Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[ok doser]

artie ventures into unfamiliar territory:

...logic and common sense...

Remove a safety net and poverty escalates through the roof...

leave aside the tortured figure of speech that has something falling up and consider your "reasoning"

have safety nets ever been removed? when they have, has poverty "escalated through the roof"?

on the other hand, have we ever had a situation where safety nets were implemented, found to be insufficient, added to, found again to be insufficient, added to again, etc, etc?

yes

yes we have

in the united states, with the advent of LBJ's "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty"

today, 53 years and 22 Trillion Dollars later, we are no closer to winning this war than we were in 1964

instead, we have created a permanent underclass of impoverished living in squalor, surrounded by drugs, violence and crime




logic and common sense might lead an intelligent person to a conclusion other than yours, which appears to be "we need more money!**"



** from other people

 

[ok doser]

artie petulantly stamps his foot and demands that stripe accommodate him:

Oh, you didn't get around to explaining how a homeless person asking for spare change is a form of 'work' either Stripe. So how about you get to that as well?

stripe replies with a pertinent, clear, understandable example of his position:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-wonder-middle-class-parents-mortified.html

artie responds with an ad hom and hastily moves the goalposts:

Seriously? You're pointing to some fraud case in the "Daily Fail" as an argument? You've already expressed that begging was a form of 'work' from a biblical perspective so instead of dredging up tabloid articles about those who defraud the system in place then how about you get to explaining as to how most homeless people are "working" by laying about on the streets and asking for change?

predictable, disappointing and boring :yawn:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Helping the poor and disadvantaged is a noble use of tax money, so long as there aren't enough good jobs and opportunity for everyone.

What about when there are plenty of jobs, but not enough people who want them enough to work instead of beg or sit at home or lay off the drugs?

 

[ok doser]

What about when there are plenty of jobs, but not enough people who want them enough to work instead of beg or sit at home or lay off the drugs?

there's plenty of jobs


just ask all those illegal immigrants

 

[Crucible]

What about when there are plenty of jobs, but not enough people who want them enough to work instead of beg or sit at home or lay off the drugs?

It's difficult for a homeless person to not only get a job, period, but also to keep a job. In the event of having a job, the money they have won't last them to the next check, because everything is expensive being without a home.

People on welfare are nearly stuck with low income jobs because there is little transition period in the program from getting off it and sustaining oneself entirely. These people are rightfully afraid of taking such chances when they have kids or have debts to pay.

You all will never accept these realities because you all are just uncharitable people and simply want to justify it by pointing at the sins of others.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's difficult for a homeless person to not only get a job, period, but also to keep a job. In the event of having a job, the money they have won't last them to the next check, because everything is expensive being without a home.

People on welfare are nearly stuck with low income jobs because there is little transition period in the program from getting off it and sustaining oneself entirely. These people are rightfully afraid of taking such chances when they have kids or have debts to pay.

You all will never accept these realities because you all are just uncharitable people and simply want to justify it by pointing at the sins of others.

Everything is expensive because the government taxes everything, creating a feedback loop. The poor are stuck at their current status BECAUSE of the welfare programs.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Everything is expensive because the government taxes everything, creating a feedback loop. The poor are stuck at their current status BECAUSE of the welfare programs.

No, everything is expensive because big business has sold the myth of maximum profit as a public virtue owed to shareholders and realized it could pass along any incursion into its bottom line by simply passing that along to consumers, so long as the market would bear it. Couple that with a failure to reduce prices when anything factored into an increased cost changes in favor of the consumer. By way of example, for a long period oil prices continued to rise and the cost of transportation and manufacturing associated with it drove prices up. When that bubble largely collapsed and those costs diminished dramatically...wait for it...the cost of goods continued to rise, if more incrementally.

The lesson? Big business is at best an amoral and indifferent master in relation to the average worker and the social compact that makes its existence possible. The market system can produce magnificent results for everyone when it is restrained by conscience or statute. When neither of those are in effect the result is calamity for the lower tier, a struggle for the middle class, and a good time to be rich.

 

[ok doser]

Everything is expensive because the government taxes everything, creating a feedback loop. The poor are stuck at their current status BECAUSE of the welfare programs.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

consider:

and that chart doesn't take into account the taxes on businesses that are inevitably passed on to the customer

 

[Town Heretic]

So Stripe claims I do something but...

I'm not in the habit of running around looking to provide evidence that you quote a single word of mine and cut its relevance off from the substance of what I say.

That's a swing and a miss, if you're playing at home. Or, if you can't back your play, don't make the charge. It's dishonest to assert you note something you can't actually note.

:allsmile:

This is Stripe when he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

It's becoming clear why you want these discussions to be about who lied where.

No. It's clear you manipulated my text, then founded a lie on that edit and instead of owning that or simply moving past it, created another lie by asserting it against me, but with nothing to back it. So of course you want to make this about me noting it, because the alternative is owning your intentional misrepresentations.

I think anyone reading you would know why it's better for everyone concerned at this point. More seriously, that's Town inventing something again.

That's you doing a paler version. I noted the invention you mounted the lie on and you're trying to echo that, again with nothing to it that you can put hands on.

It's not a shift. :idunno:

Sure it is. One is an emphatic denial. The other notes a lack of similarities. If one thing is nothing like the other then it has no similarities. Saying not very isn't saying not at all, leaves open the possibility for similarities, if in the minority. And those can't exist if the two are nothing alike, sharing none. It's a shift, a subtle back peddle for room.

They're not the same and they're very different. Those two phrases are practically the same thing.

Practically isn't exactly and that's a shift too.

It looks like you'll do anything to create an argument.

It looks like you'll do anything to avoid taking responsibility for your bad habits, great and small.

Sell that any way that suits you.

I mean, how long do you think it will be before you get a handle on the quote function? And will it be before or after you get a handle on argument?

Nope. Charity is when a man sees a need and meets it. Welfare and charity are very different things.

Those are three declarations without any reason or support to credit them as more than feeling. I've set out an argument as to why you're wrong that meets the very definition of charity. I've set it out in two posts preceding this.

 

[ok doser]

So Stripe claims I do something but...

That's a swing and a miss, if you're playing at home. Or, if you can't back your play, don't make the charge. It's dishonest to assert you note something you can't actually note.


This is Stripe when he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar.


No. It's clear you manipulated my text, then founded a lie on that edit and instead of owning that or simply moving past it, created another lie by asserting it against me, but with nothing to back it. So of course you want to make this about me noting it, because the alternative is owning your intentional misrepresentations.


That's you doing a paler version. I noted the invention you mounted the lie on and you're trying to echo that, again with nothing to it that you can put hands on.


Sure it is. One is an emphatic denial. The other notes a lack of similarities. If one thing is nothing like the other then it has no similarities. Saying not very isn't saying no and that's a shift, a subtle back peddle for room.


Practically isn't exactly and that's a shift too.


It looks like you'll do anything to avoid taking responsibility for your bad habits, great and small.


I mean, how long do you think it will be before you get a handle on the quote function? And will it be before or after you get a handle on argument?


Those are three declarations without any reason or support to credit them as more than feeling. I've set out an argument as to why you're wrong that meets the very definition of charity. I've set it out in two posts preceding this.

i hafta capture this before he edits it :nono:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:idunno:

It's not much of an argument. I think begging is work. You don't.

There's not a lot riding on it, as long as you understand the difference in our opinions.

It's not really any sort of an argument until you provide some sort of rationale for it. How is it work? Beggars don't get 'wages', they're not in contractual employment of any description so how about you make your case and let's go from there?

Given that you understand little from the Bible, I decided not to go with that example.

Sounds more like a cut and run veiled with insult Stripe. If you can make a case as to how begging is a form of work from a biblical perspective then please do make that case.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here's an example that shows perfectly how you are completely disinterested in a sensible discussion.

Businesses that struggle to start would not be so burdened by taxes and regulations.

Businesses would still be taxed and regulated whether there was a welfare system in place or not. The last financial recession wasn't caused by any benefits system but rather high risk taking by banks and subsequent bailouts. Those consequences were felt down the line and had significant impact on businesses (I know, I worked for Capital one's main office in the UK and half the workforce was shredded in 2008 and led to the loss of my own job) both big and small. Many small businesses couldn't stay afloat amid the banking crisis.

Furthermore there's no guarantee that businesses would automatically get these 'tax breaks' you seem to be alluding to. It's more likely that the government would recoup revenue via higher wages among other things, else state how scrapping any sort of entitlement system would magically result in what you propose.

Fact, in fact.

If there was no state welfare, the tax burden would be much lower. Businesses would be more able to start and thrive, boosting employment.

That's not 'fact', that's just you asserting something as though it is. See above, else explain how, and in detail.

Facts.

Your response shows that you are completely unwilling to consider societal change.

Wrong, I'm prepared to consider anything that could have a positive impact on society. Anything that causes an upturn in the poverty rate is not going to be part of that and no charitable organization would endorse the dismantling of a system that would lead to that very thing. Now why do you suppose that is?

Presumably, the only reason you are so resistant is because the ideas come from a fundamentalist, because you've got nothing born of reason.

Wrong again. If you come up with something that makes sense or is at least well thought and considered then I'll give it pause for thought. I used to disagree with Vegascowboy more than I agreed but I had tons of respect for the guy because he was respectful, thoughtful and was a pleasure to talk to.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Beggars don't get 'wages', they're not in contractual employment of any description

No, but on the 'employer' side, or for any man, for that matter, to quote Jesus, "is it not lawful for a man to do what he wants with his own money?".

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, but on the 'employer' side, or for any man, for that matter, to quote Jesus, "is it not lawful for a man to do what he wants with his own money?".

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Are you arguing that employees shouldn't have any rights when they enter into employment?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you arguing that employees shouldn't have any rights when they enter into employment?

Everyone has God-given rights. Unless there's a contract that specifies conditions for termination, the employer has the right to fire/let go/terminate the employee for whatever reason. For example, if the employer decided he no longer like the way the employee's face looked, he (the employer) has the right to say, "I don't want to look at you anymore, get out of here." You cannot force someone to be around someone they don't want to be around, just like God will not force anyone to be with Him in Heaven for all eternity if they reject/hate Him.

Funnily enough, I was just listening to a show of Bob Enyart Live where a caller had called in asking this very question. You can hear Bob's response here at 19m38s in.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Everyone has God-given rights. Unless there's a contract that specifies conditions for termination, the employer has the right to fire/let go/terminate the employee for whatever reason. For example, if the employer decided he no longer like the way the employee's face looked, he (the employer) has the right to say, "I don't want to look at you anymore, get out of here." You cannot force someone to be around someone they don't want to be around, just like God will not force anyone to be with Him in Heaven for all eternity if they reject/hate Him.

Well, most employment contracts outside of agencies/temporary work at least provide clauses for both employers and employees. It's generally known as a 'grievance procedure' over here and aims to be fair and even handed to both. It also makes sense, especially in regards to businesses where it's not just one individual who runs an enterprise, else you'd get loopy scenarios like your above where an employer could be so asinine as to fire someone because they came in with a spot on their face or something. That would be pathetic.

Funnily enough, I was just listening to a show of Bob Enyart Live where a caller had called in asking this very question. You can hear Bob's response here at 19m38s in.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Pass...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, most employment contracts outside of agencies/temporary work at least provide clauses for both employers and employees. It's generally known as a 'grievance procedure' over here and aims to be fair and even handed to both. It also makes sense, especially in regards to businesses where it's not just one individual who runs an enterprise, else you'd get loopy scenarios like your above where an employer could be so asinine as to fire someone because they came in with a spot on their face or something. That would be pathetic.



Pass...

So you would have the government force a man to employ someone he does not want to employ?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

when I worked in industry, the policy was that you could leave or be terminated at will, without needing cause given

the only jobs that were different were union jobs

 

[Arthur Brain]

Everyone has God-given rights. Unless there's a contract that specifies conditions for termination, the employer has the right to fire/let go/terminate the employee for whatever reason. For example, if the employer decided he no longer like the way the employee's face looked, he (the employer) has the right to say, "I don't want to look at you anymore, get out of here." You cannot force someone to be around someone they don't want to be around, just like God will not force anyone to be with Him in Heaven for all eternity if they reject/hate Him.

Funnily enough, I was just listening to a show of Bob Enyart Live where a caller had called in asking this very question. You can hear Bob's response here at 19m38s in.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Okay, to be fair I did give that excerpt a listen and it really just underlines the importance of having an employment contract. Someone should not be fired because their line manager doesn't like their hair or face . If there isn't a contract in place to protect against such asininity then sure, the employer has the right to dismiss a person based on any particular whim. There's a reason why contracts are in place in general, to prevent that type of lunacy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you would have the government force a man to employ someone he does not want to employ?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Erm, no. the government doesn't force an employer to hire people onto their payroll but outside of agency work there's more often than not a contract involved if the position is permanent. This protects both parties. Do a decent job then you're protected from the asinine prejudices of a manager who doesn't like your face. Don't match up to the requirements of your job then your employer has the right to take action to rectify that including dismissal if necessary. It's sensible and logical.