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

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

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.

Like I said, the war on poverty failed.

What's the definition of insanity?

 

[jillian]

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

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!

thanks. I like words.

 

[hazlnut]

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 conservatives started making it harder for poor women and girls to get abortions.

Children w/o food starve.

Duh.

 

[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.

I await your hermeneutical response with baited breath, friend!

Maybe after the election

 

[Votto]

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.

Middle ground be damned!

Everything needs to be free!

Go Bernie!!

 

[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 conservatives started making it harder for poor women and girls to get abortions.

Children w/o food starve.

Duh.

Ueah, so let's just kill them to make sure kids don't starve.

Makes sense according to Mao and Stalin.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And the wars our defense department fights?
How many trillion have they spent and yet we still have wars

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

And the wars our defense department fights?
How many trillion have they spent and yet we still have wars

There's a war on war?...lol

That's a stupid comparison.

Face it, there more poor people, now, that ever.

 

[theHawk]

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 fail to see what point you are trying make about conservatives, other than just trying to berate them.

Are conservatives preventing you or anyone else from helping those in need? No, they aren't. So don't lay the blame on conservatives for the situation poor people are in.
We all know what you are really talking about- thieving. You're talking about the left's desire to tax the shit out of the middle class in order to redistribute wealth to "the poor". The poor being lazy bums that are already collecting welfare checks. I don't see any starving people in the US, so your definition of poor and desperation is way off. If you want to see actual starving people you'll need to travel to places like Africa. Even the poorest people in the US have it a hundred times better than people living in squalor in war-torn, third world shitholes.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 conservatives started making it harder for poor women and girls to get abortions.

Children w/o food starve.

Duh.

Ueah, so let's just kill them to make sure kids don't starve.

Makes sense according to Mao and Stalin.

It should be the parents that are starving because they fed the children. We have the situation of the well fed parents spending what money they have on drugs and booze then claim the children are starving.

 

[teddyearp]

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

Oh but we are getting so so close; our society and lifestyle is chillingly close.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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.

Like I said, the war on poverty failed.

What's the definition of insanity?

Which part of the war on poverty would you take away?

Food and housing subsidies?
Education subsidies?
Jobs training?
Jobs placement services?
Small business subsidies?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And the wars our defense department fights?
How many trillion have they spent and yet we still have wars

There's a war on war?...lol

That's a stupid comparison.

Face it, there more poor people, now, that ever.

Why?

We have spent endless trillions on preparing for war...yet we still have wars
We spend trillions to mitigate poverty ...yet we still have poverty

Which money was more well spent?

 

[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.....

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.

history is rife with old people like you who have no use anymore too...go finish your bowl of cream of wheat before it gets cold.....and dont shit yourself,call your nurse....

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

history is rife with old people like you who have no use anymore too...go finish your bowl of cream of wheat before it gets cold.....and dont shit yourself,call your nurse....

I have many many more years to be a thorn letting blood from the sides of addicts. I don't drink or use drugs. As they die young, I'll last a long long time. Watching, laughing, enjoying. Didn't another druggie kick off today?

 

[rdean]

At least since 2010.

I dont think a lt governor counts as a guiding influence on conservative thought. Hopefully that recording ended his career.

Why would it? He's just saying out loud what most Republicans think.

 

[Katzndogz]

Poverty doesn't hurt enough. The poor still have a choice, take the hand out or work. Poverty should really be painful.

 

[jillian]

Poverty doesn't hurt enough. The poor still have a choice, take the hand out or work. Poverty should really be painful.

nice

 

[rdean]

Poverty doesn't hurt enough. The poor still have a choice, take the hand out or work. Poverty should really be painful.

Hilarious. Republicans helped move millions of jobs to China then, just when there are so few jobs, complain the poor don't want to work.

 

[JimBowie1958]

At least since 2010.

I dont think a lt governor counts as a guiding influence on conservative thought. Hopefully that recording ended his career.

Why would it? He's just saying out loud what most Republicans think.

lol, so now you are a mind reader too?

What is your pick on the next lotto numbers, Mr Kreskin?