Being Poor is NOT a Crime - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Ha. yeah right. By and large, people are selfish and greedy and are too involved in thier own lives to be troubled with helping others. Those with the luxury of the means and the time to help others seldom do. Some people do, yes, but most don't.

Ah yes, that explains the thousands of charities, the millions of dollars collected in churches for charity, the multiple run, walks, rides put together for charitable purposes, and the number of very wealthy philanthropists; all without any kind of government involvement.

Let's not be ridiculous. I don't know one single person that hasn't done something charitable of their own free will.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ah yes, that explains the thousands of charities, the millions of dollars collected in churches for charity, the multiple run, walks, rides put together for charitable purposes, and the number of very wealthy philanthropists; all without any kind of government involvement.

Let's not be ridiculous. I don't know one single person that hasn't done something charitable of their own free will.

People give if it's convenient for them. If they are walking by some kid with a jar and they happen to have some loose change or a dollar bill they might give it to them. I don't think that counts.

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

People give if it's convenient for them. If they are walking by some kid with a jar and they happen to have some loose change or a dollar bill they might give it to them. I don't think that counts.

Hardly what I was talking about. You know it happens far more than you let on.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hardly what I was talking about. You know it happens far more than you let on.

Of course it does. No where near enough, and if the government ceased all social programs, no one would pick up the slack.

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Of course it does. No where near enough, and if the government ceased all social programs, no one would pick up the slack.

I disagree with that. Bill Gates alone is doing more for malaria than the government is.

7960 · 11-02-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

People give if it's convenient for them. If they are walking by some kid with a jar and they happen to have some loose change or a dollar bill they might give it to them. I don't think that counts.

*that's* lunacy, idiocy, ignorance, and selfishness all wraped up into one.

IMO most people who give to charity write out a check which means they've put at least some thought into. I know I do. I know my parents do. I know my siblings do. Of the friends I've talked with about this I know they do. Giving some kids' group a few bucks every saturday at the dump or sunday at the grocery store is *not* what I consider "giving to charity." Sitting with my wife and deciding where we're going to donate for the year is what we consider giving. While I also put a few bucks in the cans on the weekends, if you asked me how much I give I'd tell you the exact amount on the checks I mail and wouldn't bother trying to estimate the cash for the kids.

7960 · 11-02-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

if the government ceased all social programs, no one would pick up the slack.

No. Americans gave $260B....... that's BILLION.... $260,000,000,000...... to non-profits last year, $245B before that, $203B before that.

Charity Navigator - Of the private donations, half went to Red Cross (figure near the bottom).

If the govt ceased all social programs *AND* correspondingly reduced my taxes I'd end up giving that money right back as a donation.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

No. Americans gave $260B....... that's BILLION.... $260,000,000,000...... to non-profits last year, $245B before that, $203B before that.

Charity Navigator - Of the private donations, half went to Red Cross (figure near the bottom).

If the govt ceased all social programs *AND* correspondingly reduced my taxes I'd end up giving that money right back as a donation.

No you woudn't. You'd save it, or spend it on consumer goods. You MIGHT give some small percentage of it to charity.

7960 · 11-02-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No you woudn't. You'd save it, or spend it on consumer goods. You MIGHT give some small percentage of it to charity.

Thanks for telling me what I'd do. Can you come balance my checkbook, too? Because you seem to have a better handle on what I do with my money than I do.

And way to ignore that you're wrong about what would happen if all govt social programs ceased.

Stylerod · 11-02-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by RLF

In Las Vegas, bringing food to the park and handing it out to the
homeless is punishable by six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

In Dallas, only approved churches, charities and individuals can serve
the homeless only in approved locations. If not approved, you so much
as offer a biscuit to a hungry person, you are subject to fines up to
$2,000.

Now in Redding if you are one of the more than 2,000 homeless men,
women, and children in Shasta County caught by a small campfire trying
to keep warm within Redding's city limits, you can receive up to six
months in jail, and a $1,000 fine.

Many more Cities are doing the same.......

God, from one end of the Bible to the other, expresses his desire for
us to care, uphold and provide for the poor. Is it God's will that
poverty should be a crime? Is it not written, "He who oppresses the
poor, reproaches His Maker?" Didn't Jesus say, "Assuredly, I say to
you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren,
you did it to me?"

Mental illness does not respond to increased fines and jail time. Home-
lessness does not respond to tearing down their temporary shelters,
throwing away their possessions, and driving them out of town. A lack
of hope does not respond to a lack of love.

We must constructively address the plight of the homeless, and its
multifaceted causes,
before its to late.......
http://reddingloavesandfishes.com/

I know you will probably never be back, but can you prove some of the things you have said here?

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Thanks for telling me what I'd do. Can you come balance my checkbook, too? Because you seem to have a better handle on what I do with my money than I do.

And way to ignore that you're wrong about what would happen if all govt social programs ceased.

I'm not wrong. And just let me know if you need help with that checkbook. I'm good with numbers and stuff.

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No you woudn't. You'd save it, or spend it on consumer goods. You MIGHT give some small percentage of it to charity.

Congrats on knowing how he spends or would spend his money!

Companies must seek after you by the droves.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Congrats on knowing how he spends or would spend his money!

Companies must seek after you by the droves.

So you are saying that if you got a raise you would take 100% of that raise and donate it to charity? excuse me if I don't believe you or anyone else who makes such a claim.

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So you are saying that if you got a raise you would take 100% of that raise and donate it to charity? excuse me if I don't believe you or anyone else who makes such a claim.

Should I take 100% of that raise and give it to charity? Should anybody?

7960 · 11-02-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So you are saying that if you got a raise you would take 100% of that raise and donate it to charity?

according to you, if my answer is "no" then you feel fully justified in *taking* my raise and giving it to someone else because I "already have enough" and the other guy "has more need"

fuck that.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Should I take 100% of that raise and give it to charity? Should anybody?

No. Of course not...which is why the government needs to continue to run social programs.

7960 was saying that if the government ceased all social programs and gave everyone an equivalent tax break that most people would take 100% of that tax break and donate it to charity. That's crazy.

WickedLou9 · 11-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

according to you, if my answer is "no" then you feel fully justified in *taking* my raise and giving it to someone else because I "already have enough" and the other guy "has more need"

fuck that.

Welcome to a civilized society.

7960 · 11-02-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

7960 was saying that if the government ceased all social programs and gave everyone an equivalent tax break that most people would take 100% of that tax break and donate it to charity. That's crazy.

No, I clearly said said *I* would. Then I clearly pointed out that even *WITH* social programs people are *STILL* donating $260 BILLION to charity.

IMO the best thing that could happen to some people is to have their security blanket ripped from under them.

7960 · 11-02-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Welcome to a civilized society.

No, welcome to a socialist one. Quick quiz.... who said this:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

?

ballz2wallz · 11-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No. Of course not...which is why the government needs to continue to run social programs.

7960 was saying that if the government ceased all social programs and gave everyone an equivalent tax break that most people would take 100% of that tax break and donate it to charity. That's crazy.

I actually think the social programs and mo