U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2016, 04:07 AM
 
1,937 posts, read 1,329,021 times
Reputation: 3045

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
So.... why would support of government programs to reduce inequity preclude individual responsibility? Guess WHAT!? You can do BOTH, and unwillingness to support the government programs smacks of "You can have MY charity on MY terms."

But... you're not addressing my statement. If you think Jesus would be opposed to individual charity.... what I said....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2016, 04:16 AM
 
1,937 posts, read 1,329,021 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
Prove it wrong..

States with the most people on food stamps:

7. Louisiana

• Number of food stamp recipients: 868,192

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 18.67%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state): Around $107.4 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.10

6. Tennessee

• Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.28 million

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.58%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $158.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.23

5. Oregon

• Number of food stamp recipients: 791,222

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.93%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.66 per person

4. West Virginia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 369,249

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.96%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $45.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.69 per person

3. New Mexico

• Number of food stamp recipients: 448,328

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.5%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $55.5 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.60 per person

2. Mississippi

• Number of food stamp recipients: 650,911

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.74%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $80.5 million

• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.90 per person

1. District of Columbia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 144,768

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.97%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $18 million

• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $27.19 per person

I think you just proved yourself wrong, better than I could have. And you even provided the research to prove yourself wrong. And just so everyone can enjoy this fact, allow me to repost what you originally wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
BUT, why is it tha LARGEST POPULATION of "underclass' and people who are dependent, void of accountability lower standards, and bad behavior are located in areas under CONSERVATIVE RULE...
The "bible-belt" has without question, the LARGEST population of people drawing on SOCIAL SERVICES and the LOWEST EDUCATION and INCOME per capita than anywhere else in the country.
Great job YOU conservatives are doing there in the south...
My my my... your references to "dependent underclasses" and "bad behavior and lower standards" sound so much like thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers... Most liberals would NEVER believe this was being said about white folks if it were coming from the mouth of a conservative pundit or something. And when you talk about the "Bible Belt", of course you aren't referring to black folks or immigrant workers. You mean "white middle-class small town folks who's mothers still wear beehive hairdos". So let me reassure you.... we all know that you're implying that all the folks on welfare in the South are white Confederate Flag wavers who switched to the Republican Party when they got the secret Southern Strategy memo back in 1972. Anyway....

More than half these states you list are NOT in the South.

All of these states are heavily represented by Obama voters, and I would wager you that the bulk of the welfare recipients in ANY of these states either voted for Obama and any other liberal entitlements politician they could get their hands on, or they don't vote at all. Most of these states are PURPLE anyway.

But I never could get this argument you libs love to trot out on this. You love to carp on capitalism and corporations, but I guess then you're ADMITTING that capitalism works great in all the blue states which have the most corporations and big business expertise. Okay. Really, you should be rejoicing that Red State voters are on board for social entitlements, because it means the South is now ripe for a working class revolution and a Democrat party takeover, so that you can bring some of that good old Northern big corporate capitalism down here to improve things.

I guess what it goes back to is the tortured mental-gymnastics stereotypes you people harbor in your minds about the South. And it almost sounds like you want these states to cut off the welfare spending for their most vulnerable populations (maybe because you figure they're all white trash trailer dwellers who own guns and go to Klan rallies on Saturday). And that's cynical because you KNOW as well as I do that no politician is going to cut off the gravy train. It'd be career suicide.

The federal government oversees the Education system in the South as much as it does anywhere, and all our college professors are just as liberal and Left Wing as any Northerner. All our public school teachers yammer on and on about "cooperative learning" and "global citizenship" and "learning styles" just like any other liberal indoctrinated teacher anywhere. Heck, even our private Christian school teachers believe in "group learning" and all that progressive stuff. Northern test scores are equally appalling and below grade level up there, compared to most of the rest of the world, so you've got nothing to brag about. You spend more on education (adjusted), but you get the same results.

Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 04-12-2016 at 04:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 04:31 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,552 posts, read 7,007,722 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin View Post
But... you're not addressing my statement. If you think Jesus would be opposed to individual charity.... what I said....
Of COURSE I addressed it. Yes, Jesus would primarily support the individual commitment to and practice of charity as a part of the spiritual nature of the individual, and you seem to be avoiding MY point that the two ideas of support for the poor are NOT mutually exclusive. AND that support of government aid would be indicative of that same spirit.

Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 04:56 AM
 
1,937 posts, read 1,329,021 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Of COURSE I addressed it. Yes, Jesus would primarily support the individual commitment to and practice of charity as a part of the spiritual nature of the individual, and you seem to be avoiding MY point that the two ideas of support for the poor are NOT mutually exclusive. AND that support of government aid would be indicative of that same spirit.

Why is that?

Actually, you are not the poster who originally made that statement about Jesus and individual charity. It was Ozzyrules.

But heck, it wouldn't cause me too much angst or anxiety to agree with the fact that both individuals and governments (created and run by individuals) should practice charity. Such a philosophy, seems to me, would go hand in hand with what I said in my response... I don't see how charitable individuals who happen to be in positions of authority would be inclined to be uncharitable or less charitable in that elevated capacity.

But at any rate, Ozzyrules made a statement about Jesus' views on charity and the individual. And that's what I spoke to.

You introduced a whole new argument into the mix and just automatically assumed I would disagree with it. I don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 05:03 AM
 
Location: GOVERNMENT of TRAITORS & NAZIS
20,586 posts, read 22,739,853 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin View Post
I think you just proved yourself wrong, better than I could have. And you even provided the research to prove yourself wrong. And just so everyone can enjoy this fact, allow me to repost what you originally wrote:



My my my... your references to "dependent underclasses" and "bad behavior and lower standards" sound so much like thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers... Most liberals would NEVER believe this was being said about white folks if it were coming from the mouth of a conservative pundit or something. And when you talk about the "Bible Belt", of course you aren't referring to black folks or immigrant workers. You mean "white middle-class small town folks who's mothers still wear beehive hairdos". So let me reassure you.... we all know that you're implying that all the folks on welfare in the South are white Confederate Flag wavers who switched to the Republican Party when they got the secret Southern Strategy memo back in 1972. Anyway....

More than half these states you list are NOT in the South.

4 out of 7 is more than half, unless you use Mississippi math...

All of these states are heavily represented by Obama voters, and I would wager you that the bulk of the welfare recipients in ANY of these states either voted for Obama and any other liberal entitlements politician they could get their hands on, or they don't vote at all. Most of these states are PURPLE anyway.

And how many are conservative rule from the CAPITOL down, and have been conservative rule since civil rights act of 1964 was enacted? ALL of the southern states. STOP using that loser mentality that says the south shall rise again--THEY lost, WE won, GET OVER IT..

But I never could get this argument you libs love to trot out on this. You love to carp on capitalism and corporations, but I guess then you're ADMITTING that capitalism works great in all the blue states which have the most corporations and big business expertise. Okay. Really, you should be rejoicing that Red State voters are on board for social entitlements, because it means the South is now ripe for a working class revolution and a Democrat party takeover, so that you can bring some of that good old Northern big corporate capitalism down here to improve things.

I guess what it goes back to is the tortured mental-gymnastics stereotypes you people harbor in your minds about the South. And it almost sounds like you want these states to cut off the welfare spending for their most vulnerable populations (maybe because you figure they're all white trash trailer dwellers who own guns and go to Klan rallies on Saturday). And that's cynical because you KNOW as well as I do that no politician is going to cut off the gravy train. It'd be career suicide.

The federal government oversees the Education system in the South as much as it does anywhere, and all our college professors are just as liberal and Left Wing as any Northerner. All our public school teachers yammer on and on about "cooperative learning" and "global citizenship" and "learning styles" just like any other liberal indoctrinated teacher anywhere. Heck, even our private Christian school teachers believe in "group learning" and all that progressive stuff. Northern test scores are equally appalling and below grade level up there, compared to most of the rest of the world, so you've got nothing to brag about. You spend more on education (adjusted), but you get the same results.

EDUCATION is left to the states. The Feds just dole out money, the states decide where and how to spend it.
My my my... your references to "dependent underclasses" and "bad behavior and lower standards" sound so much like thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers...

Doesn't it? That was a QUOTE of a previous evangelical poster..some times being arrogant and like a Pharisee comes way too easy foe some people.. So too does the attitude of using thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers..by RACIST and BIGOTED evangelicals..


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
What you liberals have have done to the minority community is a damn shame! You have made them a permanent underclass. Liberalism undermines minorities by fostering dependence, avoiding accountability, lowering standards and excusing bad behavior.

Last edited by zthatzmanz28; 04-12-2016 at 05:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 05:31 AM
 
1,937 posts, read 1,329,021 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
My my my... your references to "dependent underclasses" and "bad behavior and lower standards" sound so much like thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers...

Doesn't it? That was a QUOTE of a previous evangelical poster..some times being arrogant and like a Pharisee comes way too easy foe some people.. So too does the attitude of using thinly veiled white "code language" used when discussing minorities and immigrants and single mothers..by RACIST and BIGOTED evangelicals..
So there you have it.

The evangelical obviously wanted to characterize them in one bigoted fashion.

And you wanted to characterize them in a completely opposite but equally bigoted fashion.

But I strongly suspect that the evangelical would at least admit who he thought he was describing.

You on the other hand, are willing to throw your own co-constituents under the bus for the cheap thrill of retaliatory brinksmanship. Because, come on now.... you know you want to PRETEND that 1) all evangelicals are white Southerners and 2) all Southern welfare recipients are Confederate Flag waving white males who have trailers full of AK-47s and Bibles. Even though you know it just ain't so.

Hurry up and bring some of that Northern capitalism down here. We could use some more manufacturing jobs to placate the angry white underclasses who feel they've been shortchanged on some of that white privilege enjoyed by all the educated upscale Northern whites in the segregated suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,552 posts, read 7,007,722 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin View Post
Actually, you are not the poster who originally made that statement about Jesus and individual charity. It was Ozzyrules.

But heck, it wouldn't cause me too much angst or anxiety to agree with the fact that both individuals and governments (created and run by individuals) should practice charity. Such a philosophy, seems to me, would go hand in hand with what I said in my response... I don't see how charitable individuals who happen to be in positions of authority would be inclined to be uncharitable or less charitable in that elevated capacity.

But at any rate, Ozzyrules made a statement about Jesus' views on charity and the individual. And that's what I spoke to.

You introduced a whole new argument into the mix and just automatically assumed I would disagree with it. I don't.
So, why were you trying to deflect from that argument when it in no way counters the idea that Jesus would support individual charity? Why even come up with the idea that, "If you believe that Jesus would say that charity is NOT an individual responsibility, then you don't know Jesus or his teachings at all." It is a completely off the wall comment.remember that the comment that originated the exchange was, "Originally Posted by jimmiej
Government should tax less and spend less. Cutting spending to balance the budget should be the priority. Higher income earners should have an incentive to invest. Charity is the responsibility of the individual."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,596 posts, read 5,120,460 times
Reputation: 3917
The book to read on conservative vs. liberal results was written by two British researchers. It's called THE SPIRIT LEVEL. It's premise is that all these negative social problems, teen pregnancy, divorce, obesity, incarceration rates, poor health, etc., stem from income inequality. And they prove it comparing nations of the world as well as state to state in the U.S.

Income inequality creates unrest in societies---and that certainly compares with what we are experiencing. The more conservative states tend to be those with greater income inequality and less tolerance between income classes. The U.S. Now has the greatest income differential since---The Great Depression.

Before you dismiss the book, and there are parts, such as the solution proposed by the authors, which are dubious, consider that they brought together over 150 independent specific surveys along with charts and diagrams showing how their premise works. The most troubled states tend to be in the south. The least troubled states are in the west and northeast. I think Utah had the least income differential. But they compare nations as well--and among the more advanced states Sweden and Denmark have the least income differential and the happiest, most satisfied people.

Please note that both those nations are quite socialist. Maybe Bernie Sanders is not far off from where we would be able to calm some of the divisions in our country.

What does this have to do with religion?

It has been the recent history of evangelicals (last 30-40 years), to support Republican politics. The Republicans have traditionally been supportive of economic policies (such as opposition to minimum wage increases) that have increased income inequality. In fact, to me it appears not to be evangelicals supporting a political party as much as a political party supporting a segment of religion in the nation.

Anyway, I am convinced from reading this now five year old book (updated in 2011) that income inequality is at the heart of the divisions in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 10:01 AM
 
Location: GOVERNMENT of TRAITORS & NAZIS
20,586 posts, read 22,739,853 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin View Post
So there you have it.

The evangelical obviously wanted to characterize them in one bigoted fashion.

And you wanted to characterize them in a completely opposite but equally bigoted fashion.

But I strongly suspect that the evangelical would at least admit who he thought he was describing.

You on the other hand, are willing to throw your own co-constituents under the bus for the cheap thrill of retaliatory brinksmanship. Because, come on now.... you know you want to PRETEND that 1) all evangelicals are white Southerners and 2) all Southern welfare recipients are Confederate Flag waving white males who have trailers full of AK-47s and Bibles. Even though you know it just ain't so.

Hurry up and bring some of that Northern capitalism down here. We could use some more manufacturing jobs to placate the angry white underclasses who feel they've been shortchanged on some of that white privilege enjoyed by all the educated upscale Northern whites in the segregated suburbs.
ROFLMAO!!

Ain't got to preeeetend the truth....at least they can buy AR-16s and not communist wannabes..


Some people are quite happy and seek out that ignorance is bliss mentality and who am I to destroy that illusion??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 10:10 AM
 
19,952 posts, read 12,978,948 times
Reputation: 1957
Theologically, it's easiest to define it, I believe in contrast with "liberal". Liberal theology is the idea that we can interpret the Scriptures according to our situation -- or that it's a "living document", meaning it can have a different meaning today than it did 2000 years ago.

Conservative theology, on the other hand, strives to ask what did the author mean by it? It does not attempt to change the meaning according to the time, place, or people involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top