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.
that part of what churches do is help the poor. they do so in many ways, for instance the salvation army hospitality house is a church, and they work with other churches to house the homeless when temperatures drop below a certain point, i used to work for the salvation army hospitality house here in tucson as a winter program driver.
they also help the homeless that want to get back into society by providing them with temporary housing, and job training, among other things.
Yes...that was President Obama's first job: a community organizer who helped the needy to connect with churches offering assistance programs.
i agree that we need less spending, and we need entitlement reform, but we do not have a revenue problem, we have a regulation problem, I.E. too much regulation that is costing business far too much money, and thus those that can are outsourcing jobs overseas.
it has been noted that we can run the government for 7 months without borrowing any money if we;
1: take ALL income from indiviuals over $100,000 per year.
2: take ALL profits from corporations for the year.
however if the government actually did those things, it would kill the economy. what we need is pro growth policies that are properly balanced with regulation to prevent businesses from taking advantage of their customers, most of which can be done through the courts rather than the halls of government.
as for finding middle ground, we cant afford to do that now. perhaps in the future after we have fixed the economy maybe.
as i have said many times, we need proper regulation on business, but right now we have excessive regulation and that is causing problems. take the pinto for instance. the lawyers made a huge deal that ford thought a human life was only worth a certain amount of money, but the reality is that the government REQUIRED ford, and all other automakers for that matter, to produce a cost/benefit analysis that included the cost of a human life that was set by GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
this is true, and for those that are truly needy, we need a safety net, but it should be administered by the states NOT the federal government. and the hippocratic oath is not going away.
rubbish, even the libertarians know that the poor and disabled are going to be with us, and are going to need help to get through life. however, like true conservatives they believe that we need to help people make their own way through life as much as possible.
absolutely.
this is true, but as noted, it does not mean to provide for individuals. it means the federal government needs to provide for the defense of the nation, secure the borders, and provide a safety net for the STATES for when they have financial issues. it also provides for consistent regulations across the nation. for instance, at one time truckers had to carry several set of mud flaps, and change them each time they entered another state. that cost a lot of money and time that was unnecessary, and the feds stepped in and set a nationwide regulation. the federal government was designed to be a small government that held the states together, with the states doing the things they need to be doing, like educating our children.
in essence the feds set the standards, and the states do the work.
it is not just about business with conservatives and libertarians, it is about personal responsibility, and making your own way in life. as for compromise, you mean do what you liberals want us to do, rather than what needs to be done to fix problems.
as for using terms like *******s, how about you liberals using the term repugs? in the end name calling will do no good for anybody. you know it and i know it, and yet it still happens because too many people who debate on a political forum have the mentality of a fourth grader.
the term compassionate conservative is just another term for liberal in my opinion. bush was not a conservative, even though he claimed to be. as for having a bleeding heart, that isnt a bad thing, but it needs to be tempered with what is truly good for people rather than what current liberals feel is right.
We have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. Both cuts to spending and more money going to the government is the only way to get rid of the deficit.
I don't really care at this point, but the fact that you chose to respond to the sarcastic part of my post and not the parts that have meaning speaks volumes. I would have expected you to defend your position, FWIW.
Nor is there a response to my request for a link proving that the assertion that the lottery winner in Michigan is not an isolated case is a valid one.
I am a conservative and I feel insulted being lumped into the same category as libertarians. Libertarian ideology is closer to that of liberalism than it is to conservatism. Which is why so many hardcore leftists from Berkeley to to Manhattan to San Francisco, just love Ron Paul.
I don't really care at this point, but the fact that you chose to respond to the sarcastic part of my post and not the parts that have meaning speaks volumes. I would have expected you to defend your position, FWIW.
Libertarans belong to the liberal camp. Even John Stossel has sais this, that libertarians are classic old school liberals. This is why I want people to stop lumping libertarians into the conservative category.
Not at all; we're both looking for answers to questions that we've asked.
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.