To the Party of God: When did American helping American become "socialism"?

[Stephanie]

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it

Man oh man, ain't them liberals just saintly. Their idea of GIVING is using the Federal Government to FORCE others to do their giving FOR THEM. Then they can sit around and CROW about how they CARE MORE. We people WHO WORK are suppose to just do it to take care of OUR FAMILIES and everybody else who is just to damn lazy to go out and get a friggen job. But if we balk at that we are HEARTLESS.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Unbelievable...The world could be falling apart and we sit here and point fingers and argue semantics.

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it), the problem with Conservatives is THEY want the power and the glory of saying "Look at me!, I give to charity!, I'm important... plus, I get to pick and choose who I give it to, I get to decided how much(if anything at at all) I give.

First.. on the liberal side... we are naive suckers. I'll admit it. However, I want to teach them to fish... That's why I want a working version of welfare like the CCC. Have them earn their money.

Ok.. Conservatives. You people are genuinely fucked up.. not naive.. but hateful little pricks. The whole reason you are railing against welfare is that you don't want to help... period. Sure.. you can make your claim that you do this and you do that.. **** it.. I don't believe you. How can I do that? Simple, I'll use the same principles you do when you talk about Democrats and liberals... none.

I give a shit!

You want to waste money? Waste your own and leave mine the hell alone!

Fact is private charities can do more with less money than the government can and be a hell of a lot more successful.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. Of course, by that time the job will be gone. A private charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Job bills, education grants and subsidies, targeted tax cuts, job corp, head start, free pubic education to all, pubic supported universities and colleges, internships, vista and Americorp, affirmative Action, GI bill, welfare to work etc. are all means to "teach a man to fish" and all under attack by 'conservatives'.

Q. Why are 'conservatives' myopic?

A. 'Cause greed, hate, fear and bias inhibit rational thought.

The GI Bill?

History

On June 22, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill of Rights. By the time the original G.I. Bill ended in July 1956, 7.8 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program and 2.4 million veterans had home loans backed by the Veterans' Administration (VA). Today, the legacy of the original G.I. Bill lives on in the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
Harry W. Colmery, a World War I veteran and the former Republican National Committee chairman, wrote the first draft of the G.I. Bill.[1][2] He reportedly jotted down his ideas on stationery and a napkin at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.[2] U.S. Senator Ernest McFarland was actively involved in the bill's passage and is known, with Warren Atherton, as one of the "fathers of the G.I. Bill." One might then term Edith Nourse Rogers, R-Mass., who helped write and who co-sponsored the legislation, as the "mother of the G.I. Bill".[citation needed] Like Colmery, her contribution to writing and passing this legislation has been obscured by time.[3]​

Y'know, mindlessly repeating "liberal good, conservative bad" isn't really rational thought.

You're such a moron, do you really think (lol, of course not) that my post targeted all Republicans? Note the single quotes around the word conservative, it is significant.

That aside, do you doubt that the GI Bill taught vets to 'fish'? Or that your post discredited the essence of my post? Or that small business loans aide entrepreneurs, or that you and the other proud and loud members of the echo chamber area anything but willfully ignorant bigots?

 

[editec]

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.

But give a man a wide screen TV, refrigorator and Xbox and he's till hungry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unbelievable...The world could be falling apart and we sit here and point fingers and argue semantics.

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it), the problem with Conservatives is THEY want the power and the glory of saying "Look at me!, I give to charity!, I'm important... plus, I get to pick and choose who I give it to, I get to decided how much(if anything at at all) I give.

First.. on the liberal side... we are naive suckers. I'll admit it. However, I want to teach them to fish... That's why I want a working version of welfare like the CCC. Have them earn their money.

Ok.. Conservatives. You people are genuinely fucked up.. not naive.. but hateful little pricks. The whole reason you are railing against welfare is that you don't want to help... period. Sure.. you can make your claim that you do this and you do that.. **** it.. I don't believe you. How can I do that? Simple, I'll use the same principles you do when you talk about Democrats and liberals... none.

I give a shit!

You want to waste money? Waste your own and leave mine the hell alone!

Fact is private charities can do more with less money than the government can and be a hell of a lot more successful.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. Of course, by that time the job will be gone. A private charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery).

Good for you. You have every right as an American to be greedy, selfish, intolerant and callous.

 

[Steelplate]

Unbelievable...The world could be falling apart and we sit here and point fingers and argue semantics.

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it), the problem with Conservatives is THEY want the power and the glory of saying "Look at me!, I give to charity!, I'm important... plus, I get to pick and choose who I give it to, I get to decided how much(if anything at at all) I give.

First.. on the liberal side... we are naive suckers. I'll admit it. However, I want to teach them to fish... That's why I want a working version of welfare like the CCC. Have them earn their money.

Ok.. Conservatives. You people are genuinely fucked up.. not naive.. but hateful little pricks. The whole reason you are railing against welfare is that you don't want to help... period. Sure.. you can make your claim that you do this and you do that.. **** it.. I don't believe you. How can I do that? Simple, I'll use the same principles you do when you talk about Democrats and liberals... none.

You are a little prick. Conservatives are more charitable than socialist libs. Difference is we don't need to be told to give like you greedy libpricks.

I don't believe it... because That's the way I want to see it. I told you I was going to use the same principles you use on us... which is none.

 

[Sunni Man]

If teaching a man to fish was all there was to it.

Then I can support that.

But the Democrats would demand that the government buy them fishing poles, lures. fishing line, nets, tackle boxes, bait, etc.

And then require there be a 40 hour mandatory class on how to fish.

Followed by a certification test monotered by OSHA


Of course there would be a new government agency started.

Whose job it would be to monitor the millions of new fishermen.

And at the end of each day.

Take the some of the fish from the better fisherman and give to the less skillful.

So that everyone would take the exact same number of fish home to feed them and their families

 

[Truthmatters]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

 

[Stephanie]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

wtf. what the Government DECIDES IS CALLED DEMOCRACY?
my gawd...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

To the party of No God: When did wealth redistribution become "helping"?

 

[Dot Com]

I'm glad the Repubs/Party of God are saddled w/ their 'base' many of which are poor and remain that way by voting against their own interests

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

what the government desides is NOT force in our system its called Democracy.


The right needs to stop calling any policy they dont like force.

They have cheated in elections for decades now.

They often win by cheating the people out of their votes.

The left is being FORCED at a much higher rate than any right leaning person in this country is.

wtf. what the Government DECIDES IS CALLED DEMOCRACY?
my gawd...

TM is a ******* retard... don't worry about it.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm glad the Repubs/Party of God are saddled w/ their 'base' many of which are poor and remain that way by voting against their own interests

Many of the Republicans base IS POOR. So what is voting FOR their best interest. voting Democrat?
my gawd

 

[Steelplate]

To the party of No God: When did wealth redistribution become "helping"?

About the same time that hoarding wealth became "godly".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Unbelievable...The world could be falling apart and we sit here and point fingers and argue semantics.

WHO GIVES A SHIT if charity is forced or not? People need help out there. You see, the thing with Liberals is... they think that it should be open ended and nothing should be given back in return(like performing work for it), the problem with Conservatives is THEY want the power and the glory of saying "Look at me!, I give to charity!, I'm important... plus, I get to pick and choose who I give it to, I get to decided how much(if anything at at all) I give.

First.. on the liberal side... we are naive suckers. I'll admit it. However, I want to teach them to fish... That's why I want a working version of welfare like the CCC. Have them earn their money.

Ok.. Conservatives. You people are genuinely fucked up.. not naive.. but hateful little pricks. The whole reason you are railing against welfare is that you don't want to help... period. Sure.. you can make your claim that you do this and you do that.. **** it.. I don't believe you. How can I do that? Simple, I'll use the same principles you do when you talk about Democrats and liberals... none.

I give a shit!

You want to waste money? Waste your own and leave mine the hell alone!

Fact is private charities can do more with less money than the government can and be a hell of a lot more successful.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. Of course, by that time the job will be gone. A private charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery).

Good for you. You have every right as an American to be greedy, selfish, intolerant and callous.

You don't know enough about me to characterize me. I'm willing to bet I give more to charity in any given month than you do in a year.

Just because I wish to have a say as to how my money is spent as opposed to the government deciding doesn't make me greedy, selfish, intoerant or callous.

The government does not always know best and if you liberals would ever come to terms with that, you would fare better in life.

 

[CoolBreeze]

[To the Party of God: When did American helping American become "socialism"?
/QUOTE]

It became socialism when the government started taking the money from the working people and distrubiting it to the poor without regards to how the people felt about it. The people who work and earn the money are the ones who should determine who receives the fruits of their labor, not the government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the War on Poverty is another Progressive Epic Fail.

Wow. Never saw that coming

 

[Stephanie]

Sheeesh, I thought when the Obama was elected there would BE NO more poor. I hold him RESPONSIBLE..

 

[Steelplate]

Kind of like the war on terrorism and the war on drugs.... too much money to be made to take them seriously... gotta keep the machine running, profits up, people down... It's the American Way.

 

[Steelplate]

Sheeesh, I thought when the Obama was elected there would BE NO more poor. I hold him RESPONSIBLE..

I hold him responsible too... And You... and Frank, and Boehner, and me, and this whole fucked up country.