Christian Republicans

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i get that you don't care because if you do not support helping the poor through the current channels then you do not support helping the poor.

Gimme a break


that is an asinine thing to say.

how so?

i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how so?

i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.

Because you basically said that unless you support the current state of the welfare program that you hate poor people. Such a joke of a comment. You know who tells jokes...other than comedians? Clowns.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i get that you don't care because if you do not support helping the poor through the current channels then you do not support helping the poor.

Gimme a break


that is an asinine thing to say.

how so?

i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.

no one does it in the name of Jesus. To say that if I don't support the current way of doing things I am not for supporting the poor is stupid. That is ridiculous and if you truly think that way you can never argue against someone saying that someone who is pro-choice if for abortions

Godfather.

TIME OUT !!!!! everybody take a step back and breeeaaath or you will all go to your next PJ show with no beer at all..understand ?

Godfather.

cincybearcat

Godfather. wrote:

TIME OUT !!!!! everybody take a step back and breeeaaath or you will all go to your next PJ show with no beer at all..understand ?

Godfather.

Hey joker, that's an empty threat. PJ doesn't play shows in my country any more!!!!

Go Beavers

cincybearcat wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

petejm043 wrote:

Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs.

How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?

Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.

I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.

If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

Rock group Tool, wine making... still not sure what this has to do with Godfather's statement- "when there is nobody left to blame, people blame Jesus." Sorry, just not sure what you're referring to.

Back to the original OP quote. Government may be inefficient but I know people who would be in a world of hurt if it weren't for programs that help them be able to eat. Them and their young kids. Even if arguments could be made that government isn't efficient and poor people shouldn't have kids, the fact remains that there will always be government and there will always be the poor and if you're going to profess to be Christian and political then it makes more sense to make the programs more efficient and support planned parenthood- not cut them out and let the poor go hungry.

I don't think you read about his mother, or the song Judith, where Christ is blamed for his mother's decay.

cincybearcat

Go Beavers wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?

Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.

I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.

If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.

Almost half are repeat users and you think that the system is a-ok? Honestly, it works pretty well for people/families that have lost jobs but have skills, education, or sheer will to get off. Otherwise, not so much. And if you look at the families that have been cycling off and on or on it more than 5 years, I wonder what the statistics show about their next generation?

This ain't baseball or even basketball where 58% is good. That's a failing grade.

Go Beavers

cincybearcat wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.

I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.

If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.

Almost half are repeat users and you think that the system is a-ok? Honestly, it works pretty well for people/families that have lost jobs but have skills, education, or sheer will to get off. Otherwise, not so much. And if you look at the families that have been cycling off and on or on it more than 5 years, I wonder what the statistics show about their next generation?

This ain't baseball or even basketball where 58% is good. That's a failing grade.

I didn't say it's a-ok, I was disagreeing with the "life of dependency" part. If it created dependency, then the percentage would cover the majority. In here, people are often misinformed about public assistance and requirements of recipients.

Godfather.

cincybearcat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

TIME OUT !!!!! everybody take a step back and breeeaaath or you will all go to your next PJ show with no beer at all..understand ?

Godfather.

Hey joker, that's an empty threat. PJ doesn't play shows in my country any more!!!!

sorry
what country are you in ? and why don't they play there anymore ?

Godfather.

cincybearcat

Godfather. wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

TIME OUT !!!!! everybody take a step back and breeeaaath or you will all go to your next PJ show with no beer at all..understand ?

Godfather.

Hey joker, that's an empty threat. PJ doesn't play shows in my country any more!!!!

sorry
what country are you in ? and why don't they play there anymore ?

Godfather.

The USA. I have no idea!

Godfather.

maybe you can re-create the Hippie movment and we can all cross the border to Canada for their next show.


Godfather.

ComeToTX

I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.

cincybearcat

ComeToTX wrote:

I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.

Yep, you got that right. We are the ones forcing them to have babies. :roll:

And you do realize you can not like the way something is and want to change it and that doesn't mean you are against all welfare...right?

I mean, I'm guessing you don;t support the war in Afghanistan or the one in Iraq? Is that correct? If so, does that mean you want to get rid of the military completely?

JonnyPistachio

Is liberal Christianity signing its own death warrant?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... rrant?lite

Cosmo

petejm043 wrote:

Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs. I believe that government should be there for the elderly or the disabled. Government should provide a hand along with charities to help individuals and families that have fallen on hard times.

Unfortunately government programs also lead to fraud. For example, food stamp fraud costs the tax payers $750 million a year. In 2010 tax payers lost $60 billion to health care fraud.
As for the homeless…yes there are many who have mental issues or have been caught up with drugs and alcohol. This past May a homeless man in Miami, Ronald Poppo was attacked and his face was bitten by what many of you may recall as the Miami Zombie. Anyhow the point being is the before this brutal attack, Mr. Poppo had been approached several times throughout the many years and was offered help to get off the streets and he refused.

A few years ago the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust did a study and it found that in panhandlers in South Florida received $40 million dollars. Also check out this video from Richmond, VA on panhandlers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUmRXn_1qY

...
Who is responsible here... the government... or the people CHEATING the system that is there to help the people in need?
And Medicare fraud... do you know who steals from Medicare? not poor people... DOCTORS, HOSPITALS, DRUG COMPANIES, LAWYERS, OLD PEOPLE of all income levels, WHEELCHAIR SALESMEN, etc... These people aren't in need... they are driven by greed.

Go Beavers

ComeToTX wrote:

I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.

You touch on a good point about conservative Christians. A large number of the people on public assistance are teen mothers and their children, or mothers who had their first child as a teen. Conservative Christians promote this occuring when they resist sex education and access to birth control, and also when they promote women being economically dependent on men and devaluing women furthering their education. By villianizing feminism, they encourage dependence. If people want to due something about people on welfare, they should be promoting sex education and birth control, not b.s. abstinence only education. The U.S. has the highest teen birth rate out of all the western countries for a reason, not out of random chance.

know1

To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.

Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.

Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.

...
You're right it DOESN'T Have to come from the government.
It comes from the government because it ISN'T coming from anyone else.

know1

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.

Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.

...
You're right it DOESN'T Have to come from the government.
It comes from the government because it ISN'T coming from anyone else.

Absolutely wrong. There are a lot of people doing a lot of charity work and donating lots of money.

I'd like to think that several more would be doing it if they had more of their own money back to help others instead of pay for government waste.