Why did I see these ‘evacuees’ shopping in the Galleria at Neiman Marcus? I don’t even shop at Neiman Marcus (I was there getting someone a wedding present btw), and I’m pretty sure I make more than all of them.

And so many of the young boys were getting new shoes and games at Footaction and Gamestop.. These people need education and spiritual wellness, not more money.

So, in one way I don’t see why conservatives are not happy. Bush wants to use government to address ills in the way Republicans want to use government, not the way Democrats want to use the government.

Oh…

Wait….

Spending? What spending?

</sarcasim>

BTW, heard you on the radio. Unable to call in because I called in on the previous segment.

Thanks for listening, DS. – Admin

I support private donations to organizations like the Salvation Army to help out the survivors of natural disasters. But I really have problems when the Federal Government starts to dole out billions of our tax dollars. See my previous post concernin…

“So what is it? Individual motivation irrespective of social policy that makes somebody ‘less equal’ ultimate in terms of resources and ‘progress’. Or is ‘equality’ (or lack there of) from a resource standpoint, based upon motivation determined by social policy?”

It’s neither, and both: The welfare state mentality and policies stifle individual motivation, and prohibit aid recipients from helping themselves.

Once on the dole, the system punishes incentive to get off the dole. Recipients are not allowed to incrementally improve their economic situation toward a point of self-sufficiency, because anything they can earn will be deducted from their “benefits,” or all assistance will be withdrawn.

For the individual in poverty, it’s a Catch-22 that was institutionalized by liberals and their social engineering.

I haven’t got time to fisk #53, but I will say that once again, you’ve substituted Man’s theory on human nature/motivations at the expense of God’s facts as provided in his “Weak Flesh Owners Manual” from which La Shawn has based her analysis.

Proverbs comes readily to mind vis a vis fools and sloths, as does our favorite parables on the 10 virgins, 10 talents etc. People are born to be prodigal, some come to their senses early, some late, and for many never, even if the Archangel came down and smacked them upside the head with the truth.

Sloth is sin! Poverty is sometimes fate, sometimes the sins of the parents passed on down and sometimes self-inflicted. Throwing good money indiscrimnately does no one any good.

You should know that by now as to where La Shawn is coming from. It doesn’t matter how you slice your stated position, you and God can’t both be right yet at odds. And certainly in this case, there is no such thing as a 3rd way, so guess which set of theorems I’m banking on.

“Some people work hard; others are lazy. Some are more generous, motivated, talented, driven, etc., and others are not. No amount of government cash will ever change human nature. If the failure of half a century worth of social programs, despite billions upon billions of dollars, doesn’t prove it to you, you’re willfully deaf and blind.”

You start at the back end of the equation as opposed to the front end of ‘what makes people motivated’ and get mixed up in the middle.

For example, you say liberal policies and welfare act as a deterrent to motivation. So you assign value to an external policy as a cause for human behavior.

But before that you routinely make the statement that ‘no amount of government cash can change that’. Implying that social policy does not change behavior inherent to human beings.

So what is it? Individual motivation irrespective of social policy that makes somebody ‘less equal’ ultimate in terms of resources and ‘progress’. Or is ‘equality’ (or lack there of) from a resource standpoint, based upon motivation determined by social policy?

You keep bouncing back and forth. On one hand you say irrespective of social situation the individual is accountable for behavior particularly in moving out of poverty. Then on the other hand you say a social policy, in the form of welfare in general, is the cause of so many remaining in poverty.

Secondly, if you attempt to reduce ‘performance’ in America solely to individual responsibility based upon what you call features inherent to the human condition – “Some work hard, others are lazy…etc.” Like you mentioned above. Then by default and basic logic, you assign a lack of these characteristics to ‘group collectives’ that have a higher percentage of poor, and an increase in these characteristics to individuals who are not poor or wealthy. You do this based upon ‘intrinsic/internal character’ as opposed to external environmental and social policy factors.

Which means, logically, that YOU believe blacks are inferior because they possess less of these ‘positive intrinsic/internal’ characteristics as demonstrated by the fact that they are poor.

I am sure this post will be tossed out as usual. But nevertheless I want to see someone answer the question of the back and forth on this issue that the ultra-right continually has.

Secondly, you still miss the macro implications of what it is your are saying. If Is it social policy that creates and maintains poverty, which is what you routinely say about the liberals and ’social engineering’ or is it it individual personal accountability and failure by the individual that is poverty?

I don’t trust these estimates of 250 billion dollars to rebuild the city. They said the entire debacle in Iraq would only last a few months and cost 87 billion dollars. Someone needs to reign this spending in or at least be square with the American people about what the reconstruction effort means.

I say restore federal taxes as they were when Bush got into office and inherited a surplus. We all have a stake in rebuilding one of our own cities. Moreso than anything we’ve done in Iraq. These borrow and spend Republicans are much worse than anything I’ve seen from the so-called tax and spend Democrats.

That’s a very ignorant statement to make. Bush is the country’s President. He should be able to speak to all of the country’s citizens.

The Reps in power are more addicted to OPM, since the Dems only ever want to spend more. As long as the Dems alternative is higher taxes to spend even more than Bush, don’t expect the Reps to spend less on their own.

I haven’t been around that long, but I’ve never seen any spending by the Dems compared to what Bush and the GOP Congress have done in the past five. The current GOP is a new animal. They’re definitely not fiscally responsible.

Funny you mention Halliburton. They’re one of the select few companies given no bid contracts in the Gulf Area. Nothing like giving charity to your friends like Halliburton and Bechtel.