Great quote on "christian nation"

[kaz]

Not sure which is dumber, your lack of ability to think of any way to help the poor but government or your belief that government actually helps the poor...

Also, can you show me the bible passage that mentions it's government's job to help the poor, not yours?

where is the government mentioned?

If you don't recognize the implication in this country and culture of what you posted, then you seriously are a moron. Seriously. If that isn't what you meant, then you should state that. eflat just nailed it.

 

[bobcollum]

Not which is dumber, your lack of ability to think of any way to help the poor but government or your belief that government actually helps the poor...

Also, can you show me the bible passage that mentions it's government's job to help the poor, not yours?

Food stamps don't help people with no food to eat?

That's weird.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you have to provide an actually thought through point on the role government is playing in addressing poverty. You might want to consider in 50 years after trillions spent why poverty rates are the same.

If you want to be snarky, you have it covered, carry on.

^ Snarky poster calling me snarky.

I wouldn't try to insinuate the the Government can rid the country of poverty in response to your comment, since you were talking about helping the poor, which food stamps certainly do.

You know, poverty was around before the government tried to alleviate the situation too.

 

[bobcollum]

Not which is dumber, your lack of ability to think of any way to help the poor but government or your belief that government actually helps the poor...

Also, can you show me the bible passage that mentions it's government's job to help the poor, not yours?

Food stamps don't help people with no food to eat?

That's weird.

Sure, but it also helps them to remain reliant upon others. The worst thing a government can do to its people is feed them. Nothing is more de-motivational and counter to what a society needs to thrive.

Since the OP was about Jesus, I also seem to remember something about teaching a man to fish...

I understand the logic in your statement to a degree, but it's not enough to justify scrapping programs that provide basic necessities. Just as it's ridiculous to say all people receiving benefits have no other choice, it can't be assumed that all of them do it out of laziness.

 

[kaz]

Food stamps don't help people with no food to eat?

That's weird.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you have to provide an actually thought through point on the role government is playing in addressing poverty. You might want to consider in 50 years after trillions spent why poverty rates are the same.

If you want to be snarky, you have it covered, carry on.

^ Snarky poster calling me snarky.

I wouldn't try to insinuate the the Government can rid the country of poverty in response to your comment, since you were talking about helping the poor, which food stamps certainly do.

You know, poverty was around before the government tried to alleviate the situation too.

You set an incredibly low hurdle for yourself, don't you? You're using the word "help" fundamentally differently than I am.

You're using "help" to mean, is there any transactional benefit at all no matter how short term and counter productive it is?

I'm using "help to mean, are they actually providing a meaningful, overall positive benefit?

The poor need opportunity, not handouts. And they need jobs which are lost to high taxes sucking money out of the economy to fund our out of control government spending. Food stamps are a wasteful, zero accountability program. But they provide someone with a meal, then that person either needs another hand out the next one or all they got was a meal.

If there is government charity, it should be as a last resort, not the first. And charity should be at the local level, not federal. But that's only if you care about actually helping them in a meaningful way which doesn't just foster dependency.

 

[eflatminor]

If you want to have a serious discussion then you have to provide an actually thought through point on the role government is playing in addressing poverty. You might want to consider in 50 years after trillions spent why poverty rates are the same.

If you want to be snarky, you have it covered, carry on.

^ Snarky poster calling me snarky.

I wouldn't try to insinuate the the Government can rid the country of poverty in response to your comment, since you were talking about helping the poor, which food stamps certainly do.

You know, poverty was around before the government tried to alleviate the situation too.

You set an incredibly low hurdle for yourself, don't you? You're using the word "help" fundamentally differently than I am.

You're using "help" to mean, is there any transactional benefit at all no matter how short term and counter productive it is?

I'm using "help to mean, are they actually providing a meaningful, overall positive benefit?

The poor need opportunity, not handouts. And they need jobs which are lost to high taxes sucking money out of the economy to fund our out of control government spending. Food stamps are a wasteful, zero accountability program. But they provide someone with a meal, then that person either needs another hand out the next one or all they got was a meal.

If there is government charity, it should be as a last resort, not the first. And charity should be at the local level, not federal. But that's only if you care about actually helping them in a meaningful way which doesn't just foster dependency.

 

[kaz]

I understand the logic in your statement to a degree, but it's not enough to justify scrapping programs that provide basic necessities. Just as it's ridiculous to say all people receiving benefits have no other choice, it can't be assumed that all of them do it out of laziness.

Whether it's "laziness" or not, the incentive of a private charity is to get someone off needing their charity. The incentive of politicians is to keep people on charity so they have a captive voter base.

I spent my career in management and management consulting and now I'm a business owner and I have always said to make deals work, you want to get everyone's incentives aligned. Federal "charity" is clearly not in line with the incentives of either the taxpayers or receivers of welfare.

 

[freedombecki]

Yes he does, blu. Notice it says that He commanded US to love the poor, not force others to do it for us.

I work for the poor every day. Thanks for the reminder, I'm going to my sewing room right now and finishing something up for a shelter child.

Charity starts at home.

 

[kaz]

Charity starts at home.

Liberals think charity starts in the voting booth. And ends there.

If the money is not given with a choice, then how is it charity?

 

[bobcollum]

If you want to have a serious discussion then you have to provide an actually thought through point on the role government is playing in addressing poverty. You might want to consider in 50 years after trillions spent why poverty rates are the same.

If you want to be snarky, you have it covered, carry on.

^ Snarky poster calling me snarky.

I wouldn't try to insinuate the the Government can rid the country of poverty in response to your comment, since you were talking about helping the poor, which food stamps certainly do.

You know, poverty was around before the government tried to alleviate the situation too.

You set an incredibly low hurdle for yourself, don't you? You're using the word "help" fundamentally differently than I am.

You're using "help" to mean, is there any transactional benefit at all no matter how short term and counter productive it is?

I'm using "help to mean, are they actually providing a meaningful, overall positive benefit?

The poor need opportunity, not handouts. And they need jobs which are lost to high taxes sucking money out of the economy to fund our out of control government spending. Food stamps are a wasteful, zero accountability program. But they provide someone with a meal, then that person either needs another hand out the next one or all they got was a meal.

If there is government charity, it should be as a last resort, not the first. And charity should be at the local level, not federal. But that's only if you care about actually helping them in a meaningful way which doesn't just foster dependency.

Dependency is based on the individual and what level they're willing to stoop to. People with no self-pride will have zero issues with doing it all their life, so providing opportunity won't make any difference in those cases.

Living off of Gov't benefits isn't a lifestyle that most would aim for, because frankly it sucks, but it's better than starving.

Besides, aren't there private charitable organizations out there now?

 

[Steelplate]

if you own a home, car, and any "extras" that aren't require to live then you simply aren't following jesus's teachings. its as simple as that and you would fit his definition of greed and sin perfectly.

Wow....

feel free to prove me wrong

"With God, all things are possible." Jesus' response to the disciples after the camel through the eye of a needle speech.

All men fall short of the glory of God. That's why Christ came to Earth. BTW, you apparently have posessions...just sayin'...

 

[Steelplate]

Charity starts at home.

Liberals think charity starts in the voting booth. And ends there.

If the money is not given with a choice, then how is it charity?

makes us a charitable society. Here's the paradox with you guys...you think it's wrong to have social programs because you don't have a choice....but at the same time, you wish to make choices for people who do things you don't like.

 

[Political Junky]

Stephen Baldwin couldn't answer these questions either when asked today from Tampa.

 

[Steelplate]

Stephen Baldwin couldn't answer these questions either when asked today from Tampa.

I really haven't been paying attention to the RNC...I've been more concerned with Isaac since I have some family in LA. What are you talking about?

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflat does not speak for Jesus. Shoot, have the time he does not know which of his personalities is writing here.

Far from great. Complete and utter bullshit...sure.

First, this nation does help the poor. We're incredibly generous and charitable. As a result the poorest Americans are comparatively rich.

Whatever Jesus said about helping the needy, he was speaking of charity, not theft and redistribution. It's one thing to give to the poor of your own accord. That's charity. It's quite another to take from some and give to others. That's theft...I'm pretty sure the rabbi Jesus espoused "thou shall not steal".

Is there anything you collectivists won't twist into your some version of socialism? Just pathetic.

 

[eflatminor]

eflat does not speak for Jesus. Shoot, have the time he does not know which of his personalities is writing here.

I see you've cracked the bottle already.

An ad hominem attack without addressing the issue at hand. Color me shocked...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I spent my career in management and management consulting and now I'm a business owner and I have always said to make deals work, you want to get everyone's incentives aligned. Federal "charity" is clearly not in line with the incentives of either the taxpayers or receivers of welfare.

Which renders you utterly unqualified to speak with any authority concerning public assistance, social programs, and the nature and causes of poverty and homelessness.

You’re otherwise entitled to express your subjective opinion, however ignorant.

Dependency is based on the individual and what level they're willing to stoop to. People with no self-pride will have zero issues with doing it all their life, so providing opportunity won't make any difference in those cases.

Living off of Gov't benefits isn't a lifestyle that most would aim for, because frankly it sucks, but it's better than starving.

Having spent the first 20 years of my professional career supervising government public assistant programs, then in the private sector administering welfare transition policy, including employment and training programs, the vast majority of those receiving benefits are children, the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from a temporary incapacity. Add to that majority those who receive some sort of government benefit for a three to six month period before going back to work, never to return to a public assistance program again.

That leaves a relatively small core of long-term recipients, mostly the working poor receiving food stamps whose gross monthly income is less than 130 percent of the FPL, with children receiving state Medicaid.

And that leaves an even smaller core of those receiving actual welfare (TANF); ‘Federal welfare’ is Supplemental Security Income, where one must be disabled to be eligible and have worked less than 40 qualifying quarters on a payroll.

The facts above thus expose the rightist contrivance and myth of welfare ‘out of control,’ sucking up all our resources while healthy, able adults sit at home getting a government check. It might make for potent Tea Party rhetoric, but has no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[beretta304]

 

[Darkwind]

^ Snarky poster calling me snarky.

I wouldn't try to insinuate the the Government can rid the country of poverty in response to your comment, since you were talking about helping the poor, which food stamps certainly do.

You know, poverty was around before the government tried to alleviate the situation too.

You set an incredibly low hurdle for yourself, don't you? You're using the word "help" fundamentally differently than I am.

You're using "help" to mean, is there any transactional benefit at all no matter how short term and counter productive it is?

I'm using "help to mean, are they actually providing a meaningful, overall positive benefit?

The poor need opportunity, not handouts. And they need jobs which are lost to high taxes sucking money out of the economy to fund our out of control government spending. Food stamps are a wasteful, zero accountability program. But they provide someone with a meal, then that person either needs another hand out the next one or all they got was a meal.

If there is government charity, it should be as a last resort, not the first. And charity should be at the local level, not federal. But that's only if you care about actually helping them in a meaningful way which doesn't just foster dependency.

Dependency is based on the individual and what level they're willing to stoop to. People with no self-pride will have zero issues with doing it all their life, so providing opportunity won't make any difference in those cases.

Living off of Gov't benefits isn't a lifestyle that most would aim for, because frankly it sucks, but it's better than starving.

Besides, aren't there private charitable organizations out there now?

This is why there should be sever limits on receiving assistance.

If the person is so unmotivated that they don't want to get off of assistance, I know of a motivation that will.

It is called hunger, and it can move mountains.

 

[eflatminor]

Having spent the first 20 years of my professional career supervising government public assistant programs...

Well, we're all interested in what the bureaucrat has to say...

 

[Darkwind]

I spent my career in management and management consulting and now I'm a business owner and I have always said to make deals work, you want to get everyone's incentives aligned. Federal "charity" is clearly not in line with the incentives of either the taxpayers or receivers of welfare.

Which renders you utterly unqualified to speak with any authority concerning public assistance, social programs, and the nature and causes of poverty and homelessness.

You’re otherwise entitled to express your subjective opinion, however ignorant.

Dependency is based on the individual and what level they're willing to stoop to. People with no self-pride will have zero issues with doing it all their life, so providing opportunity won't make any difference in those cases.

Living off of Gov't benefits isn't a lifestyle that most would aim for, because frankly it sucks, but it's better than starving.

Having spent the first 20 years of my professional career supervising government public assistant programs, then in the private sector administering welfare transition policy, including employment and training programs, the vast majority of those receiving benefits are children, the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from a temporary incapacity. Add to that majority those who receive some sort of government benefit for a three to six month period before going back to work, never to return to a public assistance program again.

That leaves a relatively small core of long-term recipients, mostly the working poor receiving food stamps whose gross monthly income is less than 130 percent of the FPL, with children receiving state Medicaid.

And that leaves an even smaller core of those receiving actual welfare (TANF); ‘Federal welfare’ is Supplemental Security Income, where one must be disabled to be eligible and have worked less than 40 qualifying quarters on a payroll.

The facts above thus expose the rightist contrivance and myth of welfare ‘out of control,’ sucking up all our resources while healthy, able adults sit at home getting a government check. It might make for potent Tea Party rhetoric, but has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I don't believe you.

One simply has to look at the obscene amounts of money spent to determine that these are NOT small numbers of people.