The most important question which nobody is asking

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,228
Reaction score
7,054
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Liberals will tell you all day about how they are angels sent from Heaven. They weep for the less fortunate. Their heart beats only for those in need. They will tell you that God created liberals because... sometimes... even actual angels themselves need angels. And that is why a liberal exists.

Just one small problem. If they care so much - why don't they achieve all of their goals legally through foundations rather than illegally through government? George Soros is a radical left-wing billionaire. Mark Zuckerberg is a hard-core liberal billionaire. Bill Gates is a moderate liberal billionaire who has long been the wealthiest man in the world (recently relegated to #2). Warren Buffet is a very generous billionaire who is the third wealthiest man in the world. So what is the problem? Habitat for Humanity has been doing it for many years. They don't mandate that government provide people with a home. They go out and build them themselves.

Liberals get so angry when conservatives oppose them. But no conservative would oppose liberals creating a foundation which provides health insurance policies to those that don't have any. In fact, conservatives would join them in that effort. Everybody would be a winner. Same with food. Transportation. Housing. Liberals would get all of the social assistance they claim to desire, conservatives would get all of the liberty and Constitutional government that they desire, and both sides would come together in harmony.

The fact that liberals refuse to do this legally through private foundations (where conservatives wouldn't have any case to oppose them) kind of proves that their agenda and their ideology has nothing to do with "helping" people. It is exclusively about control. Exerting power over other people. Stripping you of your rights and liberties so that they can feel "powerful".
 

MACAULAY

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
5,353
Reaction score
3,164
Points
1,055
Woof woof, you tell em poodle.
___________

Here's a high-light.

A typical liberal/progrssso/socialist response to political discourse.

This board is well run. Allows most anything. And in doing so, lets morons take their puny shots and emphasizes the bankruptcy of liberal/progresso/socialist thought.
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,710
Reaction score
16,263
Points
2,180
I founded two Christian-based non-profits where I live. Every donated penny goes toward helping those in need. I paid all administrative costs out of my own pocket.

Despite that, and the efforts of all the churches and fellowships (Lions, Kiwanis, etc) in the area, we hardly put a dent in all the needs of the area. You don't really know how bad it is until you decide to do something. Most of us live in ignorant bliss of what is really going on.

That's why government steps in.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,273
Reaction score
40,096
Points
2,190
Liberals will tell you all day about how they are angels sent from Heaven. They weep for the less fortunate. Their heart beats only for those in need. They will tell you that God created liberals because... sometimes... even actual angels themselves need angels. And that is why a liberal exists.

Just one small problem. If they care so much - why don't they achieve all of their goals legally through foundations rather than illegally through government? George Soros is a radical left-wing billionaire. Mark Zuckerberg is a hard-core liberal billionaire. Bill Gates is a moderate liberal billionaire who has long been the wealthiest man in the world (recently relegated to #2). Warren Buffet is a very generous billionaire who is the third wealthiest man in the world. So what is the problem? Habitat for Humanity has been doing it for many years. They don't mandate that government provide people with a home. They go out and build them themselves.

Liberals get so angry when conservatives oppose them. But no conservative would oppose liberals creating a foundation which provides health insurance policies to those that don't have any. In fact, conservatives would join them in that effort. Everybody would be a winner. Same with food. Transportation. Housing. Liberals would get all of the social assistance they claim to desire, conservatives would get all of the liberty and Constitutional government that they desire, and both sides would come together in harmony.

The fact that liberals refuse to do this legally through private foundations (where conservatives wouldn't have any case to oppose them) kind of proves that their agenda and their ideology has nothing to do with "helping" people. It is exclusively about control. Exerting power over other people. Stripping you of your rights and liberties so that they can feel "powerful".
Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,710
Reaction score
16,263
Points
2,180
The important unasked question is not, "What is George Soros doing?"

The important unasked question is, "What are YOU doing?"

Hypocrites.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,273
Reaction score
40,096
Points
2,190
I founded two non-profits where I live. Every donated penny goes toward helping those in need. I paid all administrative costs out of my own pocket.

Despite that, and the efforts of all the churches and fellowships (Lions, Kiwanis, etc) in the area, we hardly put a dent in all the needs of the area. You don't really know how bad it is until you decide to do something. Most of us live in ignorant bliss of what is really going on.

That's why government steps in.
Good point

If one house in the community burns down, local charities can help rebuild

If every house in a community burns down, you need government
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,602
Reaction score
13,256
Points
2,280
If govt stepped out, there might not be as great a need...
I founded two Christian-based non-profits where I live. Every donated penny goes toward helping those in need. I paid all administrative costs out of my own pocket.

Despite that, and the efforts of all the churches and fellowships (Lions, Kiwanis, etc) in the area, we hardly put a dent in all the needs of the area. You don't really know how bad it is until you decide to do something. Most of us live in ignorant bliss of what is really going on.

That's why government steps in.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,273
Reaction score
40,096
Points
2,190

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,514
Reaction score
4,552
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
From the article:

Mr. Soros, 83, gave $40-million to the Open Society Foundations, a nonprofit that includes the Open Society Institute and other grant makers that are primarily supported by Mr. Soros’s wealth.

He established the Open Society Institute in 1993 to support the development of democratic institutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

I guess the Soros-haters are just anti-democratic!
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,710
Reaction score
16,263
Points
2,180
Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an "anchored" supplemental measure - essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation - and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.
Seniors are far better off. If that's a Ponzi scheme, they're doing it wrong.



Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf
Medicare has made a dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have insurance.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,407
Reaction score
10,115
Points
980
Us.... trying to stem the tide of illegals bankrupting your hospitals and transferring that cost onto Americans
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,710
Reaction score
16,263
Points
2,180
I founded two non-profits where I live. Every donated penny goes toward helping those in need. I paid all administrative costs out of my own pocket.

Despite that, and the efforts of all the churches and fellowships (Lions, Kiwanis, etc) in the area, we hardly put a dent in all the needs of the area. You don't really know how bad it is until you decide to do something. Most of us live in ignorant bliss of what is really going on.

That's why government steps in.
Good point

If one house in the community burns down, local charities can help rebuild

If every house in a community burns down, you need government
One of my organizations actually helped quite a few families whose houses burned down.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top