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

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.


We need to start cropping the extremists out as defined by their 1) dehumanization of most Americans. That eliminates racists as well as those who dismiss all Americans as racists, 2) crop out the corporate crony network by revising our laws to reduce then eliminate their influence in our elections and legal and legislative process, banning for-profit corporate lobbyists, etc. 3) Crop out those who advocate violence against law abiding American citizens.
 
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.

Since the, "War on Poverty" was launched, there more poor people in America.
Actually poverty has generally decreased since the Great Society began.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2000/pov00cht.pdf

Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.
 
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.

actually jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

i'm pretty sure he was talking about taxes.

I hope that helps you.
 
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.....

you're a good person, harry.
 
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.....

you're a good person, harry.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....
 
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.....

you're a good person, harry.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....

that's kind of messed up.
 
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.....

you're a good person, harry.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....

History is rife with mad men who had very positive attributes. Hitler loved dogs. Jeffrey Dahmer was good to his mother. Drug addicts have a deep down sickness, Their very existence poisons the well. The Chinese put the users in work programs, those massive factories in buildings with suicide nets. At least they are of benefit without affecting anyone else.
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx

that's from the heritage foundation.

nice propaganda site.

how about using a legitimate source?

The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.

Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?

National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx

You are comparing apples to oranges when you look at the percentage of people considered poor under an official poverty line that is regularly increased above inflation. Then you compare that to an inflation adjusted cost for welfare spending that includes every new program the government spends money on, a great portion of which was not started under the Great Society programs and were escalated by Nixon more than any Democrat.

And when the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate was closer to 20% and has been steady around 15%since about 1970..

Things have improved even with your own chart.
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx

that's from the heritage foundation.

nice propaganda site.

how about using a legitimate source?

The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.

Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?

National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

What you call the war on poverty is different from what I'm discussing.

And for the record I know nothing about that group or how it collects data show won't opine.

But that doesn't vitiate the fact that we've created an environment where we're eating out middle class. And that some programs help. The trick is doubling down on the ones that work and getting rid of the ones that don't.
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx

that's from the heritage foundation.

nice propaganda site.

how about using a legitimate source?

The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.

Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?

National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

What you call the war on poverty is different from what I'm discussing.

And for the record I know nothing about that group or how it collects data show won't opine.

But that doesn't vitiate the fact that we've created an environment where we're eating out middle class. And that some programs help. The trick is doubling down on the ones that work and getting rid of the ones that don't.
'Vitiate' Good word, thanks!
 
Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i
bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-2-600.ashx

that's from the heritage foundation.

nice propaganda site.

how about using a legitimate source?

The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.

Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?

National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

What you call the war on poverty is different from what I'm discussing.

And for the record I know nothing about that group or how it collects data show won't opine.

But that doesn't vitiate the fact that we've created an environment where we're eating out middle class. And that some programs help. The trick is doubling down on the ones that work and getting rid of the ones that don't.

Ohhhh, now it's different. Ok...lol

Liberal policies are destroying the political class. Without poor people, to promise free shit to, the Liberals would cease to exist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top