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

[JimBowie1958]

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

Obviously they used tax funds for that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Not saying that conservatives are the only ones with problems regarding charity.

I am saying that conservatives today have a peculiar opposition to the government spending on charity that is not based in anything anyone considered conservative that I was familiar with up to about George W Bush' administration.

It seems that with the Millennial generation we have people who think of themselves as 'true' conservatives and who think that this means that one should oppose all welfare and I find this attitude amazing. The only thing conservative about libertarianism is where it touches on minimal government issues, and that is all.

Libertarianism otherwise is not conservatism.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

We agree on something, then. What next?

 

[TNHarley]

I pretty much agree OP. However, when people reference Jesus and govt redistribution, I think he meant people should do it WILLINGLY. Not by force, by some other entity..

 

[Jackson]

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.

So, how did that analogy fail for you? Did that post not say that the people deserve to be treated well, especially when they are frail or infirmed? Are there Americans, who would be able to work if they chose? Is that not true? All persons in this country have a choice to their own path to be productive or merely exist on the teat of the government. With the staggering numbers who rely on subsidies, it only prudent to point them out.

Or, we can take the path of least resistance. We are so far in debt now, that we will implode, it's just the timing that is in question. Do, get your piece of the pie while you can. Bernie Sanders would be a benevolent leader and make everything available to us all. I have personally 3 grand kids going to college in the next 7 years. Free college? Hell yeah. I will vote to get mine. Seriously thinking about voting Bernie! Teach your upcoming adults to be adaptable because they cannot think they are going to change the system The system is broken, our constitution is being ignored just as laws are ignored. The two party system is entrenched so badly, that we do probably need a benevolent dictator. Carpe diem!

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Maybe you can point out the last Republican initiative that helped the poor more than it helped the wealthy

 

[PK1]

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 like your example of loving your cat "Snips"!
There are "conservatives" who love their unfortunate pets more than "unknown" unfortunate people.

It's a mindset.
It's not easy to sympathize with another sentient being if you don't know much about them, and many cons don't care to understand the plight of the much less fortunate. It's easier that way.

On the other hand, many cons justify less gov as "less waste" ... because it's "their fault". Not much empathy needed; it's easier to ridicule "bleeding hearts" ... until their own pets suffer.
.

 

[Jackson]

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.

But can it be done? can you reduce partisanship on this board? Hardly. With the outdated two party system,we seem to envision our "own" party and the "wrong" party. There's such a small path of neutrality in the middle but very few can take that giant leap there and understand it.

I'm beginning to think that the two establishment parties are going the way of the horse and buggy. People will start looking outside their comfort zone in finding a candidate that meets their personal needs instead of the needs of the country. This is the first election where the people are standing up and declaring that the establishment is not going to call the shots any longer. Sanders, Trump and Cruz are unbelievably the front runners that people share some enthusiasm for. Even Bloomberg is eyeing the chance to come in late and take it from the establishment and go third party or join the Dems.

This system is broken, but perhaps we can pick up the pieces and trudge along. Teach your young to be able to adapt to changing times and give them the vision that they cannot depend on anyone but themselves. Take what you can and develop it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.

Documentation please.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Since Reagan. Maybe Nixon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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 ) 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.

I would have to review the earlier texts and the context. Nothing is ever as it seems. Certainly, it is okay to pay taxes to a government, for your own safety if for no other reason. Remember the Romans were not Mr. Rogers.

Also, one must remember how many fingers have been in the translation process over the years. It could be something the authorities slipped in during the Inquisition. "The authorities that exist have been established by God." sounds dreadfully self-serving and in opposition to the concept of free will.

 

[2aguy]

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.

It has never meant that.....considering conservatives give more time and money to charity I would think you would know that. Enslaving people to the state, under the lie that the state is helping them, is just that...a lie.

The poor will always be taken care of.....it is how much destruction to the rest of society while we do that that the conservatives are concerned about. leftist/statist/progressives.....seek life long poverty for the poor...conservatives want the poor to get the skills they need to no longer be poor...and to have a society prosperous enough to take care of the truly needy...not create a society where the best one can hope for is a government check that is barely enough to survive on...while the political overlords live in luxury.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

leftist/statist/progressives.....seek life long poverty for the poor

They seek life long poverty for everyone. A classless society where all are "equal".

Except for the ruling class, of course.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Since when does social programs mean create more poor people?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Great post! Too many seem to put politics over Jesus. Remember how the pope was attacked for suggesting there is too much inequality in the world?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Since when does social programs mean create more poor people?

Except they dont and no one is claiming that other than a few fringe wack jobs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

It has never meant that.....considering conservatives give more time and money to charity I would think you would know that. Enslaving people to the state, under the lie that the state is helping them, is just that...a lie.

The poor will always be taken care of.....it is how much destruction to the rest of society while we do that that the conservatives are concerned about. leftist/statist/progressives.....seek life long poverty for the poor...conservatives want the poor to get the skills they need to no longer be poor...and to have a society prosperous enough to take care of the truly needy...not create a society where the best one can hope for is a government check that is barely enough to survive on...while the political overlords live in luxury.

We are basically in agreement then and the post not directed at your demographic.

There are many who claim to be conservative and yet assert that any welfare spending is socialism and therefore evil.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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 ) 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.

I would have to review the earlier texts and the context. Nothing is ever as it seems. Certainly, it is okay to pay taxes to a government, for your own safety if for no other reason. Remember the Romans were not Mr. Rogers.

Also, one must remember how many fingers have been in the translation process over the years. It could be something the authorities slipped in during the Inquisition. "The authorities that exist have been established by God." sounds dreadfully self-serving and in opposition to the concept of free will.

I await your hermeneutical response with baited breath, friend!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Since Reagan. Maybe Nixon.

I am speaking of real life, not in your libtard echo chamber.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....