. The largest are Second Harvest and KARM, then there's Mission of Hope, VMC, the InterFaith clinic, and Rural Medical. No, there's no luck involved, this area has many people who look out for it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I guess democracy is evil too.

Can be, if the mob controls the direction.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's pretty funny. No luck at all. They're here, in part, because we've worked 1000s of hours and contributed ~$10M to them in the last three years. My wife Kim helps them full-time now, and Sarra and I assist part-time. The largest are Second Harvest and KARM, then there's Mission of Hope, VMC, the InterFaith clinic, and Rural Medical. No, there's no luck involved, this area has many people who look out for it.

Reception of compliment fail.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reception of compliment fail.

5578/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

Luck implies that services like that randomly happen, they don't. They require an endless amount of work and sacrifice, and lots and lots of funding.

In my heart, and I'm saying this with complete sincerity, I'd like to see everyone here put in 3-4 hours per day to improve and help your communities, maybe some spare cash too. If you already do, thank you. If you don't, would you try? It hurts my heart when I see someone homeless and helpless, or a hungry kid. I see a lost person and I can't drive by anymore (yeah, even if I'm in a super-expensive car, it's made for some funny pickups), I have to give them a lift or show them to one of the "safe places" in town, and make sure the rescue volunteers come and help them. They're in my home, they're my responsibility. If I don't, who will? If I can't love them, who can? It's an amazing feeling, and worth every second of your time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Luck implies that services like that randomly happen, they don't.

No. It implies Shaddims are randomly distributed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. It implies Shaddims are randomly distributed.

They aren't, people just have to decide to do it. If you don't have the resources, that's okay, find the people and companies who do and talk with them, pester them if you have to. I guess, ultimately, it isn't someone else's job, it's ours.

[subego]

Maybe so, but being incorrect on that point doesn't transform the statement into a dismissal of your effort.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe so, but being incorrect on that point doesn't transform the statement into a dismissal of your effort.

Then it would have been worded as them being lucky, not me. Such as, "they're lucky they have these sorts of things in your area" or "they're lucky they have neighbors who care". As much as besson corresponds, I imagine he's proficient at turning a phrase.

The whole point is, there's no luck in it at all. Helping others in need isn't the job of some distant federal officials, it's ours. Believing that if you just pay your taxes it will all get sorted out by someone thousands of miles away (who is likely more concerned with re-election, greenhouse gas, and the gender of your partner(s)) doesn't work. If we all stepped up and made this more of a priority, millions more people would be better off now than they were four years ago, and this country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes you can care for the poor in a number of ways, but that wasn't my point. My point is that pointing to religious arguments as they pertain to modern capitalism is just silly.

Who is doing this? I see people pointing to religious arguments as they pertain to modern welfare.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-10; 6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then it would have been worded as them being lucky, not me. Such as, "they're lucky they have these sorts of things in your area" or "they're lucky they have neighbors who care". As much as besson corresponds, I imagine he's proficient at turning a phrase.
The whole point is, there's no luck in it at all. Helping others in need isn't the job of some distant federal officials, it's ours. Believing that if you just pay your taxes it will all get sorted out by someone thousands of miles away (who is likely more concerned with re-election, greenhouse gas, and the gender of your partner(s)) doesn't work. If we all stepped up and made this more of a priority, millions more people would be better off now than they were four years ago, and this country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in now.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then it would have been worded as them being lucky, not me. Such as, "they're lucky they have these sorts of things in your area" or "they're lucky they have neighbors who care". As much as besson corresponds, I imagine he's proficient at turning a phrase.
The whole point is, there's no luck in it at all. Helping others in need isn't the job of some distant federal officials, it's ours. Believing that if you just pay your taxes it will all get sorted out by someone thousands of miles away (who is likely more concerned with re-election, greenhouse gas, and the gender of your partner(s)) doesn't work. If we all stepped up and made this more of a priority, millions more people would be better off now than they were four years ago, and this country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in now.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

Blessed John Paul the Great , 1988

That is the whole point of solidarity through subsidiarity. Those who are closest to the problem are the ones who can best deal with it. This why it is so sad that the Obama regime HHS mandate will force many charities to close their doors.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then it would have been worded as them being lucky, not me. Such as, "they're lucky they have these sorts of things in your area" or "they're lucky they have neighbors who care". As much as besson corresponds, I imagine he's proficient at turning a phrase.
The whole point is, there's no luck in it at all. Helping others in need isn't the job of some distant federal officials, it's ours. Believing that if you just pay your taxes it will all get sorted out by someone thousands of miles away (who is likely more concerned with re-election, greenhouse gas, and the gender of your partner(s)) doesn't work. If we all stepped up and made this more of a priority, millions more people would be better off now than they were four years ago, and this country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in now.

But the notion of the whole country stepping up and becoming charitable is wildly unrealistic. Our whole society is predicated around the notion that success = wealth, and wealth doesn't exist when you give it away. Obviously there are many people that do not abide by this formula, but on the whole people do.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who is doing this? I see people pointing to religious arguments as they pertain to modern welfare.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-10; 6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Today's 2nd reading
James 2 14-18

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then it would have been worded as them being lucky, not me. Such as, "they're lucky they have these sorts of things in your area" or "they're lucky they have neighbors who care".

Only if you're looking to grind your axe.

There's no difference between this and telling someone "I'm sorry" when you hear they're sick.

When someone does that you can take it as it was intended or harp on how it isn't a perfect semantic fit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's no difference between this and telling someone "I'm sorry" when you hear they're sick.

There's an assumption here that A. this happens as much as you think it does and B. it couldn't happen under another model.

Both are mistaken in my view. Before this became the responsibility of government, there were entities of private individuals called mutual aid societies that all would contribute to in part and receive a schedule of benefits. The ones who didn't work couldn't work and charity can more than cover those who are truly in need. It always had. The problem here is that charity not unlike welfare, should be used as an absolute last resort, not doled out in creating a greater dependency class. Worse, I don't think there's anything particularly compassionate about making a series of promises to the collective that you will have to ratchet back when the math doesn't work out. This is what you see around the world today with the increasingly necessary measures of austerity; a series of promises that cannot be kept because the math didn't work out.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Only if you're looking to grind your axe.
There's no difference between this and telling someone "I'm sorry" when you hear they're sick.
When someone does that you can take it as it was intended or harp on how it isn't a perfect semantic fit.

Not really. You're sharp, but you're reaching on this one. There was the typical MacNN dollop of snideness in the comment, as to say, "Yeah, yeah, that's great, but what about everyone else?" "Everyone else" is your responsibility, all of your neighbors are in your care, because you recognize the need. That's both the gift and curse of an active conscience. A passive conscience says, "I pay my pound of flesh to the powers that be, they'll fix this". Hey, the good news is, it's better than not having a conscience at all, the bad news is that while it may help you feel better about yourself, it's almost as effective as painting drywall with a pressure washer.

You can say, "not everyone will help", and that's true, but you can only speak or act for yourself, and if you do, then you're succeeding. Success breeds success and compassion infects others. Not all people need to feel that way or do something about it, just a few more. Then a few more after that. etc. etc.. I experienced it myself, I've stopped to look around and thought, "holy shit, where did these other people come from?"

Four of us started on a Habitat house 9 or 10 years ago, and we were working, and some others arrived, but I wasn't paying a lot of attention, I was in work mode. Half way through the day I look around and think, "where in the hell did these other people come from?" Well, some guys stopped by, they were in construction and out of work, but they saw the big sign and us out there, and they decided to jump in for a while. Then they called some buddies, and then other guys called some people. By mid-afternoon we had over 25 people on the site, working, laughing, having a great time. I didn't have nearly as much at the time, but they were working and deserved to be fed, so I ordered some pizzas and drinks. The restaurant manager threw in some extra pies, when he heard who it was for. Was a good thing too, because we ended up with more people. Some of them even knew what they were doing, and we ended up with a very talented foreman.

Then most came back the next day, and they brought people. The house was practically flying together. I'm not exactly sure how it happened, I don't remember, but one of the largest contractors in the area stopped by, with some of his folks, and we finished the bulk of the house in just 3 days, we were doing interior trim and paint on the 4th. The contractor guy ended up hiring some of the people who were out of work and found jobs for a lot of the others.

As for us, we keep working and giving, it feels great, and we end up with more than what we had before. It's weird how that works.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not really. You're sharp, but you're reaching on this one. There was the typical MacNN dollop of snideness in the comment, as to say, "Yeah, yeah, that's great, but what about everyone else?" "Everyone else" is your responsibility, all of your neighbors are in your care, because you recognize the need. That's both the gift and curse of an active conscience. A passive conscience says, "I pay my pound of flesh to the powers that be, they'll fix this". Hey, the good news is, it's better than not having a conscience at all, the bad news is that while it may help you feel better about yourself, it's almost as effective as painting drywall with a pressure washer.
You can say, "not everyone will help", and that's true, but you can only speak or act for yourself, and if you do, then you're succeeding. Success breeds success and compassion infects others. Not all people need to feel that way or do something about it, just a few more. Then a few more after that. etc. etc.. I experienced it myself, I've stopped to look around and thought, "holy shit, where did these other people come from?"
Four of us started on a Habitat house 9 or 10 years ago, and we were working, and some others arrived, but I wasn't paying a lot of attention, I was in work mode. Half way through the day I look around and think, "where in the hell did these other people come from?" Well, some guys stopped by, they were in construction and out of work, but they saw the big sign and us out there, and they decided to jump in for a while. Then they called some buddies, and then other guys called some people. By mid-afternoon we had over 25 people on the site, working, laughing, having a great time. I didn't have nearly as much at the time, but they were working and deserved to be fed, so I ordered some pizzas and drinks. The restaurant manager threw in some extra pies, when he heard who it was for. Was a good thing too, because we ended up with more people. Some of them even knew what they were doing, and we ended up with a very talented foreman.
Then most came back the next day, and they brought people. The house was practically flying together. I'm not exactly sure how it happened, I don't remember, but one of the largest contractors in the area stopped by, with some of his folks, and we finished the bulk of the house in just 3 days, we were doing interior trim and paint on the 4th. The contractor guy ended up hiring some of the people who were out of work and found jobs for a lot of the others.
As for us, we keep working and giving, it feels great, and we end up with more than what we had before. It's weird how that works.

That is in fact, a cool story.

besson has his faults, but I honestly believe calling it quits at his pound of flesh is not one of them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's an assumption here that A. this happens as much as you think it does and B. it couldn't happen under another model.
Both are mistaken in my view. Before this became the responsibility of government, there were entities of private individuals called mutual aid societies that all would contribute to in part and receive a schedule of benefits. The ones who didn't work couldn't work and charity can more than cover those who are truly in need. It always had. The problem here is that charity not unlike welfare, should be used as an absolute last resort, not doled out in creating a greater dependency class. Worse, I don't think there's anything particularly compassionate about making a series of promises to the collective that you will have to ratchet back when the math doesn't work out. This is what you see around the world today with the increasingly necessary measures of austerity; a series of promises that cannot be kept because the math didn't work out.

I don't really disagree with you, but I get the feeling you think we're disagreeing.

Which means there's something I'm missing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't really disagree with you, but I get the feeling you think we're disagreeing.
Which means there's something I'm missing.

Now I'm not sure. It seemed you were taking issue with Shaddim's response to besson on government aid vs altruism. Shaddim's statement is that increased government aid only enables people to forget that they should care for others, not wait on a bureaucracy to do it. I agreed with this and gave it a thumbs up.

I would've thought a general agreement with this sentiment would've looked something more like; "I agree" or a thumbsup or something. What did I miss?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now I'm not sure. It seemed you were taking issue with Shaddim's response to besson on government aid vs altruism. Shaddim's statement is that increased government aid only enables people to forget that they should care for others, not wait on a bureaucracy to do it. I agreed with this and gave it a thumbs up.
I would've thought a general agreement with this sentiment would've looked something more like; "I agree" or a thumbsup or something. What did I miss?

John 6:26

26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.

The crowds came looking for another handout.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

John 6:26
The crowds came looking for another handout.

Give it up. Tying the bible to modern day capitalism is just pointless, even if we all subscribed to the same religion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now I'm not sure. It seemed you were taking issue with Shaddim's response to besson on government aid vs altruism. Shaddim's statement is that increased government aid only enables people to forget that they should care for others, not wait on a bureaucracy to do it. I agreed with this and gave it a thumbs up.
I would've thought a general agreement with this sentiment would've looked something more like; "I agree" or a thumbsup or something. What did I miss?

I don't disagree on Shaddim's point (or yours) WRT government aid vs. altruism. What I'm disagreeing about is whether the statement "you're lucky you have that" was meant as a dismissal of effort.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It didn't strike me that capitalism even existed back then.

Sure it did.

Just because it wasn't codified yet doesn't mean it didn't exist.