Christian Conservatives, Social Programs and the Teachings of Christ. (Clinton, compared, financial)
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.
The other problem that is blatantly obvious with the OP is that conservatives don't really oppose the idea of welfare. They see that welfare has become a massive magnet for the LAZY who are able bodied and able minded, yet would rather suck on the government tit than to get up and be productive citizens.
Thank your illustrating my point exactly. I don't recall, perhaps you can point it out, where Jesus or any Bible figure described the poor as being "lazy" or any other broad negative characterization? I don't recall any text where Jesus means tested the "poor" in order to determine their qualifications for his aid. I don't recall any text in the Bible where Christ or his Disciples argued that if the poor would have less children they wouldn't need the loafs and fish provided.
Never said the poor are lazy, blah, blah, blah. The OP attempted to cite bible passages to cast the (Broadly speaking) conservative christain opposition to gov't socail programs as hypocrisy or at least in contradiction to the sacred text.
As I pointed out above, the issue isn't opposition to government programs per se, but rather the spirit of the opposition. One doesn't need to spend a lot of time perusing this board or any other frequented by conservatives to find quotations which ascribe the worst recriminations about the character of the poor. The fact that you claim that you haven't excuses you from the conversation unless of course you wish to argue that my argument is baseless.
This conservative isn't rich and there are tons of rich liberals out there that are just as self-serving as the rich conservatives you clearly distain. Also, what is wrong with giving money to religious organizations? The Salvation Army and lots of non-profits that serve the homeless are Christian-based organizations that do lots of good in our society. I would have no issue with the government using tax dollars to help those in need but why are the governmental bureaucrats paid so much and have lavish benefits in order to provide this service?
The Salvation Army is the only charity I've seen that wasn't a scam benefiting the operators more than the beneficiaries.
The other problem that is blatantly obvious with the OP is that conservatives don't really oppose the idea of welfare. They see that welfare has become a massive magnet for the LAZY who are able bodied and able minded, yet would rather suck on the government tit than to get up and be productive citizens. The majority of conservatives agree that welfare is okay for those that actually need it. The Dems need welfare for the lazy because it buys votes. The lazy will vote for the Dems because they are scared that the Reps might actually put something in place that would reduce the number of LAZY people who are on welfare because they choose to be as opposed to people who really are down on their luck and genuinely need a helping hand to sustain the basic necessities of life.
If the welfare system was not so heavily abused, I would not oppose it, even though I believe private donations to non-government charities is a much better way to handle helping those in need.
What's lazy is silly generalizations like those you've posted above.
The vast majority of welfare recipients do not defraud the system. But hey, don't let that fact inhibit the generalization parade. Just punish them all, because some are bad.
I will simply note that prior to the United States of America, there was no charity either personal or governmentally.
If not for slavery, millions of children of Africans would still be just that children of Africans.
Were it not for missing the plane, many would have died in the crash.
Quite simply, the government taking tax dollars to redistribute wealth is not nearly as viable in helping the poor as a good job created by a profitable business.
If government could do so, then tell me why there is such an extreme level of poverty in Latin America. Tell me why Communist China and North Korea leaders live in opulent luxury while nearly all their people starve for a simple meal.
If government could do so, why would the Obama's slap their wealth in the faces of all American's during these hard times? The Roosevelt's were mega-wealthy, yet they didn't flaunt their wealth during the Depression.
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.
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.
