The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

tjohn said:

Some of this comments remind me of the old adage, "If you don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all."

Queen Elizabeth meant a great deal in a good way to a lot of people.  Would the course of world history have changed dramatically were it not for her steady presence?  Probably not, but still, she meant a great deal to a lot of people.

pffffft

tjohn said:

Some of this comments remind me of the old adage, "If you don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all."

Queen Elizabeth meant a great deal in a good way to a lot of people.  Would the course of world history have changed dramatically were it not for her steady presence?  Probably not, but still, she meant a great deal to a lot of people.

Boris Johnson's tribute to the Queen yesterday, in Parliament.

He wore his mourning suit, and his morning hair. 

drummerboy said:

joanne said:

Umm, yes? Because you seemed to imply the donations are in response to the organisations begging for financial support? 
Staying with the remote medical groups:    Not all are in a position to carry out research (for example) to cover costs, and here, most routine medical costs can be covered by Medicare. It’s the related costs to access things like transport, accommodation, medications, nursing, various therapies etc that make it very difficult even with some govt funding. 

drummerboy said:

I think you missed my point. Who's making money absent charities? Are you thinking I'm saying that charities should be replaced by profit makers?

ETA: my David reminded me that the Flying Doctors were instrumental in the founding of School of the Air.  Now I grew up with Kindergarten of the Air, which was kindy on ABC radio. (These days it’s Playschool on TV)

But for real education out-back of beyond, you need two-way talking-type radios and now internet. https://australian-children.com/school-of-the-air/history-of-school-of-the-air/

(300km= 3-5 hours drive in good conditions, one way For reference within that last link)

To make it simple - the existence of charities are a failure because needful groups should be supported by the government, not by begging. (And of course, begging itself has become big business too - more waste.)

Charities are an anachronism leftover from a more primitive time.

say you don't give to charity without saying you don't give to charity

Elizabeth was six years old the year I was born. Watching her grow up as a princess in newsreels, I was amazed and thrilled to see her become Queen 70 years ago. She was an amazing woman who never faltered in her role over decades of turmoil and change, political and cultural. Will the Monarchy survive after Elizabeth?  We will see.

I am pleased to see broader discussions on topics here, raising questions about social issues. How would the work of Catholic Charities be better run as a “department” of the government?

Why would it be better to receive charitable aid filtered through Congress, rather than people giving to the needy through religious and public sources? People helping people is good for both the providers and receivers of help.

Greed and misappropriation is to be found everywhere, sadly. Politics would destroy charitable giving, as we see being played out in Washington daily.

Aside to Joan….I am streaming a lot of Australian series and the vastness of your country in shows such as “Darby and Joan” is beautifully captured. Also in “A Place Called Home,” and many others programs. 

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

To make it simple - the existence of charities are a failure because needful groups should be supported by the government, not by begging. (And of course, begging itself has become big business too - more waste.)

Charities are an anachronism leftover from a more primitive time.

say you don't give to charity without saying you don't give to charity

That's a really stupid interpretation.

nohero said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

To make it simple - the existence of charities are a failure because needful groups should be supported by the government, not by begging. (And of course, begging itself has become big business too - more waste.)

Charities are an anachronism leftover from a more primitive time.

say you don't give to charity without saying you don't give to charity

That's a really stupid interpretation.

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

Smedley said:

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

How about just focus on meeting food, shelter, and health care needs as a societal good, instead of forcing a reliance on charity for those?

nohero said:

How about just focus on meeting food, shelter, and health care needs as a societal good, instead of forcing a reliance on charity for those?

And how about a living wage for an honest day's work. 

Smedley said:

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

In the U.S., the question is certainly not that there is too much government.

I guess we’re in the rose garden of buckingham palace now…

I posted this elsewhere and it's a pretty good summary of how I feel about the British monarchy. It's actually from a year and a half ago in The Irish Times.

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

nohero said:

Smedley said:

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

How about just focus on meeting food, shelter, and health care needs as a societal good, instead of forcing a reliance on charity for those?

you may think government should cover all needs, but I think a system of government supplemented by private charity is better. Kind of like the system we have. 

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

In the U.S., the question is certainly not that there is too much government.

is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

Smedley said:

you may think government should cover all needs, but I think a system of government supplemented by private charity is better. Kind of like the system we have. 

By what objective measures is it "better" than that of other countries that provide health care and other social services that our country doesn't?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

you may think government should cover all needs, but I think a system of government supplemented by private charity is better. Kind of like the system we have. 

By what objective measures is it "better" than that of other countries that provide health care and other social services that our country doesn't?

broadly speaking, I'd start with GDP per capita. 

"As of 2021, The per capita income of the United States is 1.86 and 1.44 times higher than that of the European Union in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. The US had greater gdp per capita than the EU for data available since 1966"

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php

Smedley said:

broadly speaking, I'd start with GDP per capita. 

"As of 2021, The per capita income of the United States is 1.86 and 1.44 times higher than that of the European Union in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. The US had greater gdp per capita than the EU for data available since 1966"

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php

so that's your measure of the well-being of a country's people?

Sad. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

you may think government should cover all needs, but I think a system of government supplemented by private charity is better. Kind of like the system we have. 

By what objective measures is it "better" than that of other countries that provide health care and other social services that our country doesn't?

broadly speaking, I'd start with GDP per capita. 

"As of 2021, The per capita income of the United States is 1.86 and 1.44 times higher than that of the European Union in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. The US had greater gdp per capita than the EU for data available since 1966"

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php

and what percent of that income in the U.S. is spent on healthcare, childcare, drugs, education, etc?

You are too easily seduced by simple numbers.

Smedley said:

snarky but what can you do.

but seriously, I am curious how db envisions his plan would work. I see there are about 1.5 mln charities in the US, with $500b total donations. So just have a new government agency, the US Bureau of Charitable Affairs perhaps, to which charities would send in a form with their $ request, and the BCA would review and cut a check? 

would direct solicitations be prohibited? Would cupcakes at school bake sales be free, and no cost to run the Newstead 5k (both covered by the gubmint)?

and the broader question is, is there any such thing as too much government in progressivism?

so much to unpack here.

Just because an organization is allowed tax deductible donations does not make it a "charity" in the traditional sense. 27% of giving goes to churches. Another 14% goes to schools. (That's 40% of your 500B right there.) Neither of which are charities. And churches obviously wouldn't be eligible for government funding. If the data were more readily available I'm sure I could whittle those numbers a lot more.

Again - simple numbers are simple.

And the point, of course, is not to fund existing charities. That would be asinine. The point is to try and alleviate the underlying problems through government assistance. Rather than depend on the whims of donors.

Just as an example, why are their so many private organizations involved with specific illnesses? Shouldn't research on those illnesses simply be funded through the NIH?

ml1 said:

I posted this elsewhere and it's a pretty good summary of how I feel about the British monarchy. It's actually from a year and a half ago in The Irish Times.

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

This from a guy who recently spent four years being ruled by a literal clown.

.

GoSlugs said:

ml1 said:

I posted this elsewhere and it's a pretty good summary of how I feel about the British monarchy. It's actually from a year and a half ago in The Irish Times.

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

This from a guy who recently spent four years being ruled by a literal clown.

at least we get an opportunity to vote our clowns out of office.

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

you may think government should cover all needs, but I think a system of government supplemented by private charity is better. Kind of like the system we have. 

By what objective measures is it "better" than that of other countries that provide health care and other social services that our country doesn't?

broadly speaking, I'd start with GDP per capita. 

"As of 2021, The per capita income of the United States is 1.86 and 1.44 times higher than that of the European Union in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. The US had greater gdp per capita than the EU for data available since 1966"

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-eu-economy.php

and what percent of that income in the U.S. is spent on healthcare, childcare, drugs, education, etc?

You are too easily seduced by simple numbers.

if a person wanted to start with one simple number as a measure of whether a system in which private charities are relied upon for a lot of social services is "better," average life expectancy would be a smarter choice than per capita GDP.

Life expectancy is a catch all for a country's health care, rate of accidents and homicides, its nutrition, fitness, etc.

ml1 said:

at least we get an opportunity to vote our clowns out of office.

"Voting" is sort of a relative term in a country where the guy who lost the popular vote by a couple of million regularly wins the election.

All I am saying is that Americans ought to be very cautious about ridiculing other people's systems of government.  From where I am sitting, in a functioning constitutional monarchy, that seems obvious.  From where you are sitting, in the smoldering ashes of a dumpster fire that is constantly threatening to reignite, perhaps it is less so.

GoSlugs said:

"Voting" is sort of a relative term in a country where the guy who lost the popular vote by a couple of million regularly wins the election.

All I am saying is that Americans ought to be very cautious about ridiculing other people's systems of government.  From where I am sitting, in a functioning constitutional monarchy, that seems obvious.  From where you are sitting, in the smoldering ashes of a dumpster fire that is constantly threatening to reignite, perhaps it is less so.

I suppose we could try and pass a constitutional amendment making Meghan Markle our head of state? Not sure how having a rich famous person with no official powers would really do much, but who knows?

Failing that I suppose we could find some watery personage to throw a sword at someone.

You’re missing the point: while outside politics the constitutional monarch does have powers and duties. Listen to Boris Johnston’s list again. Every piece of legislation must be ratified by the monarch or else it can’t be enacted,  every domestic and foreign policy must be approved by the monarch; the entire military force and foreign service are loyal foremost to the monarch and report ultimately to the monarch not the PM who has no rank. Attorneys general come and go, but the monarch, who embodies the spirit of the nation, is the head of the justice system. And the monarch control the parliamentary seasons, opening each sitting and accepting each sitting member including the PM. 
 You try doing all that while remaining apolitical, charming, and the ultimate diplomat every day and see how far you get, never mind until the day you die. 
(corrected spelling)

Jaytee said:

I guess we’re in the rose garden of buckingham palace now…

joanne said:

You’re missing the point: while outside politics the constitutional monarch does have powers and duties. Listen to Boris Johnston’s list again. Every piece of legislation must be ratified by the monarch or else it can’t be enacted,  every domestic and foreign policy must be approved by the monarch; the entire military force and foreign service are loyal foremost to the monarch and report ultimately to the monarch not the PM who has no rank. Attorneys general come and go, but the monarch, who embodies the spirit of the nation, is the head of the justice system. And the monarch control the parliamentary seasons, opening each sitting and accepting each sitting member including the PM. 
 You try doing all that while remaining apolitical, charming, and the ultimate diplomat every day and see how far you get, never mind until the day you die. 
(corrected spelling)

If the Brits and countries that had the queen as head of state get something out of having a monarch, and they think the benefits outweigh the cost, then they should continue as they're doing. I don't get it, but it's really not my affair.

What I do like about the British system vs the American one is that it's a parliamentary rather than presidential system. The monarchy as a historical remnant of how the system arose makes sense, but there's of course plenty of parliamentary systems these days that don't have a monarch, so that's not an essential feature of the system.

I'm always interested in the topic of comparative government, and to the degree the queen's passing tangentially raises those sorts of questions I can get drawn into discussion, but I don't really have anything to say about the queen per se. For those on this board for whom the queen meant something, I do sincerely offer my condolences. I don't want to take away from that.

Changing the subject again:

Here it’s 9/11 already.  Hard to believe yet another year has slipped by, apparently so easily while so many are still reeling from the shock and loss. As I type this, Air Force planes are flying overhead, just a coincidence but putting me in mind of all of you. 
As we would say, Lest we forget. 

joanne said:

You’re missing the point: while outside politics the constitutional monarch does have powers and duties. Listen to Boris Johnston’s list again. Every piece of legislation must be ratified by the monarch or else it can’t be enacted,  every domestic and foreign policy must be approved by the monarch; the entire military force and foreign service are loyal foremost to the monarch and report ultimately to the monarch not the PM who has no rank. Attorneys general come and go, but the monarch, who embodies the spirit of the nation, is the head of the justice system. And the monarch control the parliamentary seasons, opening each sitting and accepting each sitting member including the PM. 
 You try doing all that while remaining apolitical, charming, and the ultimate diplomat every day and see how far you get, never mind until the day you die. 
(corrected spelling)

Has there ever been a case where QE was not simply a rubber stamp in all of those roles? Did she ever assert her power to change the direction of what the political bureaucracy wanted?

My guess is no. Nor should she have.