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.
Why is caring for the poor considered a taxpayer responsibility? Where in Jesus's teachings is that made clear?
I, as an individual, am compelled to have empathy and provide help to the poor. I've seen NOTHING that suggests that the American taxpayer, as an entity, is on the hook for the same.
This is 100% accurate.
In fact, individual responsibility and empathy applied to a system of government is a dangerous road to go down.
Kasich has a 92 rating from the American Conservative Union. Far from moderate
Lots of people see Kasich as a reasonable Republican. The problem is - he is not far right enough to win the nomination.
Whoever DOES win the nomination has to be so far right - that it is then difficult for them to try and get back in the middle . to try and win the general election.
Says the person whose party's front runner Hillary has been caught in new lies on the email scandal.
Kasich is my #1 and I would even vote for a Biden before a Huckabee, etc...
However, the Democrats need to brake the voodoo hold that Hillary has on them so they can pick a better candidate.
This argument I am about to make has been said by people of both sides, but I honestly think it rings true of here.
It doesnt matter who democrats nominate, you would likely vote against them. it isnt because of the person you think they are( although, in some cases that is the reason), but because they are in fact, democrats. And you disagree with the policies they advocate.
Hillary Clinton, for what you see as flaws, just looks like political tactics from the right to the rest of us. The entire argument against Clinton is that she is hiding something, not that you have found something. There is a key distinction there that will always turn part of the population against your cause.
The problem with liberals/leftists, is that they are completely obsessed with money/materialism, it is sad.
The question is, have humans truly "progressed"? And progressed in what way? They are richer, and they live longer, but so what? Are they happier? What makes a life worth living anyway? What are we here for?
With that said, your estimates are a bit off. People in medieval Europe weren't as poor as you are taught. The per-capita GDP in late-medieval England, was about ~$1824 a year in 2015 dollars($1000 a year in 1990 dollars)
In 1600, the Netherlands had a per-capita GDP of $2,518 per year in 2015 dollars. That is about the same as the Philippines, Honduras, Bolivia, and Palestine. And not far behind Egypt.
More importantly, the gap between rich and poor was actually quite a bit narrower during the middle-ages than it is today. Yes there were Kings and lords and others who were very wealthy(just as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are very wealthy). But the vast majority of the population were peasants and members of the church. In effect, about ~90% of the population had nearly the same level of income.
Though, I would agree that we are obviously wealthier than we were in the past, and we live longer. The real question is, "Does it matter?"
For instance, we are wealthier and live longer today than we did in 1950, but are we better off today than we were in 1950? Is dying at 60 worse than dying at 70? Or 80? Or 90? or 100? Is dying quickly of infection or disease, worse than dying slowly of cancer or diabetes?
The truth is, money isn't all that important. We tend to think it is important, and would prefer to have more money than less. But there is little evidence that more money, or "more stuff" makes us happier. For instance, our hunter-gatherer ancestors were likely happier than we are today. The Amish are happier than we are. And this is true among many "primitive peoples", across the world.
What seems to make us unhappy when it comes to money, is when other people have more money than us. Or especially, when they earn more than us doing the same work, or for similar work/time spent. "no matter how much [money] we make, we tend to be dissatisfied with our income if our neighbor is making more."
You have to be careful about believing everything you are told about the world.
Capitalism and usury, are literally the worst things that ever happened to the world.
By the eye test- I see people who live lavishly have very messed up lives. Some are frauds and are broke or seriously in debt but play pretend to show the Jones they are keeping up. Some have terrible family relationships ; divorced; alienated children. Some have drug problems. Some just work so much so they can show off luxury but are never home with their spouse and kids.
To wise people -Money is definitely not everything.
There is a study (I will try to dig it up) that showed a direct correlation of increased square footage of the home to lack of closeness of the family.
This argument I am about to make has been said by people of both sides, but I honestly think it rings true of here.
It doesnt matter who democrats nominate, you would likely vote against them. it isnt because of the person you think they are( although, in some cases that is the reason), but because they are in fact, democrats. And you disagree with the policies they advocate.
Hillary Clinton, for what you see as flaws, just looks like political tactics from the right to the rest of us. The entire argument against Clinton is that she is hiding something, not that you have found something. There is a key distinction there that will always turn part of the population against your cause.
Bull crap. Hillary Clinton has 30+ years of lies and scandals in her background. If all you see are "political tactics from the right" then you are not doing your due diligence as a citizen in researching your candidates. Hillary Clinton's problems are FAR DEEPER than this email fiasco that you have latched on to.
Capitalism is the greatest economic model in human history and is responsible for lifting billions out of poverty. The poorest person on this planet is better off than the poorest person on Earth in the 1600s, around the time capitalism was developed.
That said, it is time for the GOP to recognize that Capitalism and free markets, for all of its benefits, still leaves people behind and to heed the words of Jesus when he said "the poor you will always have with you." (Mark 14:7)
This is why I am voting for John Kasich, he is a man with sound conservative principles, but has consistently acknowledged that our system still leaves people behind and that they need to be helped.
Why do so many so-called conservatives sound like left wingers lately? Here's news to the OP, people will ALWAYS be left behind, it's just the way it is, it's the laws of nature. BTW, the Pope? What a joke.
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.
