Originally Posted by Benzo
This disproves the rest of your post, Individual and Organizations, picked up the slack, without government intervention. You are saying that without government intervention these orgs would not exist, you just proved otherwise. Here is the kicker, with tax breaks, people will support them more.
Assumptions I disagree with, history supports me. You make it sound like under a conservative government we were out kicking babies, its sensationalism.
Again I don't support your thesis statement, so the rest of it is conjecture to to me.
You will notice, that I have no once tried to sway you from your beliefs because I think that the difference of opinion is part of what makes it all work. You yourself are the antithesis to what you are afraid of. I have faith in people even in a free market, because people like us exist.
wait a minute.... you're suggesting that because some people have dug deep to rescue vital agencies it's proof that governments don't have to? really? doesn't that just encourage the free rider problem? doesn't that mean that most people will then contribute nothing? because that's exactly what is happening.
what i argued about free markets vs social safety nets is not at all sensationalism. it's an argument of degrees. reducing it to kicking out babies is sensationalism. the fact is that funding for disabilities, for community agencies, etc has dropped dramatically. there are massive waitlists that we cannot unload because we don't have the staff or the funding. this is not the way it needs to be. and history absolutely does not support you. i'd love to see some real evidence of this, becasue i work in these agencies, and i can promise you that we are in dire straights becasue of funding cuts to essential social programs.
what you called conjecture was the argument that supports the thesis. it's not something that follows, it's the nut of the argument. that's like saying i don't agree with the thesis therefore i will ignore the proof. that's logically backwards.