Obama halloween. Healthy version

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

It's the conservatives that go to church.



Looks like Obama is destroying jobs.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.


Liberals are more self centered

Trick or treat.

Wow, you should feel so proud that on average you and other conservatives give 373 dollars more a year per person to charity. You should feel so proud that your conservative group gives about 1 dollar a day more to charity than the average liberal.

Oh and by the way...
What does all this have to do with the point about government having to help the poor cause the church is either unwilling or unable to?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Wow, you should feel so proud that on average you and other conservatives give 373 dollars more a year per person to charity. You should feel so proud that your conservative group gives about 1 dollar a day more to charity than the average liberal.

Oh and by the way...
What does all this have to do with the point about government having to help the poor cause the church is either unwilling or unable to?

BUMP for coadie

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

In fact, if you redefine socialism in terms of giving, socialism actually becomes the act of a society giving to its own underpriveleged people.

The fallacy is that people who object to having their money TAKEN away and given to others is that they are personally uncharitable.

I want to CHOOSE who gets my money. That doesn't mean I won't give it, and give it generously.

Welfare needs to be reformed, and YES, it needs to be heavily regulated so that only those who are in desperate need get the funds. I worked nights at a grocery store when I was in my early 20's, and I remember how many groceries people on welfare and food stamps could buy. I was shocked, because with my husband and I both working, we were living on beans, rice, pasta, etc. These people were buying junk food, expensive cuts of meat, etc. Coming through with 2, even 3 buggies full of food was common.

I'm not opposed to public assistance for needy families, but it needs to be stringently supervised and limited.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God's Law demanded Israel to care for the poor, widows, orphans, and needy as a nation. ...

Now, I do agree that our economy is so messed up that these programs will be hard to fund. It troubles me. But there isn't anything morally wrong with programs to assist the needy.

It should be noted that the Prophets rebuked the nation for neglecting these laws and the judgments of God fell upon them for neglecting the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the needy.

I agree, but the programs that exist now are full of corruption and abuse and need a heavy hand to bring them back into line.

You are absolutely right about the Bible teaching that we should care for the poor, widows, orphans & needy. According to Ezekiel, one of the sins of Sodom was failing to care for the needy.

I like to listen to Neal Boortz on talk radio (he's a libertarian), but one thing I can't stand about his show is when he gets on his welfare/healthcare rants. He basically states that if people are "stupid" enough to go through life without planning well for their end of life care, then too bad for them. I get (the logic behind) what he's saying, but charity requires that we react differently to people in need.

I really disagree with that lack of compassion--I find it very offensive. We are supposed to lift people up when they are downtrodden and we're supposed to have compassion on those who are in dire straits--even if their own choices put them there.

The real problem here, though, is that people (me included) don't trust the government to dole out their tax dollars wisely. There is broad abuse of the welfare system, and it's getting worse--not better. It needs to be scrapped, and a new, better program put in its place. And better doesn't mean more people covered--it should mean less. People who are able bodied and able to work should be working for their communities to pay for their food stamps or public dole. NO one who is able to work should just be sitting home waiting for a check to arrive. There should be NO illegal immigrants on welfare. If a person wants to benefit from the government, they need to be citizens of the country, and they need to pay in their share of taxes when they have a job.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The fallacy is that people who object to having their money TAKEN away and given to others is that they are personally uncharitable.

I want to CHOOSE who gets my money. That doesn't mean I won't give it, and give it generously.

Welfare needs to be reformed, and YES, it needs to be heavily regulated so that only those who are in desperate need get the funds. I worked nights at a grocery store when I was in my early 20's, and I remember how many groceries people on welfare and food stamps could buy. I was shocked, because with my husband and I both working, we were living on beans, rice, pasta, etc. These people were buying junk food, expensive cuts of meat, etc. Coming through with 2, even 3 buggies full of food was common.

I'm not opposed to public assistance for needy families, but it needs to be stringently supervised and limited.

The argument is not that christians don't want to give. It's that they have not shown on a whole that their giving can sustain all or even most of the poor in this country. If that is ever done then we won't need those programs, or at least they will take a small fraction of the money they take now.

I agree that the system needs reformed. Actually I think the problem is that there is a system. Any system can be worked for an individuals benefit. More restrictions usually just cut out many of the people that really need those programs while those that can work the system find ways to stay in them.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The argument is not that christians don't want to give. It's that they have not shown on a whole that their giving can sustain all or even most of the poor in this country. If that is ever done then we won't need those programs, or at least they will take a small fraction of the money they take now.

I agree that the system needs reformed. Actually I think the problem is that there is a system. Any system can be worked for an individuals benefit. More restrictions usually just cut out many of the people that really need those programs while those that can work the system find ways to stay in them.

I also wanted to add, that even in church programs for giving to the needy... they can be abused also. I'm sure if churches took the place of the government in giving to the needy many of the same charges could be brought against there programs. Though, since they are closer to the grassroots level maybe they could actually judge by more than paperwork who was really needy, unlike the government.