Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PubliusInfinitum, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

    The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

    YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

    What say YOU?
     
  2. Zoomie1980
    Offline

    Zoomie1980 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,658
    Thanks Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +128
    You take gov't money, you give gov't the right to call the shots about what you do with it.

    That works for cities as well. You take federal dollars you can't ban ROTC at your schools or create illegal sanctuary for illegal aliens.

    If we can tell Citi what to do with their TARP we can also tell San Francisco to screw themselves and cut them off.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    I don't know of one Christian Charity that requires you to pray, or even listen to a prayer or sermon before getting charity from them. My friend's church provides free sack lunches Mon-Thurs, no sermonizing, no prayers. Another friend's church gave us Christmas and Thanksgiving baskets when we were very poor, no strings attached. One did have a free Bible in it. Gee what a crime.
     
  4. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    I've seen it both ways and I tend to believe in the "He who pays the Fiddler, calls the tune."

    We've all been on hard times at some point in our lives and we've all had help from those who took pity on us and went out of their way to help. Most of us were humbled by their sacrifice and compassion... we took the charity with humility and worked hard to correct our circumstances; surviving, living... ultimately thriving where we can give to someone else. We did NOT demand that someone help us... we did NOT declare that we were ENTITLED to BE HELPED...

    This thread is trying to determine the distinction between those who feel that people are ENTITLED to be helped... that they shouldn't be turned away because they refuse to be held accountable, they shouldn't be subjected to preaching... YET when a GROUP of people, such as those who comprise a Corporation come for help... THOSE SAME PEOPLE are now DEMANDING all manner of strings... and PREACHING the secular word... "Calling the tune...' so to speak.

    Why?
     
  5. Vel
    Offline

    Vel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,463
    Thanks Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +1,914
    Wow.. this could set a whole new precedent. If taxpayers can tell businesses that took tax dollars what their top pay can be, maybe we can also finally do something about our perpetual welfare recipients. Can we start drug testing welfare recipients now? I'm all for cutting off the money for those that smoke and drink while living on the taxpayer's dime. How about making sure that those people that raise three or four children on W.I.C. be required to take birth control in order to continue getting those checks. Think what a savings that would be. Do you think Obama thought about where this precedent could lead? Nah.. I doubt it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  6. user_name_guest
    Offline

    user_name_guest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    704
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +43
    Maybe we should reduce the amount of pay that members of Congress, Executive, Administrative, and Judicial branch make in Washington.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care. But if they use my tax money then my standards must be met.
     
  8. Killuminati
    Offline

    Killuminati Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Memphis,TN
    Ratings:
    +8
    Its not government's money is our as tax payers, but the government is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, and has power what can you do.
     
  9. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Thank you...

    That's exactly the point... The left demands that all of the Social Entitlements to individuals be stringless... No moral judgments be assessed against those seeking the government dole; but where the dole is propping up Corporations who succumbed to THEIR "Reasonable Regulations;" regulations which serve as a means toward 'social engineering', well that's another kettle of fih entirely... and it's 'high time that someone set those people straight!'

    One should also note how the thread DRIED RIGHT UP once the point was made ratified...

    Now you Progressives NEED to answer this question...

    WHY IS IT UNACCEPTABLE TO TELL THE RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO; ASSESSING JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIFESTYLES; LIFESTYLES WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR NEEDING SUBSIDY... But it IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO TELL CORPORATIONS HOW THEY HAVE TO LIVE WHEN THEY SEEK 'GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE?'

    Now this isn't a complex issue... and the answer is obvious.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    I say you're mostly an angry not especially well informed troll.

    First of you you claim to speak for the left more than any person on this board as in:

    Now, I do not know a single liberal who has ever said that they hate Christian charity.

    And lad?

    Neither do you.
     

Share This Page