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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (91827)	12/20/2004 8:32:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Don't get bogged down in arguments that rely on anecdotes. There is no way to verify the anecdotes people give here- without getting way too weird. One apartment complex does not solve the problem of the homeless, any more than donating groceries to the needy solves the problem of hunger. It's a baby step- and it's charity- the real big solutions will come from government, because no one else can afford a really big solution. So unless you want an unfair patchwork of unreliable services for the nations poor, government needs to step in. Of course some people are perfectly ok with unfair patchworks of services (and rights)- but I can't say I think it's a very good way to live.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (91827)	12/22/2004 9:15:11 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I can't imagine any religious institution turning away poor atheists. "I prefer the government doing it and they do MUCH, MUCH more per capita." Surely you're not implying you don't like religious institutions doing charitable works? Re. public vs private institutions - I think we all know which are generally the more effective and efficient. There's also the problem with gov't benefits being considered rights by the recipients with a resulting erosion of the sense of self-responsibility.