What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Since When Does Conservatism Mean 'Let the Poor Starve?'

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,070
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.
Well we the people of the USA need to reduce the partisanship and repair the Center, because we are getting fucked with this false dichotomy between Democrat Establishment Corporate Cronies (Hillary Clinton) and the GOP version of the same damned thing (Bush, Rubio, Christi).

Cant accept the notion that our nation will long last if we leave the Center broken and collapsed.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,017
Reaction score
17,096
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.

your sentiment is greatly appreciated although we have definite differences of opinion, particularly on what conservatism is.

but thank you for the post.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,070
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.
Well we the people of the USA need to reduce the partisanship and repair the Center, because we are getting fucked with this false dichotomy between Democrat Establishment Corporate Cronies (Hillary Clinton) and the GOP version of the same damned thing (Bush, Rubio, Christi).

Cant accept the notion that our nation will long last if we leave the Center broken and collapsed.

None of the candidates are the answer. No decent human being wants/has what it takes to dupe the masses into voting for them. Someone would destroy them, or they would be unwilling to sell their soul to the people that could make them win.

We're stuck voting for the people we think support the most manageable evils. I'm starting to think Carlin was right with this one:

 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,346
Reaction score
21,462
Points
2,320
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.

Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.

Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.

I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,346
Reaction score
21,462
Points
2,320
Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.

If you recall, Jesus in that instance was speaking to the Pharisees who were complaining about paying taxes to the Romans, who at the time were a hostile occupying force over the region. They questioned whether it was lawful for the Jews to pay them (as opposed to paying the Pharisees and the temple :laugh:) as the payment of such taxes went to the support of pagan gods. Jesus held up a coin and asked them whose picture was on it, making a point about the ruling authority. The lesson was simple: Don't fight against that which is non-negotiable, either with the Romans, or with God.

We of course do not live under Roman-style authority. Yet.
 

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,123
Points
245
Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.

Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.
Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,479
Points
1,830
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!

There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,506
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
Conservatives don't advocate leaving people to die, starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity. Do liberals advocate that we ask little of our citizens and jump at the chance to see that they regard welfare as a career choice?

Nearly 1/2 of our citizens are on public assistance. But, half are not disabled or elderly, unable to work. There is a happy medium that must be accepted by both sides. Just as your old, frail cat is taken care of, we will take care of our citizens when they, too, would not have an easy existence without that care. But, by golly, you would not be sitting with the cat while she ate if she was in the prime of her life, now would you? You would put that food down and if she needed more attention than that, you would let her get hungry enough to discover she can eat without your assistance.

So it is with our people. Decades ago, people came here from foreign countries, without anything not even the English language. They persevered. They worked one, two, sometime three jobs to see their family was taken care of. Kennedy spoke wisely to a country that needed to hear, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country," We need that attitude today.
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
42,532
Reaction score
13,290
Points
2,250
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.

Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.

Yup. There were loads of rich people who started and contributed to charities. Religious leaders and church's were also known for their charitable acts. They and the rich volunteered this service. No one forced them.

All that changed when the Govt., in its wisdom, decided that the taxpayers of America should support every freeloader in America.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,304
Reaction score
9,443
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
This is awesome. A bunch of "conservatives" comparing human beings to house pets while pushing the lie that half of America is lazy and won't work.

The OP gets some kudos for trying. It appears as though he is coming to the realization that all human beings......especially American human beings....deserve to live like decent human beings. He may be coming to realize that, with few exceptions, Americans are industrious and prefer being productive to the alternative.

There is a question imbedded in my signature line. I put it there because not a single person who whines about welfare and welfare recipients has ever been able to answer it. Being unable to answer this question means that you have no understanding of the issue which forms the basis of your socioeconomic point of view.

Let's try harder.
 
Last edited:

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,860
Points
2,040
Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.

Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.

Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.
Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.

really? how did they do that. they had money trees growing and just plucked the money from it to take care of everyone?
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
85,121
Reaction score
29,344
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
:clap:

Bravo!

Hardcore conservatives have fallen into the trap of absolutism. No nuance allowed. When that happens, you automatically knee-jerk and say "no" to everything, and then clumsily try to back it up.

Part of that trap, in their case, is the libertarianism, the "every man for himself" thinking that how permeates the wing, where (unfortunately) all the energy is. What these people don't see is how easy it is to poke holes in their arguments.

Libertarianism has its benefits as a thought exercise, but it can't control a major party.
.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
65,242
Reaction score
12,988
Points
2,180
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.


this always meant the government paid for the charity.



WTF? Another libtard that don't know the difference between charity and taxes
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
If you recall, Jesus in that instance was speaking to the Pharisees who were complaining about paying taxes to the Romans, who at the time were a hostile occupying force over the region. They questioned whether it was lawful for the Jews to pay them (as opposed to paying the Pharisees and the temple :laugh:) as the payment of such taxes went to the support of pagan gods. Jesus held up a coin and asked them whose picture was on it, making a point about the ruling authority. The lesson was simple: Don't fight against that which is non-negotiable, either with the Romans, or with God.
.
That is the first interpretation I have read that takes that spin on the text.

The vast majority have always interpreted it to mean 'it is OK to pay taxes to the government.'.

OK, so what do you think about this one then?

Romans Chapter 13: 1-7
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
this always meant the government paid for the charity.


WTF? Another libtard that don't know the difference between charity and taxes

The monarchs paid the charity via the use of funds derived from taxes.

Come on, you have heard of Christian monarchies, havent you?
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,632
Points
2,220
The OP gets some kudos for trying. It appears as though he is coming to the realization that all human beings......especially American human beings....deserve to live like decent human beings. He may be coming to realize that, with few exceptions, Americans are industrious and prefer being productive to the alternative.

Dude I have always realized that, since I was a kid and my mom had to get government surplus food for us to eat.

As to your question, some do abuse the welfare system and it is occasionally reported in the press, but these people are the exception, not the norm among welfare recipients.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,860
Points
2,040
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.

And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.

Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.

But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.

The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.

I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.

Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.

Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.

Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.

We need to be bigger and better than that.
Conservatives don't advocate leaving people to die, starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity. Do liberals advocate that we ask little of our citizens and jump at the chance to see that they regard welfare as a career choice?

Nearly 1/2 of our citizens are on public assistance. But, half are not disabled or elderly, unable to work. There is a happy medium that must be accepted by both sides. Just as your old, frail cat is taken care of, we will take care of our citizens when they, too, would not have an easy existence without that care. But, by golly, you would not be sitting with the cat while she ate if she was in the prime of her life, now would you? You would put that food down and if she needed more attention than that, you would let her get hungry enough to discover she can eat without your assistance.

So it is with our people. Decades ago, people came here from foreign countries, without anything not even the English language. They persevered. They worked one, two, sometime three jobs to see their family was taken care of. Kennedy spoke wisely to a country that needed to hear, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country," We need that attitude today.

thank you. I usually find the op to be fair and level headed. but I didn't get where he came up this for "conservatives" only.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top