Should hospitals be free to dump penniless emergencies.

[Chris]

Probably so, the bible is full of contradictions. I was just pointing out the irony of Care's argument.

But didn't Jesus say, love your neighbor as yourself?

Actually, Jesus said that wasn't good enough. Anyone can love their neighbor, we (Christians) have to love our enemies as well.

The means loving everyone.

Providing healthcare for everyone is love.

 

[elvis]

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

I recall Margaret Thatcher's critique of Socialism: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The problem with wars is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

non sequitur, shitstain.

 

[Diuretic]

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

I recall Margaret Thatcher's critique of Socialism: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The problem with wars is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Indeed, history proves that.

 

[mskafka]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

And those liberal politicians, like Vice-President Biden, G-d love him,

"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR


And, how about, as our President phrases it 'a teachable moment'...

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

How do ya' figure them kooky liberals???

I didn't realize that you were Jewish, Chic. I'm one of those unfortunate dems in a "red state". And aren't you one of those unfortunate cons in a blue state?

 

[mskafka]

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

And those liberal politicians, like Vice-President Biden, G-d love him,

"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR


And, how about, as our President phrases it 'a teachable moment'...

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

How do ya' figure them kooky liberals???

I didn't realize that you were Jewish, Chic. I'm one of those unfortunate dems in a "red state". And aren't you one of those unfortunate cons in a blue state?

And also, at what point did charity become synonymous with giving money? Charity also means loving your fellow man.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Obviously you don't understand the difference between an individual voluntarily giving, and a government confiscating from individuals so that the government can give the money to their chosen charity.

Horseshit. Basic necessities are the same, regardless of whether individuals give them to those in need or whether the government does.

Get over yourself and bring back the limp Cheeto.

 

[mskafka]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

And those liberal politicians, like Vice-President Biden, G-d love him,

"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR


And, how about, as our President phrases it 'a teachable moment'...

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

How do ya' figure them kooky liberals???

There is something about this article that bothers me. Besides the fact that the article itself is about as exciting as watching paint dry, and George Will seems about as compassionate as barbed wire, and Arthur Brooks...a man who cannot decide whether to ride the fence, jump to the left, jump to the right, or up in the air. (don't you just love the metaphors?) This is akin to my posting an article about racism by Louis Farrakhan, and expecting you to consider it as credible.

But what I would like to know is: Where did George Will get the data? From Arthur Brooks' book....okay....I know that. But where did the data come from? Income tax records? That would be inaccurate, since not everyone uses charity as a tax deduction. And not everyone keeps a record of every dollar that they personally give to a homeless person.

You live in a fiercely blue state. Does that mean that you aren't charitable? Unfair assumption? A fallacy?

Charity means so many things other than monetary donations. (beyond which you don't seem to comprehend)
Giving blood? What is this? Does someone poll donors about their political and religious beliefs? I don't know. Because my hemoglobin and hematocrit are perpetually low, I cannot donate. So please enlighten me.

Again, money is only a small part of charity. Consistent blathering by conservatives that "it's not my responsibility to pay for your healthcare" is not charitable. Judging others, (former public school students...your favorite little pretentious joke) is not charitable.

Have Mr. Will and Mr. Brooks disclosed their charitable contributions? Disgusting.

 

[keee keee]

As soon as they are able to be safely moved all illegals should be deported to their country of origin and that country billed for medical services rendered