Lefties Pretend To Be Religious

[rtwngAvngr]

That is how things have to work, and how things already work. The "future" is now. This comes back to that analogy thing. The zero taxes is an analogy, one that demonstrates why it has to work that way. It's the same logic as charity only welfare, that people would be more willing to fund a group that will inform recipients of the donators ideology and therefore supposedly recieve more in donations than the government would in taxes. The fact that nobody here is advocating the ZERO tax system is my point: we all know it wouldn't work, just like relying on only charity to take care of citizens' welfare didn't work, and won't work.

You make no sense. Do you realize that?

Your zero taxes strawman is not an analogy and illustrates nothing. You need to make this more clear. I think your saying this, "since zero taxes is an impossibility, private charity can never be enough for the needs of the poor". That's messed up too. It makes no sense. It's true we need taxes to run government, but government doesn't have to run welfare programs. The two are logically unrelated.

 

[Bonnie]

I would contend that most of these people aren't dependant upon government. Even back when we gave handouts more than 2/3 of the people on "stigmatizing welfare" were off in less than two years. Over 90% were off within 10 years, and basically everyone who still wasn't off was put on as a very young kid (i.e. 1-4 years old) and was still unable to really get a job after 10 years. This was back when we gave cash handouts to people even. Now they don't get these anymore and can't really survive by sitting on the wagon. These programs actually did show signs of helping us out of the depression, but then the war got us out real quick. These programs have greatly increased the quality of life for the poor.

Welfare makes up and has always made up a very small percent of the budget. I think right now less than four cents of every tax dollar goes to welfare. And what is most welfare spent on? Most of it is for coporate welfare, not the poorly funded "stigmatizing welfare" programs for the poor that you think of when you hear the word. Our Welfare system is far from a Welfare State, or Socialism as you're thinking of it, but even most Republicans are Democratic Socialists.

Id like to see some links to prove your statistics are correct.

 

[IControlThePast]

Id like to see some links to prove your statistics are correct.

p236 Kornblum and Julian, Social Problems

p328-9 Zastrow, Charles, Social Problems: Issues and Solutions

You make no sense. Do you realize that?

Your zero taxes strawman is not an analogy and illustrates nothing. You need to make this more clear. I think your saying this, "since zero taxes is an impossibility, private charity can never be enough for the needs of the poor". That's messed up too. It makes no sense. It's true we need taxes to run government, but government doesn't have to run welfare programs. The two are logically unrelated.

I'll use short sentences with no style and we'll see if that makes it clear to you. There are social problems such as poverty. There are various mechanisms for dealing with these social problems. These social problems need to be dealt with. Private charity alone can't raise the money to do so*. Private charity alone has already failed to raise the necessary amount of money. It is the government's responsibility to insure the welfare of its citizens to a point. That is why we have social programs. If private charity alone could take care of the problems, the welfare would not have needed to be taken care of, and these programs would have not been created. The government does need to run welfare programs if the welfare of its citizens can't be handled through private charity.

*Here is an analogy why private charity alone doesn't work.

Consider government funding for these programs analogous to government funding for non-social programs. The no tax at all system is analogous to no taxes to pay for social programs. This is an analogy for private charity funding not being enough to cover social problems. Non-social programs can't be properly funded through charity. The equivalent way they would be funded through charity is for people to only give donations to Political Organizations instead of paying taxes. You know and acknowledge that won't work. It is the same case for social programs.

 

[5stringJeff]

What you are stating is that this is a "conservatives only" board and that non-conforming views are not welcome.

I will make a deal with you. If you redo your board description to warn people that usmessageboard.com is open to conservative views only, I promise to willingly leave and not come back.
I don't post on conservative boards. I am not a troll. I post only on message boards that guarantee freedom of expression. If this is a conservative board, then I don't belong here.
You see, my opinions are as valid as yours. I am as intelligent as anyone here (probably more so, since I have the ability to process independent thoughts without watching Fox or listening to Rush first).
I even read both sides of the story. Now THERE is something original! Geez, who'd have thought that each issue has two sides? See, you learn something new everyday!

Contrary to some people's wishes, this board is open to all opinions and viewpoints.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

p236 Kornblum and Julian, Social Problems

p328-9 Zastrow, Charles, Social Problems: Issues and Solutions



I'll use short sentences with no style and we'll see if that makes it clear to you. There are social problems such as poverty. There are various mechanisms for dealing with these social problems. These social problems need to be dealt with. Private charity alone can't raise the money to do so*. Private charity alone has already failed to raise the necessary amount of money. It is the government's responsibility to insure the welfare of its citizens to a point. That is why we have social programs. If private charity alone could take care of the problems, the welfare would not have needed to be taken care of, and these programs would have not been created. The government does need to run welfare programs if the welfare of its citizens can't be handled through private charity.

*Here is an analogy why private charity alone doesn't work.

Consider government funding for these programs analogous to government funding for non-social programs. The no tax at all system is analogous to no taxes to pay for social programs. This is an analogy for private charity funding not being enough to cover social problems. Non-social programs can't be properly funded through charity. The equivalent way they would be funded through charity is for people to only give donations to Political Organizations instead of paying taxes. You know and acknowledge that won't work. It is the same case for social programs.

I've already gone over this. Just because we need taxes to run government doesn't mean government must run welfare programs. I believe that with major tax cuts donation to private charity would skyrocket. You can't prove they wouldn't. You can have a bad attitude about it and make up stupid arguments, but that ain't proof, Gina.

Your logic is in the shitter.

 

[IControlThePast]

I've already gone over this. Just because we need taxes to run government doesn't mean government must run welfare programs. I believe that with major tax cuts donation to private charity would skyrocket. You can't prove they wouldn't. You can have a bad attitude about it and make up stupid arguments, but that ain't proof, Gina.

Your logic is in the shitter.

It's because private charity can't handle the social problems that the government must run the programs, not because we need taxes.

So then I assume you can prove that donation to private charity will work? because you've got the good logic. I can prove it didn't work. These programs were instituted because private charity alone wasn't working.

Where exactly are you planning to take these large tax cuts out of? Defense spending? Cutting social programs will hardly give you any tax cut.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's because private charity can't handle the social problems that the government must run the programs, not because we need taxes.

I believe it can, and do a better job than the government. So now we DON'T need taxes? That was your golden proof of the necessity of welfare, somehow, only you understood really. You're all over the map, psycho.

So then I assume you can prove that donation to private charity will work? because you've got the good logic. I can prove it didn't work. These programs were instituted because private charity alone wasn't working.

The government programs sucked as well, and were massively gutted under clinton. Good riddance to them. We don't need to go back in that direction.

Where exactly are you planning to take these large tax cuts out of? Defense spending? Cutting social programs will hardly give you any tax cut.

Massive cuts at all levels of government. I'm not gonna go line by line with you. Just know that in general you are heinously wrong.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Gabriella84

What you are stating is that this is a "conservatives only" board and that non-conforming views are not welcome.

I will make a deal with you. If you redo your board description to warn people that usmessageboard.com is open to conservative views only, I promise to willingly leave and not come back.
I don't post on conservative boards. I am not a troll. I post only on message boards that guarantee freedom of expression. If this is a conservative board, then I don't belong here.
You see, my opinions are as valid as yours. I am as intelligent as anyone here (probably more so, since I have the ability to process independent thoughts without watching Fox or listening to Rush first).
I even read both sides of the story. Now THERE is something original! Geez, who'd have thought that each issue has two sides? See, you learn something new everyday!

And you wonder why people on this board are hostile towards you, this post is a classic representation of why. You come across as a smug pseudo-intellectual elitist who looks down on anyone who disagrees with you. You make it clear that you have no intention of having rational thoughtful discussion or giving anyone else here the benefit or courtesy of the doubt even after they post information that is in direct conflict to what you throw out, you essentially ignore the proof and go straight for the insults. Here's a thought.....Guess what... you havent' posted anything substantial to make your case like most everyone else that posts here does. It's right because you say so, sorry that doesn't cut it here. Your shallowness comes thru loud and clear.

Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that doesn't make every opinion right.

 

[menewa]

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm

Just another "frame" for them.

How do you know what these people feel or believe?

 

[IControlThePast]

I believe it can, and do a better job than the government. So now we DON'T need taxes? That was your golden proof of the necessity of welfare, somehow, only you understood really. You're all over the map, psycho.

We need taxes because these problems don't take care of themselves through private means, and therefore government needs some sort of funding to deal with these problems.

The government programs sucked as well, and were massively gutted under clinton. Good riddance to them. We don't need to go back in that direction.

The government social programs still exist. I'm not advocating adding more programs.

Massive cuts at all levels of government. I'm not gonna go line by line with you. Just know that in general you are heinously wrong.

Ok, let's say you make massive cuts everywhere but social programs. Now won't people give more to charity too? But if you cut social programs the best you can hope for is that all that money that would have been allocated to social programs is given to charity, but that isn't very likely, and doesn't offer any sort of aid increase.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We need taxes because these problems don't take care of themselves through private means, and therefore government needs some sort of funding to deal with these problems.



The government social programs still exist. I'm not advocating adding more programs.



Ok, let's say you make massive cuts everywhere but social programs. Now won't people give more to charity too? But if you cut social programs the best you can hope for is that all that money that would have been allocated to social programs is given to charity, but that isn't very likely, and doesn't offer any sort of aid increase.

If we can agree to keep them where they are, that's good enough for me. Ya rabid animal ya. Ok, let's go tell everyone else what we decided. You're wearing me out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How do you know what these people feel or believe?

It's obvious from their many statements of belief. How ya been, whipping boy!

 

[no1tovote4]

What you are stating is that this is a "conservatives only" board and that non-conforming views are not welcome.

I will make a deal with you. If you redo your board description to warn people that usmessageboard.com is open to conservative views only, I promise to willingly leave and not come back.

First of all this is jimnyc's board not Kathianne's board...

I don't post on conservative boards. I am not a troll. I post only on message boards that guarantee freedom of expression. If this is a conservative board, then I don't belong here.
You see, my opinions are as valid as yours. I am as intelligent as anyone here (probably more so, since I have the ability to process independent thoughts without watching Fox or listening to Rush first).

Stererotyping and marginalizing again I see.... Yeah, this is the usual reprehensible behavior of the Democrats that come on this board.

I even read both sides of the story. Now THERE is something original! Geez, who'd have thought that each issue has two sides? See, you learn something new everyday!

Your condescension is showing, such a trite a silly remark in attempt to belittle another member of a message board. The poster was simply giving you the other side of the story that you deliberately work to not listen to. This isn't debate it is simply well-worded trolling and flaming. If you don't want to be labelled as such then get back on topic and stop with the direct insults. Somebody posted verses from the Koran that directly opposed your "other side of the story" that you claim to have listened to, so get to answering that and stop with the attacks and likely you will find that people will stop calling you a troll.

 

[Annie]

First of all this is jimnyc's board not Kathianne's board...



Stererotyping and marginalizing again I see.... Yeah, this is the usual reprehensible behavior of the Democrats that come on this board.



Your condescension is showing, such a trite a silly remark in attempt to belittle another member of a message board. The poster was simply giving you the other side of the story that you deliberately work to not listen to. This isn't debate it is simply well-worded trolling and flaming. If you don't want to be labelled as such then get back on topic and stop with the direct insults. Somebody posted verses from the Koran that directly opposed your "other side of the story" that you claim to have listened to, so get to answering that and stop with the attacks and likely you will find that people will stop calling you a troll.

First of all this is jimnyc's board not Kathianne's board...

Geez, at first I was about to blow up at Gabby. Sorry, but I don't know how the many 'guys' have said the same thing, not to mention Shattered and Stephanie, so...please leave me out of the arguments. Thanks.

 

[Shattered]

Geez, at first I was about to blow up at Gabby. Sorry, but I don't know how the many 'guys' have said the same thing, not to mention Shattered and Stephanie, so...please leave me out of the arguments. Thanks.

Scuse me? What'd I miss?

 

[Annie]

Scuse me? What'd I miss?

It's getting to be a real long thread...

 

[Shattered]

Perhaps, but I get the distinct feeling I've been accused of telling other members to leave? (I haven't read back all the way - just a page or two).

Lemme make something crystal clear - regardless of whether I like another member or not (and I came right out and called her a f'ing bitch in another thread - I do not like her), I will *never* tell someone to leave the board, because it goes against the nature of a debate board entirely - in fact, my most common response to those that tell someone to "trot off to DU or, wherever" is to remind them that if they insist everyone with differing beliefs leave, they'll have nobody to debate with, and sitting around slapping people on the back in agreement isn't fun for very long. I held that belief as an administrator on another board, and I hold it as a member on this one.

 

[Nienna]

We Libs have this very slanted view of religion. When we read Our Lord's statement "I am the God of all people," we take him at his word. We don't translate His Word to be "I am the God of all heterosexual white American Christian males with money."
My God is truly the God of ALL people. Which includes females, gays, lesbians, liberals, radicals, non-whites, non-Americans and even those with different religious preferences that you don't understand.

All people are God's people. He created all. However, all people do not choose to make God their god.

God is. That's His name, "I am who am." God stands alone, as the very definition of Truth and Goodness. Instead of fighting the sinful nature which all people possess, some want God to excuse their actions in the name of "love" or "peace." But God stands solid and unwavering.

The single underlying purpose for putting humans through life on this earth is so that we can make the choice. Do we conform to God, or do we do our own thing and expect God to accept us anyway? God purposely made it difficult to follow Him, so that we could prove to Him that we choose Him above our own will. In Heaven, the struggle will be gone, and our sinful nature will be removed; our will to deviate from Him will be taken away! But God does not want puppets; He wants children who freely choose to love Him. So He tests us in this life.

Following God doesn't always (or even often) "feel good." It is a painful struggle against our very nature. But those who die to self will rise in Christ. Yes, He accepts all, "black" or "white," rich or poor, male or female, those who have the desire to have sexual relations with the same gender or those who desire the opposite gender. Whatever postion we are placed in, we all have the ability to deny ourselves and conform to Him. But those who choose not to die to self are mistaken in thinking that God will bend the rules just for them.

 

[Nienna]

Pursuing Economic Justice

The Jesus of the Gospels Calls Us to Good Stewardship, Justice, and Care for "the Least of These." We Call on Our Nation's Leaders to Seek Economic Justice in the Management of Our Nation's Wealth.



....snip....

Honoring Jesus' compassion for the poor and the powerless, we call for a tax system and spending priorities that are grounded in fairness and justice and we call for fiscal stewardship that fosters prosperity and opportunity for all Americans.

Aren't those pretty words?

 

[Said1]

Geez, at first I was about to blow up at Gabby. Sorry, but I don't know how the many 'guys' have said the same thing, not to mention Shattered and Stephanie, so...please leave me out of the arguments. Thanks.

You've got to be bad when Stephanie is sending her wrath your way!

No offense Stef, you're cool.