0
4

[–] Lumidaub 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You presume a lot about many people on here.

0
1

[–] LonElliott [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You are probably correct. I just dont understand. The right is supposed to be religious and be thy brothers keeper and all that. Makes no sense to me.

0
0

[–] 2887438? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I spend hundreds of hours every year helping the poor. Many people on the right, religious or not, do this. There is no honor in voting for the federal government to force other people to pay for the government to provide services wastefully and incompetently. Dollars do more good when they are spent closer to home, and do best when they are spent privately.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] LonElliott [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I dont mind the debate, and I take no government cheese. The point I was trying to make, probably badly, is that the right is supposed to be the party of religion. They are supposed to be morally superior, that is how they sell it. Yet they argue against most social programs as socialist. Meanwhile, they attack the dems for backing these programs. I am not saying the dems are right or repubs are right, I am saying its very odd to me.

0
0

[–] One_Wing_Angel 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's a common misunderstanding.

The personal charity that christianity promotes is inherently different, however, from government benefits. Charity must be voluntary for it to actually mean anything from a religious perspective. Government benefits, in contrast, are not voluntary. Those come from taxes extracted by force.

To explain a little more: "Charity" comes from the greek "caritas" (or love). So think of it as an act of love. When someone freely gives to someone else in need, they not only help that person in need, but also ennoble themselves because they have selflessly and freely chosen to give away their own wealth for no return. You not only improve the poor person's position, but become a better person yourself.

Because government programs come from taxes, they simply cannot be classified 'charitable'. Since taxes are extracted by force, it is more like mugging someone who you think can afford the loss, and then giving the money that you stole to someone who is poor. You think that you are being generous, but you're actually just being generous with other people's money. To call this "charity" is a form of self-delusion; it slowly perverts the citizenry because discourages and displaces actual charity, and because it justifies itself with envy and class-grievance.

See the difference?

0
2

[–] Spaceballs-1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Poor analogy, but here goes.

I would run in and if the family is just sitting there watching their house burn and waiting for me to carry them out then fuck them, I'll walk back out alone.

Many social programs have devolved into "gibs for life" programs without the necessity of the recipients giving back or even making an attempt at improving their own lot. I'm for subsidizing education, and job training, but I'm also against lifelong welfare, and Unemployment Insurance.

0
0

[–] LonElliott [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I can agree with what your saying. My concern is that we do not do these programs because of abuse. Sure, there is going to be abuse of the system. But its such a small percentage that to deny all the folks that need these programs, because of a small percentage that abuse the system, is wrong to me. Have the program and hold those that abuse the system accountable.

1
0

[–] Spaceballs-1 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Abuse is inherent in the system. It's the way they are designed. I personally feel that there is only a small percentage who DON'T abuse the system.

I went on the dole when I was a lot younger, and it was humiliating to me. It's also why I tried really hard to find a job and get OFF the dole. There are a huge percentage who refuse to leave their "comfort zone" to move find a job and better themselves. The dole is what their whole existence revolves around. No matter. Place limits on the payouts and if they refuse to better their situation, fuck 'em, let them starve. A grumbling stomach is a great incentive to find a job.

0
2

[–] kasperweisse 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Supporting social programs in the U.S. would be more akin to stopping at the burning house and throwing money on the fire.... Our social programs are of poor design and do not lift up the poor, they trap them. I have been on the receiving end of these programs before and it was the hardest thing ever to get off of them. Sure you can get help when you reach bottom, but when you try to get yourself back up, they pull the support... its like a plane trying to take off before you have enough speed. I am a firm believer in helping and charity, we just have poorly designed programs here.

0
1

[–] One_Wing_Angel 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

more akin to stopping at the burning house and throwing money on the fire

Well said. If anything, your analogy understates the case: our current system starts the fire and then throws money at it.

Our government does not help people out of poverty, it traps them in poverty. If you want society to improve, then you need to encourage stable families, but our government has destroyed the black family and is well on the way to doing the same for hispanics and low-income whites.

Amazingly, the black family structure was actually better off in the Jim Crow era than it is now(!) Which means (to repeat) that jim-crow laws were actually better than our welfare laws. Absolutely amazing.

I want a social safety net, but I loath our current system. Tear it down! Destroy it utterly! This "cure" is worse than the disease.

0
1

[–] HumanitysPrecipice 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Good analogy. The only difference I can really pull out quickly is that with the burning house, you pull the family out and you're done; as far as your roll is concerned problem solved. That isn't the case with the social programs. All you're really doing at that point is moving the family into the kitchen because it's furthest away from the fire. And you dragged the neighbors into the house with you. You haven't solved anything, but you're better off than you could have been for a little while while ultimately, the real problem continues to grow.

0
0

[–] bfriend13 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If possible I would attempt to try to get anyone inside out to safety. My neighbor's house did catch on fire and I asked the daughter who was outside if everyone was out. She said yes and then remembered her purse was inside. Me and another guy kept her from going back in to get it. The entire house was burning within minutes. I could even hear what sounded like popcorn going off in the kitchen.

0
0

[–] rwbj 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You bring up and obvious and good point. You could even bring it down a level as for something like a house on fire, you might end up with the phenomena where everybody would help but thinks somebody else probably already as so they don't. Eg - if you witness a vehicle careen out of control and start burning once it comes to rest I think most of everybody is going to go try to help the people in that vehicle obvious dangers aside. Ultimately I think the problem here is what we're seeing low information people attempting to create an echo chamber of talking points.

  • "That guy agrees with my preconceived notions of how things ought to be, even if his post is completely off topic and borderline mental. Upvote!"

  • "That guy disagrees with my preconceived notions of how things ought to be, even if his post is well considered, on topic, and and factually based. Downvote!"

It's like a race to confirmation bias. The internet has a world of ideas and logic - you can even read most of every political treatise ever written for free any time you like. But like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. For whatever reason, for some people introspection seems nearly impossible.

0
0

[–] HumanitysPrecipice 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"We live in an age where mass communication has counterintuitively turned all attempts at verbal debate into a basketball game where the teams are on different courts and stand around the basket racking up meaningless points and throwing shit over the dividing wall." -Ben Croshaw.