Tax (or certain taxes) as theft (forcibly payed) is an entirely different argument all together. I have had those discussions and they are rather round about in nature. I am only hoping to give you an idea of why your taxes going to these people may be beneficial to you even if the idea of being forced to pay for it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly don't like to be forced into anything. I would have preferred that we did not go to Iraq or possibly even Afghanistan though that does not change the fact that my taxes have helped pay for it. If there are in fact people in those countries that are greatful than at least I feel a bit better about it.
You are right about the tax and force statement being entirely a different argument and as such I shouldn't have included that question. However, I am not interested in things that may be beneficial, only in things that are beneficial. Also I am in complete agreement about the wars, but I think we need to find a higher standard than people being grateful. If you were to give a drug dependent person a thousand dollars, they would be grateful, but I doubt it would be beneficial.
I am assuming that they have placed themselves in the locations that could most greatly benefit from their help and where they will be most effective (and where they are most welcome).
I agree that they have probably set up where they are most welcome, and that's my point, if they are welcome there let the welcoming parties pay for their services.
As for setting up a government agency would that not infringe even more so on your feeling that the government is overstepping its bounds? So long as it is an organization of the people and by the people the government is only assisting them rather than controlling where and how such funding is used. A private organization is more dynamic and can more easily channel funds where they are needed than a government organization that does everything by committee and may be sending much needed funds to the wrong areas due to bureaucracy. I would think that that would appeal to your conservative sensibilities more than an organization that is run by the government.
I probably would vote against anyone that supported creating the acorn division of the government, but atleast the politicians would be following the rules they are bound by and not just making a justification that acorn fits into the general welfare clause. It would also happen in full view of the country since it would take a constitutional ammendment in my opinion to get it done. Anyways the problem right now as I see it is acorns funding, so I will fight against that at this juncture, and if it ever came to the government wanting to add acorn to the constitution I would argue against that the same as I have been arguing against acorns funding.
I agree with everything you said about private companies, and that's what scares me. Private enities are far more efficient than a governmental counterpart, and when their revenues are tied to how much governmental money they can give out, I am sure they will give tons of it away, right or wrong be damned.
You are right that a prime motivator is to survive. That also means to survive by any means necessary and often at the least expense in work and difficulty. Many people unfortunately have a rather limited scope of the future and prefer immediate gratification. This often leads to crime. Even if it is only a relative few who indulge in criminal activity to get by they will have a rather detrimental effect on society as a whole and its ability to recognize and respect the law (or common social contract). I am sure that you can respect this since you were rather strong in support of rehabilitation and education as a means of preventing crime in our other thread. Unfortunately education and rehab in and of itself is not enough. We need also to prevent people from reaching the point where they have nothing left to loose. A society burdened by the unemployed will also be burdened by crime and that crime will adversely effect the ability of the society to prosper creating a vicious cycle. A society burdened by unemployment and crime most often will not be capable of sustaining itself and hence incapable of dealing with such issues as unemployment and homelessness which contribute to crime, instability, and lack of prosperity which exacerbate the problem. A regular snow ball effect. The easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem (tbhe only option left to a poor and downtrodden community) is to attempt to remove it, which generally pushes it off onto someone else. This is why it may become a national epidemic.
So the reason to support acorn is that if we don't the people they would of helped are going to rob us instead? That sounds like extortion to me. How about a reason like, if we support acorn, unemployment will go away. I don't see anything they do that has any effect on unemployment, except to maybe extend the problem, oh wait I guess they did help 15(imaginary) underage el salvadorian minors get work as prostitutes.
I wholeheartedly disagree that education is not the solution, education is the only thing that separates the well off from the not so well off. When I say education I am speaking of what John Locke called "breeding", the knowledge you receive from your parents and others during your upbringing. If we could give "underpriveliged" people the same monetary and life skills education that the "overpriveliged" have been receiving the lower classes would disappear. Instead of us giving them a useful education such as the harder you work the more satisfaction you will receive, or that anyone can pull themselves up out of poverty, we have been giving them the educaton that its not their fault, that just getting a bigger paycheck is the way to happiness and its the mean employer holding them back, since its because they make so little that they can't excape poverty.
The general story of
The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.
