Population growth and increased life expectancy are undeniably major factors contributing to the problems we face. What are you calling slavery in the U.S. today? We take risks each and every day we live. Each of the 50 States, as well as local governments, are free to decide how to best resolve any problems with the consent of their citizens. And those who are seen making the best decisions are most likely to be copied in a similar or improved fashion. Reality is that our government is not solving problems, but only reducing the effects of many problems, and at great cost to future generations. The reality is that change need not be implemented all at once, a few Federal government administered programs could be returned to the States gradually reducing the Federal government involvement and funding over time, as the States pick up the responsibility and funding directly.
Individual It's gone from: 'Charities, run by the private sector, or Churches, are the most efficient means of solving needs problems, and will rise to the occasion as they find necessary, without increasing the indebtedness of the Nation.' To: 'Each of the 50 States, as well as local governments, are free to decide how to best resolve any problems with the consent of their citizens.' The whole premise is ZERO government involvement. A severing of ties. Not some gentle easing in, with government taking up programmes (lets not forget we are only talking about a specific few) the charities/church can't cope with. If you are now watering it down to make it easier for charities/churches (etc) to cope - sorry...that's not part of the plan. So your removing the federal government but keeping state government involved? Sorry - this isn't what we are talking about.
Although I don't recall a premise of ZERO government involvement being an immediate goal, it would be the ultimate goal to achieve relative to many if not most Federal government programs. What I was suggesting was to first remove the Federal government giving responsibility to the States who then could gradually work toward reducing State involvement as the private sector, charities, churches, etc. reduce and eliminate need for State involvement. I never suggested going cold turkey, eliminating government at every level immediately. It is called transitioning, not watering down. That is what I've been talking about. Have you a better plan which would reasonably eliminate government totally and immediately? I'm willing to hear you out.
Well, the way I see it. Society works better with less taxes. It goes into the economy better; Consumers spend it, which creates jobs and, wealthier people also donate cars, houses etc. cause it's tax deductible. Sure, there's probably a lot of Churches that will only help you if you're a member of that church, but others give to feel morally right with their God. Most churches wont force religion on to you, they give cause they want to feel like they're doing something to help. However, there's also "halfway" houses for people getting off drugs. As long as you pass drug tests, you get to stay. Here in America. the only people who are really struggling are alcoholics and crackheads, who live to get high, and have reduced their life to panhandling for their drug. I feel like America is okay, I've never seen a women with her children without a place to call home, and the government doesn't provide housing (that I know of..) So it's general hospitality, charities and, friends that keep those people off the streets, not government.
If it is anybody who is sucking the Gvmt dry, it's not some schmuck getting $140.00 per month in food stamps. it's The 1% it is shocking to see local politicians in NYC getting busted for fraud along with their registered charity. or Politicians in Benton Harbor Mi selling off a city park to cronies and associates. Contractors just hozing universities or city agencies with bids for services. To some, this is justified as redistribution by another name. Look for tax exempt status, find a one per center.
Ok I won't put words into your mouth. The initial sentences were: StpLSD25 'I know charities and churches are more than willing to help women with children find housing and food.' 'There are charities that provide food, housing and, vehicles without government. Although, people who donate receive tax deductions, which I support. I would eventually like to see government entitlements ended completely, but not right away.' I did run ahead and remove government immediately. The end result was that government be removed, right? I did take this:Individual 'Charities, run by the private sector, or Churches, are the most efficient means of solving needs problems, and will rise to the occasion as they find necessary, without increasing the indebtedness of the Nation.'...as that, ultimately, government isn't needed. We can take the baby steps - but it does seem like you both do think charities/churches are capable to handle the basics: Housing/Food assistance/Living allowance. Are we eventually removing federal and state government? StpLSD25 'I've never seen a women with her children without a place to call home, and the government doesn't provide housing (that I know of..) So it's general hospitality, charities and, friends that keep those people off the streets, not government.' e.g New York City On June 22, 2010, the New York City Department of Homeless Services reported that the sheltered homeless population consisted of: 8,243 families with children 1,271 adult families 7,725 single adults 35,537 total individuals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Housing http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/homeless http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/03/09/an-american-homeless-family/ Individual No. I don't agree with either of you but was willing to see if your opinion could work.
I don't recall any posts of mine suggesting anything more than limiting governments, Federal, State, and local to provide the functions that the people have consented to as defined in our Constitution. Excellent example, New York City with a population of over 8 million has a problem numbering .43% of its population. If the local government is incapable of solving it, then the State government should/could become involved, but in a way that results in resolving the problem with the costs eventually paid by the population of New York City. In other words the State government could make available low interest loans to the City as long as the City government demonstrates it is making a reasonable effort to resolveand eliminate the cause, or at least reduce it to what the City can handle on its own. Most every large population City in the U.S. have large debt problems, and if you look at the election maps you will see that the Democrat party, which is the party of redistribution, prevails greatest in the overpopulated areas of each State in the Nation. Obviously the intent was not to agree as you offered nothing constructive which might have led to ways in which we could agree.
Okay, you only see everything as a "rich versus poor" problem. How might you go about solving that which is unsolvable?
Fair enough. Could you explain: 'functions that the people have consented to as defined in our Constitution'. Thanks. I did some better research (I hope)... This is a more upto date figure: New York City's Homeless Shelter Population: A Snapshot (October 2012) • Total number of homeless people in municipal shelters: 48,694 • Number of homeless families: 11,678 • Number of homeless children: 20,383 • Number of homeless adults in families: 17,843 • Number of homeless single adults: 10,476 • Number of homeless single men: 7,728 • Number of homeless single women: 2,740 http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/basic-facts August 10, 2012 - The State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) today announced that it has awarded more than $15.7 million to help prevent homelessness and help those in crisis find stable housing across New York State. Sixty-seven organizations have been selected to receive funding through OTDA’s Solutions to End Homelessness Program (STEHP). The NYC Neighborhood Stabilization Program does receive interest-free predevelopment loans from a State revolving loan fund. And a similar mechanism is used by local government to pass onto developers and charities - who are better at identifying where help is needed. We don't have to agree. I was stepping aside so you two could speak. I could not think of anything better than I imagined was happening already. With some research I find there isn't anything that isn't being done that I could have thought about. State/local government work with charities/non/for-profits to try and combat the problem. Who is to know the figure for people that would be on the streets/homeless receiving no help if all of this was not occurring. I think the No. is so low (relatively speaking) because of that help, but is increasing because funding is being cut (I think by 20%) and the sorry state of the economy. Perhaps politics could be removed from the issue a little more. http://www.nyshcr.org/Publications/ConsolidatedPlan/ConsolidatedPlan2011.pdf Care to provide some evidence for this?
You can obtain all the info needed from government websites, and the Huffington Post, lists the top 5 as California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, with a combined 50 State indebtedness of $4,240,000,000,000.
odonII, So you're satisfied that nothing really needs to be done other than what is being done currently? I'm fine with that, I can work around to my benefit with no changes. Even changes I suggest would not benefit me during my remaining life time.
I can find any kind of figures: ...http://247wallst.com/2013/01/15/the-best-and-worst-run-cities-in-america/4/ a little specific would be nice. True.
Well, then pick the figures you like best, and show me where to find some figures where the trend is one of debt reduction. Although they are rough calculations, you can look at the State debt clocks and get an idea of the spending trends of each individual State and their revenues being collected, you might notice that the spending exceeds the revenues in every case, and if you look at the debt per citizen figures, recognize as fact that only a small portion of the citizens pay taxes, therefore the debt per taxpayer. California, for example has a population of about 37.7 million, and according to www.bls.gov a labor force of about 18.4 million, with about 1.8 million currently unemployed. Of the 16.6 million assumed to be employed I am unable to find any data relating to how many of them earn a taxable income, but assuming that all are, the State is currently spending about $26,000 per worker, while bringing in revenues of only $22,000 per worker. What's the point of the curiosity if you're happy with the status quo? Each State has a web site providing the specifics of their budgeting and debt, where you can get somewhat more accurate figures, and if increasing debt is something you find desirable, you should be quite pleased looking at the figures provided by each State. As I have children and Grandchildren, I would like to leave them with greater opportunities, not less opportunities, than I have had during my life.
Is this the article you are referring to? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/state-debt-report_n_1836603.html#slide=1441149 Most of the Governors are Democrats. True. Out of the 50 states there is a fairly even spread of Democrat and Republican governors. I looked at a lot of the debt clocks for each state, and yes they were going up rather than down. So where the revenues. It seemed to be based on consumer debt too. I also looked at the cities within each state - especially the most populated. The first few were Democrats - I didn't go too much into that, though - my head hurt. I guess I was looking for figures looking at each 'overpopulated' City (rather than State) http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uscities_100.html I was just being a tad lazy, I guess. Given you thought you knew the answers - I thought you could help me out. Your last post has more details - so thanks. There was also the point about 'the Democrat party, which is the party of redistribution, prevails greatest in the overpopulated areas of each State in the Nation.' - I wanted to know which areas were these, and how do they redistribute the wealth (as it were) - you say x amount is spent on each individual, is that a 'redistribution of wealth'? I guess my point is: ' most every large population City in the U.S. have large debt problems, and if you look at the election maps you will see that the Democrat party, which is the party of redistribution, prevails greatest in the overpopulated areas of each State in the Nation.' - would work well in a campaign advert, but how is it broken down, and is each part true? Removing your political biases etc - each state has rising debt, regardless of if it is 'Republican' or 'Democrat' - so I'm not quite sure creating a political football to kick around is helpful. Obviously debt is a problem. I woulld say the key issue is how each state/city is run/managed - that is one reason I posted the article: http://247wallst.com/2013/01/15/the-best-and-worst-run-cities-in-america/ You can dredge through the detail to see if more Democrats are running the show or not.
odonII, I believe that is the article I referred to, but I'm not trying to defend either political party. The problem is government, both Democrat and Republican, and the solution as I see it is to elect politicians who answer to their constituents and not their party, large campaign contributors, or lobbyists. I don't see the issue as being one of who, or which party is running the show, but instead how the show is being run, and on that I think our Constitution should always be the last word.
Well, to be fair, isn't that a completely separate issue? You said: 'Federal, State, and local to provide the functions that the people have consented to as defined in our Constitution.' - perhaps explain what is 'consented to as defined in our Constitution'.
odenII, Are you an American? You use the term "our" Constitution, and show a location of Leicester, England. I'm not familiar at all with the government of Great Britain.