News Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
I believe we would have to convert our present constitution into a napoleonic constitution for it to have to be worded that precisely, but according to our present constitution it has to be enumerated or it is left to the states or to the people(individuals not a collective).
I would assume that skippy was trying to say that it is possible that an organization that by thier own admission only speaks for 400,000 members, in 1,200 neighborhoods, in 75 cities across 40 or so states, could hardly be considered as general(applying to all or most of a group) welfare(benefit: something that aids or promotes well being). Since I believe the general welfare clause is the most prostituted clause and would be the enumerated power stated to empower the federal or more accurately the national government to fund Acorn or any other private enity non-profit or for-profit. How can it be justified as general welfare when it encompasses so few? In those 40 or so states it is a lot closer match, in the 75 cities still closer, in the 1,200 neighborhoods its closer and when we reach the 400,000 members it is a perfect match as to general. I also think it fits pretty good for welfare, the members get the satisfaction and joy of giving, the recipients get the benifit of the help, and this is 100% voluntary, 100% charity as opposed to .5% voluntary, 10% charity and 89.5% coercion(all percentages are guestimites).
IMHO Acorn should lose the national governments funding, as there is not anywhere it is enumerated, although that could change if a large enough group of states agree and ammend the constitution. Acorn may have a case with getting state, city or other local government funding, but thats as high up the chain they should go.
Acorns' mission statement pretty much says they want to organize a low to moderate income majority, because those are the best advocates for thier communities. That doesnt sound like general welfare to me, more like general misery.

http://www.acorn.org" [Broken]
http://www.constitutionus.com" [Broken]
You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.

But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do. When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of. In some areas, especially if there are high unemployment rates, the state may lack the funds to properly take care of such a situation. The unemployed will drag down the rest of their community and the cheapest most likely solution will be to take authoritative action and try to get rid of these 'hindrances' (note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]). Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jasongreat

You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.
I understand that I was speaking of members, apparantly only 400,000 people care enough about what acorn stands for to become members, yet they force millions with the backing of government to support them through taxes. I think we already have government programs to help the disadvantaged get welfare, loans on homes, and to get people registered to vote(although they probably wouldnt help a pimp setup his buisiness). In my opinion people without homes and that arent registered to vote can still be productive and active members of society, but I dont know if I would add welfare recipients to that list. I am sure that Acorn "helps" more than 400,000 people, but do they help enough people to be considered general welfare? I dont understand why they cant find private funding if they really are offering an important contribution, there is nothing stopping you or any one else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?


But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do.
If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldnt doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they dont have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.


When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of.

I know plenty of people without homes that contribute to the society they live in, I also know alot of "poor" people that are also big contributors to society, and just being without a job does not make someone a burden on society. Now if they are poor and sticking a hand out, or without a job and sticking a handout, or having the taxpayers pay for thier home, then yes they would be a burden to society, but I would argue that if the government programs they are tapping into didnt exist then they would no longer be a burden, they would also have more incentive to progress than to regress or to stay the same.


(
note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]).
That sounds about right, not just, but right as far as the gov. goes. It also bugs me, when after paying federal taxes, I have to pay an entrance fee into a national park.


Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.
This scenario you have described would never happen if they couldnt get thier hands into the community purse in the first place. They would have to take responsibility for themselves, i've heard that in all creatures the prime mover is the instinct to survive, is that true or not? If survival means all you have to do is put your hand out, thats all they will do. No I havent seen or read grapes of wrath, I do agree with you that the poor are a national problem, but I still believe the best source of help would come from the communities they live in, not from a politician or government 3,000 miles away. The states should be able to keep thier resources so they can help thier own, instead of sending thier resources to washington then standing in line to get it back, after it has been reduced by paying the people that get to send it back to them.
Since Acorns mission is to organize a low to moderate income majority, and not to help the low and moderate income people become better perpared so they can move out of the low to moderate level. I will still have to say that I still believe the national government should quit giving my money to them.
 
Jason said:
there is nothing stopping you or any one else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?
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.

Jason said:
If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldnt doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they dont have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.
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).
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.

Jason said:
This scenario you have described would never happen if they couldnt get thier hands into the community purse in the first place. They would have to take responsibility for themselves, i've heard that in all creatures the prime mover is the instinct to survive, is that true or not? If survival means all you have to do is put your hand out, thats all they will do. No I havent seen or read grapes of wrath, I do agree with you that the poor are a national problem, but I still believe the best source of help would come from the communities they live in, not from a politician or government 3,000 miles away. The states should be able to keep thier resources so they can help thier own, instead of sending thier resources to washington then standing in line to get it back, after it has been reduced by paying the people that get to send it back to them.
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.

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.
 
107
0
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.
US workers no longer want the agricultural jobs - hence illegal aliens. If the private sector jobs continue to shrink, and illegals are offered immunity, the welfare system could eventually collapse under it's own weight.

The US Government has hiring standards that ACORN obviously doesn't require. Taxpayer money should be doled out by Government workers - not by people unqualified for the Government positions.
 

Jasongreat

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 shouldnt 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 thats my point, if they are welcome there let the welcoming parties pay for thier 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 thats what scares me. Private enities are far more efficient than a governmental counterpart, and when thier 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 dont 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 dont 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 seperates 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 thier 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 cant 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.
It seems to me that it also would show the folly of not paying attention to or not knowing how the free markets work, since it was by their own accord that they increased the number of workers and therefore decreased the value of thier labor. Kind of like farmers do today. They hear of a high corn price this year, so they plant thier whole farm in corn, and then when its time to sell they find that the corn prices have dropped since the market got alot more corn than it needed, and that they didnt make the money they thought they were going to. Hopefully though the subjects in the story learnt thier lesson and didnt go running to the next spot that promised work, so the cycle could continue.
 

Related Threads for: Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
59
Views
10K
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
117
Views
9K
Replies
39
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top