Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (107912)	6/9/2001 11:05:05 PM
From: BGR	Respond to of 436258

Goodness, how this thread has changed! <VBG>

To: GraceZ who wrote (107912)	6/10/2001 1:06:01 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>>>This is where he excuses his own prejudice against wealth. The prejudice against wealth in this country doesn't take food off the table of the rich child but it does wind up justifying confiscatory tax laws which oddly enough wind up taking food off the table of poor people.<<< Grace, be very careful in making the above argument. It is fodder for another, more conservative approach to dealing with the "poor" that I don't think you would support given your background. I remember a discussion sometime back during the presidential election when it became clear to me that some posters on this thread were against any kind of government supported social safety net, even for poor children without parents. No opportunity for basic medical care or minimal nutritional requirements. The opinion seemed to be that they should become the objects solely or primarily of private charity (yet again) in some brave new conservo-libetarian world. When I pointed out that this had been tried in the past and that private religious and charitable groups had collapsed under the strain it was written off as an unusual set of circumstance due to economic depression. What many of these posters don't realize is that it worked poorly, if at all, both before and after the 1930s. They seemed oddly afflicted by some nostalgia for the "good ol' days" when private charity wove what little social safety net existed. They apparently think that all one had to do was ask and show need and charities would respond...plenty for everyone who came a knocking both before and after the depression. I've talked to number of elderly people who were turned away from the church and private agencies during these non-depression times. They harbor horrible personal resentment as a result. Believe me, their ability to show need wasn't the problem. The ability of charities to provide was the problem. They could tell you stories of families (in some cases their own) that just disintegrated because there was no help available. Some lost their children to places not unlike where you grew up because they could simply not obtain food for a indefinite period of time while they were unemployed. When I was in college there was a Catholic children's home/orphanage down the road. Many of the service sororities and fraternities made the institution the primary beneficiary of their efforts. At holidays the entire student body coughed up big money. At some point we learned they were not accepting new children and had plans to close by attrition and private placement. Many of us felt terrible...as though we had personally failed somehow. It was made far worse by the fact that a few children raised at the home went on to attend college with us. They were the "lucky" ones who had at least one dead parent and had a monthly benefit to pay tuition form social security survivors benefits (which now no longer exists for those above 18 yrs. old seeking higher education.) We insisted someone from the home and the Archdioces explain just what the hell was going on as we at the university, at least collectively, were a major donor. The explanation was quite amazing. Seemed they just couldn't afford the burden any longer even with government support...now this was in the mid-1970s mind you. The rep from the Archdioces also pointed out that this was not a situation peculiar to the Catholic Church...that numerous Protestant homes in the area and nationwide were getting out of the orphan biz and named them for us. Lo and behold he was correct. Seems that the church (and that goes for any church) had other agendas that didn't include providing for the most vunerable as it was just too damn expensive...seems the orphan/children's home couldn't cut the mustard when examined on a case by case basis. Not enough poor kid bang for the buck? We were incredulous...hell, I'm still incredulous and it's been 25+ years. Though some of these residential institutions still exist today in some form they have been scaled back and down considerably...a shadow of their former level of commitment. I know an RN who works for one. She finds the notion that they could keep their doors open with charitable donations only (no govt. support of any kind, no Medicaid) absolutely ludicrous...and she accepts a salary which is half what a pediatrics RN would earn in private industry. These are children with chronic health and emotional problems which have been consistently turned down for foster or kinship care placement. In her opinion the only reason they are still open is that the order of nuns who operate the home has basically told the church to gfy as they are a well funded order and have some autonomy. Based on the above as well as other experiences with religious and private charities I find it odd that people assume that private and religious charities do or will do any better job than some government programs paid for by taxes. In fact there is a dearth of literature out there to support the private charity over government program argument...and virtually none as to how this structure might work on a mass scale...unless you want to look to the past which is bad to not at all. People just want to believe they do a better job because God is somehow involved?...or that these groups even want the job because God is somehow involved and the people running the show must be "good" people and therefore willing to bear this burden yet again? Got me? I think that many of these organizations have made their position more than clear re: the level of commitment. They may be "good" people, but they ain't stupid people.