The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[GuyPinestra]

Sure I have, but you ignored it. Remember?

Liberals pay taxes, so liberals have just as much a right to voice their opinion on where taxes should be spent. Feel free to show me anywhere that liberals have stated, "we want conservative tax revenues to be spent in this way......".

My only question is, which part of this post will you ignore. Hmmmm.

Feel free to show me where spending tax money on charity is a Constitutionally-authorized activity....

Feel free to show me where you denounced the action of rape. See, now we both moved the goal posts.

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

 

[Old Rocks]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

A helping hand doesn't mean a way of life. There are jobs out there and many don't want them because they have to train for them and stop taking from the government.

Stop the government give aways and see how many more people will become employed. Stop the regulations and taxing small businesses so they are reluctant to hire and fear the future.

A year or so ago, McDonalds advertised that they were hiring 50,000 more people. Now McD's is hardly a high paying job, yet they recieved over a million applications for those jobs. That pretty well smashs the myth that people like you contantly tout. Most that have no jobs in this economy are looking for a job.

We stopped regulations on the Banks at the behest of you GOP'ers, and that really created a lot of jobs in 2008, didn't it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Feel free to show me where spending tax money on charity is a Constitutionally-authorized activity....

Feel free to show me where you denounced the action of rape. See, now we both moved the goal posts.

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

 

[GuyPinestra]

What I find interesting is that Christians will argue laws based on their personal moral code. Things like gay marriage or abortion are perfectly fine to be legislated based on their religious beliefs. Try to legislate helping the poor or the sick and these same people pitch a fit and fall into it. Weird.

Oh, and just an "FYI", when it comes to the poor, charity isn't enough.

Mark 14:7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

And? What has that to do with what I said? Jesus didn't live in a Democracy. If Jesus could have voted, do you think he would have voted to help the poor and the sick?

I had hoped that you would notice the bolded section, but I guess it was too much to ask. Helping the poor is a PERSONAL decision, and we are all free to make that decision AT ANY TIME.

It's not in the purview of government...

 

[dblack]

Feel free to show me where you denounced the action of rape. See, now we both moved the goal posts.

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

If Guy's moving the goal posts, you're equivocating. Deciding "what tax dollars as a whole should go towards" includes deciding what other peoples' tax dollars should go towards, does it not?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Feel free to show me where you denounced the action of rape. See, now we both moved the goal posts.

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

You want to talk about where tax money SHOULD go, while I'm talking about where tax money IS NOT AUTHORIZED to go.

Again, if you want to support charity for the poor, please do so!

Just stop trying to make it a government job, because it ISN'T!

 

[Seawytch]

Mark 14:7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

And? What has that to do with what I said? Jesus didn't live in a Democracy. If Jesus could have voted, do you think he would have voted to help the poor and the sick?

I had hoped that you would notice the bolded section, but I guess it was too much to ask. Helping the poor is a PERSONAL decision, and we are all free to make that decision AT ANY TIME.

It's not in the purview of government...

Why isn't it a personal decision to vote to help the poor and needy? You didn't answer the question. Do you think Jesus would have voted to help the poor and the needy or not?

Yes, it is in the purview of government to create a social safety net for the "least among us". It's also in the best interest of the government.

Many Christians think it is in the purview of government to outlaw gays getting married or a woman making personal choices over her own body, but don't want to legislate helping the poor. How does that make logical or even Christian sense?

 

[RDD_1210]

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

If Guy's moving the goal posts, you're equivocating. Deciding "what tax dollars as a whole should go towards" includes deciding what other peoples' tax dollars should go towards, does it not?

Of course it does, but the point is you people are trying to paint a picture that "dems only love to spend other peoples money" which I have shown to be completely false.

 

[dblack]

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

If Guy's moving the goal posts, you're equivocating. Deciding "what tax dollars as a whole should go towards" includes deciding what other peoples' tax dollars should go towards, does it not?

Of course it does, but the point is you people are trying to paint a picture that "dems only love to spend other peoples money" which I have shown to be completely false.

I'm not trying to paint that picture, and yes, it is false.

 

[RDD_1210]

How did I move the goalposts? Are there no accepted limits on what taxes can be spent for?

The point which you decided to ignore was that democrats don't try and spend other peoples money, they voice their opinion on what tax dollars as a whole should go towards. You have shifted the conversation to what you think money should be spent on and away from "whose money is it".

You want to talk about where tax money SHOULD go, while I'm talking about where tax money IS NOT AUTHORIZED to go.

Again, if you want to support charity for the poor, please do so!

Just stop trying to make it a government job, because it ISN'T!

The ONLY point I am trying to make is that the notion that dems just are charitable because they want to spend other peoples money is false. I have made no other claims on any other subject despite you wanting to move the conversation there.

 

[RDD_1210]

If Guy's moving the goal posts, you're equivocating. Deciding "what tax dollars as a whole should go towards" includes deciding what other peoples' tax dollars should go towards, does it not?

Of course it does, but the point is you people are trying to paint a picture that "dems only love to spend other peoples money" which I have shown to be completely false.

I'm not trying to paint that picture, and yes, it is false.

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

 

[GuyPinestra]

And? What has that to do with what I said? Jesus didn't live in a Democracy. If Jesus could have voted, do you think he would have voted to help the poor and the sick?

I had hoped that you would notice the bolded section, but I guess it was too much to ask. Helping the poor is a PERSONAL decision, and we are all free to make that decision AT ANY TIME.

It's not in the purview of government...

Why isn't it a personal decision to vote to help the poor and needy? You didn't answer the question. Do you think Jesus would have voted to help the poor and the needy or not?

No He wouldn't.

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Jesus knew the difference between God and government.

Yes, it is in the purview of government to create a social safety net for the "least among us". It's also in the best interest of the government.

Please show me what part of the Constitution authorizes that?

Many Christians think it is in the purview of government to outlaw gays getting married or a woman making personal choices over her own body, but don't want to legislate helping the poor. How does that make logical or even Christian sense?

You're asking me to speak for people I don't agree with. That's a liberal habit, and one that I won't indulge in.

 

[dblack]

Of course it does, but the point is you people are trying to paint a picture that "dems only love to spend other peoples money" which I have shown to be completely false.

I'm not trying to paint that picture, and yes, it is false.

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in needed to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not trying to paint that picture, and yes, it is false.

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in need to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

True, but then on the flip side, it can be said Conservatives love spending liberals money on things like the military and war, which many liberals would rather not have their tax dollars go to. But thats the whole point, tax revenues come from everyone to be spent on a variety of things. What you think that money should be spent on is your opinion, but for someone to say "libs love to spend other peoples money" is no less valid than "cons love to spend other peoples money". It's just on different things and thus a ridiculous cliche.

 

[Seawytch]

I had hoped that you would notice the bolded section, but I guess it was too much to ask. Helping the poor is a PERSONAL decision, and we are all free to make that decision AT ANY TIME.

It's not in the purview of government...

Why isn't it a personal decision to vote to help the poor and needy? You didn't answer the question. Do you think Jesus would have voted to help the poor and the needy or not?

No He wouldn't. Jesus knew the difference between God and government.

Yes, it is in the purview of government to create a social safety net for the "least among us". It's also in the best interest of the government.

Please show me what part of the Constitution authorizes that?

Many Christians think it is in the purview of government to outlaw gays getting married or a woman making personal choices over her own body, but don't want to legislate helping the poor. How does that make logical or even Christian sense?

You're asking me to speak for people I don't agree with. That's a liberal habit, and one that I won't indulge in.

How do you KNOW that Jesus wouldn't have voted to help the poor? When he lived, he didn't get to vote. Jesus never lived in a Democracy and probably never envisioned it.

We do a lot of things not spelled out in the Constitution, that doesn't make them unconstitutional or even wrong. A social safety net is necessary for a functioning society. If the poor have no place to turn, where do you think they WILL turn?

Charity isn't and will never be enough.

 

[The Rabbi]

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

You're rather stupid, aren't you?
Liberals always want to spend other people's money, is not the same as liberals only want to spend other people's money.
Get an adult to explain the difference.

Are you an adult?

Explain it to me

"Liberals always want to spend other people's money" means that the instinct among liberals when confronted with any problem is to throw taxpayer dollars at it. That that includes their own dollars is irrelevant--they are free to spend their own money however they like.
Liberals only want to spend other people's money means liberals have no other items on their agenda than spending other people's money, including spending their own.
I realize you will denounce this as "semantics", which is what ignorant people say when a verbal point is too difficult for them to comprehend. But words matter.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not trying to paint that picture, and yes, it is false.

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in needed to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

I don't want to be "forced" to support wars or our drug laws and yet I am.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in needed to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

I don't want to be "forced" to support wars or our drug laws and yet I am.

So campaign against them and help elect officials who will carry out your wishes. Just like the Tea Party.

 

[RDD_1210]

You're rather stupid, aren't you?
Liberals always want to spend other people's money, is not the same as liberals only want to spend other people's money.
Get an adult to explain the difference.

Are you an adult?

Explain it to me

"Liberals always want to spend other people's money" means that the instinct among liberals when confronted with any problem is to throw taxpayer dollars at it. That that includes their own dollars is irrelevant--they are free to spend their own money however they like.
Liberals only want to spend other people's money means liberals have no other items on their agenda than spending other people's money, including spending their own.
I realize you will denounce this as "semantics", which is what ignorant people say when a verbal point is too difficult for them to comprehend. But words matter.

Ok, well conservatives just want to spend other peoples money.

 

[dblack]

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in need to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

True, but then on the flip side, it can be said Conservatives love spending liberals money on things like the military and war, which many liberals would rather not have their tax dollars go to. But thats the whole point, tax revenues come from everyone to be spent on a variety of things. What you think that money should be spent on is your opinion, but for someone to say "libs love to spend other peoples money" is no less valid than "cons love to spend other peoples money". It's just on different things and thus a ridiculous cliche.

Right, which is what I was addressing earlier (perhaps too abstractly). The power to force conformity in how we choose to spend our money (or do other things via government) should be used only when absolutely necessary. The reasons libs get tagged for this more often than cons is that they have, traditionally, been in favor of expanding the contexts in which this kind of conformity is considered necessary.