Originally posted by @suzianneNot true, I champion social programs but bemoan the inefficiency of government in running them. I once heard that only about 9 cents on the dollar in taxation that is designated to go to those in need actually reaches them. I also question forcing people to give to charity. Once you force people to give, it is no longer charity, it becomes a tax. And once people begin to receive this tax, they no longer look at it as charity, but an entitlement. And once they become entitled they no longer are thankful, rather, they demand only more.
Your first sentence needs work, since I see no evidence of what you say in reality. Conservatives are constantly bemoaning social programs as an unnecessary waste of money. Try living beneath the poverty line yourself and see if it, indeed, is a waste of money. And hey, guess what? Most of what you call "increased taxes" (I just call it "your fair shar ...[text shortened]... g her own body, I might be inclined to listen to your constant whining about the funds involved.
And there you have it. Government "charity" robs the giver of the gift of giving, and robs those receiving those funds the gift of gratitude. This is the godless system that robs the only entity in this universe that cares the most about the poor of receiving praise for helping them, which is God himself, through the efforts of his servants.
Instead, all you wind up with are a group of people who demand more and more from the state.
I can just imagine JFK giving his speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country"
He would be run out of town as a right winged loon.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfThose numbers would not be reflective of Iowa, I think, and thus they are not as relevant to this discussion as you would think.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43978510
Abortions are still legal in Iowa but some conservative objections to abortions have been incorporated into stricter criteria and regulations. [Please correct me if that summary is off-target.]
Does this represent a reasonable compromise in a country where, broadly speaking - among women - 37% think it shou ...[text shortened]... rmitted? [I got these stats from wiki; again correct me if you think they are wide of the mark.]
I'll also say something unpopular: I do not believe that the majority of people believing or thinking something makes it right. Let's even say abortion is insanely popular in California or Krasnoyarsk. It doesn't matter. It is not the right thing to do.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyGod save us all from conservative, self-righteous Christians that turn the needs of the poor into an argument for playing Scrooge.
Not true, I champion social programs but bemoan the inefficiency of government in running them. I once heard that only about 9 cents on the dollar in taxation that is designated to go to those in need actually reaches them. I also question forcing people to give to charity. Once you force people to give, it is no longer charity, it becomes a tax. And onc ...[text shortened]... t ask what you can do for your country"
He would be run out of town as a right winged loon.
Originally posted by @philokaliaFair enough. So, if you had been an Iowa legislator, would you have voted for the Bill [as referred to in this OP], voted against it, or would you have abstained?
Those numbers would not be reflective of Iowa, I think, and thus they are not as relevant to this discussion as you would think.
I'll also say something unpopular: I do not believe that the majority of people believing or thinking something makes it right. Let's even say abortion is insanely popular in California or Krasnoyarsk. It doesn't matter. It is not the right thing to do.
10 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfI would vote against abortion in every single instance and consider it a moral imperative for me.
Fair enough. So, if you had been an Iowa legislator, would you have voted for the Bill [as referred to in this OP], voted against it, or would you have abstained?
It's just one of those principles I've fully invested into and will take flak for.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI know you are opposed to abortion. And this is not about "flak". The question is - as is this thread - a political one, to a certain extent. And so I present you with a thought exercise of sorts: You are a member of Iowa's legislature. This bill is before you. Do you vote for it, against it, or do you abstain?
I would vote against abortion in every single instance and consider it a moral imperative for me.
It's just one of those principles I've fully invested into and will take flak for.
11 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyIt seems true, to a blockhead like you, but then again, I'm not an anarchist like you and Steve Bannon. I believe government does have a role and can be benevolent, but only if we remove the greed. I guess the same can be said of the church.
God?
Don't you mean the DNC? That is who your god is Suzy.
11 May 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaToo bad you're not as "invested" in the rights of people who are unlike you.
I would vote against abortion in every single instance and consider it a moral imperative for me.
It's just one of those principles I've fully invested into and will take flak for.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @suzianneIn many ways, government has to be the least efficient vehicle by which to help the poor. Non-profits are much better.
It seems true, to a blockhead like you, but then again, I'm not an anarchist like you and Steve Bannon. I believe government does have a role and can be benevolent, but only if we remove the greed. I guess the same can be said of the church.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
11 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterGod looks on the heart, tiger.
Do you think God loves Democrats more than Republicans?