Many people understand that but that's not the same as being part of a faction which Mr. Gates clearly is not as stated by his father.

isadore;396623 wrote:Private Sector has never completely united behind any cause. Cancer society may have raised significant dollars but the large majority of the Private sector has not contributed to them, the same is true of Compassion International. The sums they raise come no near being the amounts need to solve the suffering of a nation or world wide economic disaster.
I am sure the money you have raised with your foundation went for excellent causes but no private sector effort has the means in a system based on individual self interest or the will to provide the needs of a truly massive national disaster. Governments can create wealth. The United States does it on a relatively small scale, other nations on a larger scale.
Our Constitution give our elected government the means to provide the funds necessary to fight major disasters that the private sector lack the will and the ability to amass the means necessary to stop the suffering.

The problems of disaster are not singular they are many. The examples I provided were not all encompassing nor fully inclusive but rather reflective of the fact that efforts exist thus negating the previously used term "never". The cumulative private efforts are significant and are inclusive of funds provided to and through the government in a united fashion....yet to this day the government has not been successful in it's part of stopping such stated suffering.

Con_Alma;396648 wrote:The problems of disaster are not singular they are many. The examples I provided were not all encompassing nor fully inclusive but rather reflective of the fact that efforts exist thus negating the previously used term "never". The cumulative private efforts are significant and are inclusive of funds provided to and through the government in a united fashion....yet to this day the government has not been successful in it's part of stopping such stated suffering.

The New Deal provided the effort necessary to prevent the mass starvation which could have happened with the collapse of the funds from charities and state and local government as the Depression. That effort helped prevent untold suffering and potential violence in our nation. The government actions in the last two years has helped protect against the extremes of long term unemployment. Private charity in the Depression failed and now with decreased giving shows again it inadequaicies to solve true nation wide disaster.

Con_Alma;396637 wrote:Many people understand that but that's not the same as being part of a faction which Mr. Gates clearly is not as stated by his father.

providing an endorsement of a policy on a nation wide tv show is more support than most members of most factions ever do for their cause.

isadore;396668 wrote:The New Deal provided the effort necessary to prevent the mass starvation which could have happened with the collapse of the funds from charities and state and local government as the Depression. That effort helped prevent untold suffering and potential violence in our nation. The government actions in the last two years has helped protect against the extremes of long term unemployment. Private charity in the Depression failed and now with decreased giving shows again it inadequaicies to solve true nation wide disaster.

I actually side with you for much of this thread. However, what I've bolded above from your post is something i'd like you to comment on. clearly, the deficit spending to ease the crisis has done absolutely nothing in stimulating either job growth of GDP growth.

i would like to hear you expound on your comment and let us know what exactly you mean here. And keep your "unAmerican" comments out of the answer. Mmmkay?

I talk to one and all, Americans and UnAmericans, which ever you maybe.
The extremes of long term unemployment is homelessness, medical care and starvation. And government spending has at least so far prevented most homelessness and kept families fed. It is nowhere near the situation in the New Deal era, but still could have caused some real suffering without the government intervention. Of course we will have to see if that will continue with alot of Republicans seemingly ready to play scrooge. Lets protect BP and screw Americans in need.

isadore;396671 wrote:providing an endorsement of a policy on a nation wide tv show is more support than most members of most factions ever do for their cause.

That may indeed be true but wasn't the original point. He is not part of any faction referred to with regards to the the repeal of the estate tax.

Here's how I see it:

I'm not sure I've ever known of a private charity (helping Americans) writing bad checks to help people, and going bankrupt because of it.

Can we say the same for the government?

CenterBHSFan;396991 wrote:Here's how I see it:

I'm not sure I've ever known of a private charity (helping Americans) writing bad checks to help people, and going bankrupt because of it.

Can we say the same for the government?

She shoots......she scores!

CenterBHSFan;396991 wrote:Here's how I see it:

I'm not sure I've ever known of a private charity (helping Americans) writing bad checks to help people, and going bankrupt because of it.

Can we say the same for the government?

Mr, fish as usual is uninformed
BC you missed it by a mile. US government pays off its debts as it has for well over 200 years.
Charities go bankrupt, they mismanage money and more importantly some are obvious manipulative rip offs

Charities do go bankrupt
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/05/heritage-charity-bankruptcy-personal-finance-philanthropy-police.html
Ten that are constantly in debt
American for the Arts, the Pound Civil Justice Institute, Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid, SPCA Wildlife Care Center, Omaha Home for Boys. Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer and my personal favorite American Institute for Economic Research, constantly in the red
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=16
Approaching Bankruptcy
Humane Society International, Agape Villages, Hale House, Christian Life Resources, boys Choir of Harlem, Oregon Special Olympics
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=12
But more commonly what we see is
“So many large charities start out as humanitarian, then become corporate bureaucracies. They say that you have to run a charity like a business, so many of them as soon as they get enough funding run out and hire a CEO that is used to running for profit companies. They justify huge salaries in the same manner they would at the for profit companies and use the reasoning that if you want to compete for the best people to run your charity, you have to pay what the for profit companies pay”
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com/articlesubmit/Article/Corporate-Charity-Rip-offs/2
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Examples of ripoffs
Disablebd American Vererans 94.3% of funds raised goes to fund raisers, 4.6% to programs
Children’s Charitable Foundation 87.3 to fundraisers, 10.3 to programs
The rest of the list makes you sick to read, using images ofkids, cancer sufferer, injured cops and firemen to rip people off.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/devil-details/guatemala-sinkhole-and-10-charity-rip-offs/2219/
Outstanding site to using in evaluating
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

isadore;397268 wrote:Mr, fish as usual is uninformed
BC you missed it by a mile. US government pays off its debts as it has for well over 200 years.
Charities go bankrupt, they mismanage money and more importantly some are obvious manipulative rip offs

Charities do go bankrupt
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/05/heritage-charity-bankruptcy-personal-finance-philanthropy-police.html
Ten that are constantly in debt
American for the Arts, the Pound Civil Justice Institute, Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid, SPCA Wildlife Care Center, Omaha Home for Boys. Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer and my personal favorite American Institute for Economic Research, constantly in the red
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=16
Approaching Bankruptcy
Humane Society International, Agape Villages, Hale House, Christian Life Resources, boys Choir of Harlem, Oregon Special Olympics
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=12
But more commonly what we see is
“So many large charities start out as humanitarian, then become corporate bureaucracies. They say that you have to run a charity like a business, so many of them as soon as they get enough funding run out and hire a CEO that is used to running for profit companies. They justify huge salaries in the same manner they would at the for profit companies and use the reasoning that if you want to compete for the best people to run your charity, you have to pay what the for profit companies pay”
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com/articlesubmit/Article/Corporate-Charity-Rip-offs/2
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Examples of ripoffs
Disablebd American Vererans 94.3% of funds raised goes to fund raisers, 4.6% to programs
Children’s Charitable Foundation 87.3 to fundraisers, 10.3 to programs
The rest of the list makes you sick to read, using images ofkids, cancer sufferer, injured cops and firemen to rip people off.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/devil-details/guatemala-sinkhole-and-10-charity-rip-offs/2219/
Outstanding site to using in evaluating
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

As usual? Please.

A significant number of organizations on your little site are straight non-profits, not "charities," per se. In any case, you've succeeded in pointing out that 20 of the thousands of "charities" in the USA are in the red. Your skills are as usual, simply bedazzling.

lol
shown the original statement was not supported by fact.
A little later I will see if I can help with the smilie feature.

It doesn't matter what you say in response, isidore, nothing but their point of view is true. If you give twenty examples, they want thirty and then start using semantics to try and prove what is and isn't charitable. They will make their argument fit no matter how far afield they must wander. I liken this approach to the "shot gun" strategy. You aim at a target, fire round after round of half truths (or less) and hope that by the sheer volume of their verbage, that you will succumb and they have "won". I agree totally with your analysis of the need for governmental intervention in times of great peril with regard to unemployment, hunger, medical expenses. Charity in and of itself was not nearly enough to cover those harmed by the Great Depression and it isn't enough now. People who are hungry and are losing their homes and can't find a job anywhere are not concerned about the long term (years and years down the road), they are concerned for their children and that is to be expected. I would be concerned also.

The problem with you "it's the government's responsibility to take care of us" types is you continue to ignore that government typically and usually fails miserably at nearly every social welfare program it creates. Mismanagement, corruption, cronyism, cost overruns, and bureaucratic inefficiency abound.

The goal of those who create this inefficiency is rarely benevolent "we'll help ya 'cause yer down on yer luck" charity.

The real goal is growth of Big Government (IE: Insuring as many people as possible are sucking off the government welfare tit paid for through taxation of the true producers of goods and services), control over other people's lives, and - of course - political power.

When we'll you learn that getting Big Government out of people's lives is the BEST way to encourage creativity, economic growth, and self-reliance?

sure believer, better to let them starve that will help with their creativity.

isadore;396668 wrote:The New Deal provided the effort necessary to prevent the mass starvation which could have happened with the collapse of the funds from charities and state and local government as the Depression. That effort helped prevent untold suffering and potential violence in our nation. The government actions in the last two years has helped protect against the extremes of long term unemployment. Private charity in the Depression failed and now with decreased giving shows again it inadequaicies to solve true nation wide disaster.

Bullshit. The New Deal did not prevent "mass starvation." Wily dictators in Germany, Japan, and Italy popped up just in time to save Roosevelt's ass.

isadore;402030 wrote:sure believer, better to let them starve that will help with their creativity.

I'm talking about getting out of the way of the free market to stimulate the creation of economic growth which includes the creation of jobs. Despite its failings, capitalism has provided better quality of life for far more people than Big Government socialism ever hopes to achieve.

How many people in America are starving? NONE

Swamp Fox;401973 wrote:It doesn't matter what you say in response, isidore, nothing but their point of view is true. If you give twenty examples, they want thirty and then start using semantics to try and prove what is and isn't charitable. They will make their argument fit no matter how far afield they must wander. I liken this approach to the "shot gun" strategy. You aim at a target, fire round after round of half truths (or less) and hope that by the sheer volume of their verbage, that you will succumb and they have "won". I agree totally with your analysis of the need for governmental intervention in times of great peril with regard to unemployment, hunger, medical expenses. Charity in and of itself was not nearly enough to cover those harmed by the Great Depression and it isn't enough now. People who are hungry and are losing their homes and can't find a job anywhere are not concerned about the long term (years and years down the road), they are concerned for their children and that is to be expected. I would be concerned also.

True on all counts. Both during the Depression and at the present government programs have prevented untold suffering. Most private charities have their heart in the right place but lack resources for a time of economic collapse. And in fact when economy slows down, so does chariable. All this raving about how these relief programs will in the long term effect creativity or whatever, Harry Hopkins, FDRs relief administrator said to a Congressman raving on about the long term effects, "People don't eat in the long term, they eat everyday." Hopefully they do.

believer;402037 wrote:I'm talking about getting out of the way of the free market to stimulate the creation of economic growth which includes the creation of jobs. Despite its failings, capitalism has provided better quality of life for far more people than Big Government socialism ever hopes to achieve.

How many people in America are starving? NONE

so lets stop those unemployment benefits, food programs, wic, housing allotments, medicaid and just let the free market operate.

believer;402036 wrote:Bullshit. The New Deal did not prevent "mass starvation." Wily dictators in Germany, Japan, and Italy popped up just in time to save Roosevelt's ass.

1933 25% unemployed, 25% underemployed, charities and local and state government out of funds, FDR programs saved this country.

I think that 99 weeks is long enough to find a job or jobS.

I also think that 99 weeks is long enough to determine what can be done to alter ones lifestyle and readjust what is considered "a standard of living" and dealing with what you've got - if that is what needs to happen in order to provide for yourself and/or your family.
I think there's alot of Americans in general that have a hard time realizing that necessity overrides any standard of living. Things just aren't what they used to be right now, and it's rough for alot of folks right now, I know. I'm not taking that away from them or make it seem like those folks in trouble right now are just lazy. I'm really not.
But 99 weeks is a long time for people to try and convince me that they can't find a job or jobS that will allow them to provide for their families.

Ok, so now let the bashing begin! Feel free to call me insensitive, heartless, racist, umm...blind.... whatever.

Just to correct a statement by Isadore that went unchallenged...

Government can NOT create wealth -- ever.

All it can do is confiscate it from one source and give it to another.

As for your statement that the US pays off its debts as it has for 200 years, I'd like to know what all this fuss about trillion dollar deficits are about if the US is so good about paying off its debt as you claim. Seems to me if the government were so damn good about paying off its debt, the president wouldn't have bothered to create (yet another) commission to see how the debt can be lessened.

CenterBHSFan;402077 wrote:I think that 99 weeks is long enough to find a job or jobS.

I also think that 99 weeks is long enough to determine what can be done to alter ones lifestyle and readjust what is considered "a standard of living" and dealing with what you've got - if that is what needs to happen in order to provide for yourself and/or your family.
I think there's alot of Americans in general that have a hard time realizing that necessity overrides any standard of living. Things just aren't what they used to be right now, and it's rough for alot of folks right now, I know. I'm not taking that away from them or make it seem like those folks in trouble right now are just lazy. I'm really not.
But 99 weeks is a long time for people to try and convince me that they can't find a job or jobS that will allow them to provide for their families.

Ok, so now let the bashing begin! Feel free to call me insensitive, heartless, racist, umm...blind.... whatever.

Its nice that you and the Congressional Republicans have decided that enough is enough. That those without jobs are on their own, to feed and house their families. Hell they are just not trying hard enough. A little hunger will help, seeing their kids miss a few meals might get them out campaigning to lower the minimum wage, so they can get some coolie level employment. Hell 99 weeks is enough according to you and John Boehner.

Writerbuckeye;402102 wrote:Just to correct a statement by Isadore that went unchallenged...

Government can NOT create wealth -- ever.

All it can do is confiscate it from one source and give it to another.

As for your statement that the US pays off its debts as it has for 200 years, I'd like to know what all this fuss about trillion dollar deficits are about if the US is so good about paying off its debt as you claim. Seems to me if the government were so damn good about paying off its debt, the president wouldn't have bothered to create (yet another) commission to see how the debt can be lessened.

the goverment provides goods and service to us, the courts and the military and the national parks and so on. The national debt as compared to GDP this is not the worst of times for debt by quite a bit. Th

isadore;402113 wrote:the goverment provides goods and service to us, the courts and the military and the national parks and so on. The national debt as compared to GDP this is not the worst of times for debt by quite a bit. Th

None of which comes close to refuting what I wrote.