Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Conservatives who disagree with social programs should not work in community action.

Do you think?

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Replies (61-68):
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I should have read the responses first, because I figured that out AFTER I started reading lol.  I still disagree.  A person doesn't have to love everything about their job in order to do it professionally and, in this case, compassionately.

Quoting survivorinohio:


Quoting kailu1835:

Can you reword this question?  It sounds like you're saying you shouldn't do community service if you don't agree with social programs.

If that is the case, then I disagree.  Social services SHOULD be in the hands of the community, not the government.  Everything the government touches is ruined.  Just look at the insurance industry, or public education, etc etc etc. 

Rewording:

Poople who are against government mandated programs should not be in charge of enrolling people in said programs.


babiesbabybaby development

Jalestra
by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

I think a lot of people misunderstand Republicans views on charity type things. No Republican I know believes in forced charity, which is what welfare is. However, most of them believe in volunteering. I fall Conservative on this issue, I don't believe we should just willy nilly support everyone, just those who deserve it (which is a whole other conversation). I believe that the community and individuals SHOULD help, but shouldn't be forced to. 

In small communities I especially see this, and I used to see it when I went to church (one of the very few, though limited good things I liked about the church). If someone was in need people were made aware and out of their own volition the community came together to help the family in hard times, who normally would be working and caring for their own. If a family was lazy, they knew the reason and provided help based on that. Such as a case where a mother was in an untenable situation because of the father, all the charity was directed at the mother and children, while as far as the community was concerned the father could starve. Or if it was both parents, then the children would find themselves recipients of meals or clothes.

To be honest, I see less voluntary charity anymore, because people are resentful of their money being taken in order to help everyone, no matter how undeserving as well as the financial irresponsibility of those running the charities. I myself ONLY give locally to established places (fire dpt, police) or individually. I never donate to jars for sick kids, but I'll look up the name and be sure there IS a sick kid and send it directly to the family. I think you'd see a lot less complaining going on if more was done to weed out those who have no interest in caring for themselves.

Susan0805
by Silver Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Lol! Im a conservative. I dont think the goverment should take away from the struggling working class to give to those on assistance that could and should work. ( not saying all are just a large amount) if these programs were better regulated and implemented better then maybe i would have a better opinion of. Now, that being said imnot against helping people, in fact i think it should be an individual, community, and state responsibility, NOT a federal government issue. As an individual i do quite a bit for my community in ways that i can best help, to say i shouldnt volunteer when there is need makes no sense to me?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
garnet83
by Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM


Quoting futureshock:


Quoting garnet83:

I believe this to be accurate. Conservatives, generally, are all of these. However, we don't care for able-bodied people who have made a lifestyle out of government benefits, nor for holding back those who are successful, or creating division among the American people by portraying successful people as villains for having made good decisions and investments. Those who are well off, hopefully, will reach out and help those who genuinely need help getting on their feet or overcoming unfortunate circumstances. However, we do not feel that it is just or Constitutional for the government to mandate that the successful take financial responsibility for others. While I agree with the above quote, I feel that it leaves much unsaid.

Does this mean you do not agree with tax payer funded public assistance?

On the contrary. I believe it is necessary. However, I, like most conservatives, would like to see several government programs reformed. For people who need to get back on their feet and people who are not able-bodied, I whole heartedly believe there should be assistance. BUT, because I work with people's finances every day and I have spoken to people who are and/or have been on government assistance, i have learned that in several programs, there is little incentive to get off of them. Based on my knowledge of the subject, it appears to be for two main reasons. (1) People are being extremely picky about jobs. "I don't want to work outside" "I don't want to work on weekends." "I don't want to deal with the public." "I don't want to get out of bed so early." In my opinion, these are cop outs. Become a contributing citizen, then take another job you like better when you find one. Priorities. (2) Despite the requirements to continue to receive assistance, people who have become comfortable and/or lazy on it, are able to find ways to stay on it. Now, I realize that the number of people on assistance and the requirements vary from state to state so I am speaking for my local area and what I have learned about some other areas. So, to sum up, I think government assistance is necessary and warranted, yet needs to be tightened up. As far as my comment about the successful....I believe they have a social obligation to  help those less fortunate, but not a constitutional obligation. When they donate money to charities to help people, that is  "sharing the wealth". When it is mandated that they become financial responsible for others, whether it be via tax increase or otherwise, I categorize that as "redistribution of wealth" which is phrasing no one likes and for good reason. I hope that clarifies my position. I apologize for the delay in response time. I was on lunch : )

furbabymum
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

 Yeah. He's a CJA panel attorney.

I don't think this guy is going to be getting off easy. Pretty sure that at his age and with his medical conditions he will die in federal prison.

We have managed some pretty nice miracles for clients though.

Was the child porn guy required to register? If he was his life is pretty ruined anyway.  

Quoting owl0210:

Oh yes I remember you! I'm glad things are going better. I assume your attorney is on the court appointed list right?  We recently prosecuted guy that was charged with possession of child pornography and he only received 5 years of probation.

Quoting furbabymum:

 My lawyer is pretty darn awesome and usually gets to pick his cases. He has never picked a sex assault case before. He couldn't decline this one. One of the federal judges has decided she wants to assign cases herself (Totally new and frightening!). She assigned this one to him. :(

I've never minded the drug cases, though some things I found in discovery were disturbing. This, this is a whole other piece of pie. I hate it!

Quoting owl0210:

Me too. I used to work for state public defenders now I work for prosecutors. It was too draining when I was with the PD's office.  

Quoting furbabymum:

 No. I'm not a lawyer at all. Paralegal.

Quoting owl0210:

Are you a Federal Public Defender? 

Quoting furbabymum:

 I think you can be a perfectly competent employee while not necessarily agreeing with things.

For instance: we just got a federal child sexual assault case. 20 victims starting as young as 3. There is no way in hell I think this guy is awesome. In fact, I rather hope he dies in prison. I'm still going to do my job and I'll do it just as well for him as I do it for all our other clients. I'm looking through discovery and I'm writing down possible defenses for this. I really hope he's killed in prison though.

 

 

 

 P.S. Think I've messaged you for advice before on handling him when he was keeping me late constantly. Things are much better now! I can at least be happy that he's as unhappy with this case as I am. He'll still totally rock the defense though. Probably why she's assigning him all the nasty stuff now.

 

 

macbudsmom
by Silver Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM
You are welcome. Its a common misconception.


Quoting survivorinohio:

Thats interesting, thank you, I didnt know that.

Quoting macbudsmom:

While CACs function through the help of government dollars they are actually private non profit organizations, not government agencies.


Quoting survivorinohio:


Quoting Collier3:

Why is that ppl find it hard to believe that conservatives can be giving. We do not agree with open ended government social programs, but we do not want the complete end to them. hey should provide assistance to an individual during a tough time in their lives to get them back on track. Not to be the only way to get by for years on end.  There is a big difference to wanting to limit the amount of help and getting ride of it completely.

Most conservatives I know are active in programs, wether it be food banks, donating to homeless shelters, etc... They want to help, but they want to help on their terms, not what the government tells them they have to do.

Community Action is a government agency that deals with food shelter and utility assistance with government programs here.  Just for clarification.






Posted on CafeMom Mobile
viv212
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM
I don't know how true it is but they I've also heard that those states that have the highest people on PA are in red states...

Quoting survivorinohio:

Things that make you go Hmmm.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Oct. 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM

While I agree, I also believe that we have a jobs' deficit in this country.

In most places, there are more people who need/desire work, than there are skills appropriate jobs available.

And, IMO, if we reached a point where we only supplemented struggling WORKING folks, some would complain about those dollars too.

Unfortunately, most in this country like to complain, particularly about perceived preferential treatment. I am guilty of complaining when I see that mega millionaires and billionaires are privy to financial tax advantages that I am not. 

Quoting Susan0805:

Lol! Im a conservative. I dont think the goverment should take away from the struggling working class to give to those on assistance that could and should work. ( not saying all are just a large amount) if these programs were better regulated and implemented better then maybe i would have a better opinion of. Now, that being said imnot against helping people, in fact i think it should be an individual, community, and state responsibility, NOT a federal government issue. As an individual i do quite a bit for my community in ways that i can best help, to say i shouldnt volunteer when there is need makes no sense to me?


Separation of church and state is for the protection of BOTH church and state.
Leading with hate and intolerance only leads to MORE hate and intolerance.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)