If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy." - OH Governor and confirmed Communist John Kasich   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 224
    More: Hero, John Kasich, war on poverty, GOP  
•       •       •

3106 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 4:48 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-29 07:54:06 PM

jst3p: Being poor is totes awesome, she would know!

[www.sunbyanyname.com image 630x500]


She pulled in MILLIONS for the Vatican.
 
2013-10-29 07:56:46 PM
Then why are you in the Republican party, sir?
 
2013-10-29 07:58:07 PM

randomjsa: Do you know why liberals pretend to care about the poor?

Because they vote for Democrats.

And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid for that reason alone.


The stupid are overwhelmingly on your team, chief.
 
2013-10-29 08:01:41 PM
It basically goes like this, the Protestant Work Ethic equates the moral value of a person with their ability to work hard and frugality with their money. Those who laze around and spend money on frivolous things are "less moral" or even "immoral" and they are definitely not showing Christian virtue. In fact, giving charity to people encouraged laziness and begging, and is not really that good for their souls. Calvinists believed that only a certain number of people were predestined to be saved. You never knew who it might be, but they thought that they might be able to tell the likely candidates because of the way the led their lives. So working hard, saving money, going from a log cabin to the White House and rags to riches stories all fed into this idea that some people were just morally superior to others. So if the pursuit of money is okay but it isn't okay to spend, and charity is bad then what choice does a God-fearing person have but to work their tails off and invest. (Which is great economically, but is not so great for the less fortunate.)

In many ways America ended up being the dumping ground for all of the real extreme Protestant sects that made a lot of their European neighbors uncomfortable. America is chock full of stories of immigrants coming here to escape from religious persecution, every one wanting to be more serious about their Protestantism when they got over here many of them went on to found churches.

The theory goes that America's love of capitalism is also linked to this, and so it would make sense that what is valued is working, earning everything on your own and being able to support yourself. Therefore socialism is frowned on and looked at with skepticism, therefore people on welfare are "less" than people who can make it on their own. The Protestant Work Ethic has suffused the broader culture to those who aren't even Protestant.
 
2013-10-29 08:03:21 PM

randomjsa: And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid


Projection!

I think IMAX is hiring, you should inquire.
 
2013-10-29 08:05:55 PM
late to thread  - was reading an article in Rolling Stone about the war on food stamps

...2012/Gingrich.."despite Gringrich implying that lazy blacks  were the personification of food-stamp recipients, only 22% of those who receive food stamps are black (33% are white).

...of the roughly 47 million Americans on food stamps, nearly half are children
 
2013-10-29 08:18:57 PM
We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.
 
2013-10-29 08:27:21 PM
Very sharp man and very objective about finances.  One thing I have always really liked about him is he knows his number cold - no BS or pulling numbers out of his ass.

Wish he'd get more attention.
 
2013-10-29 08:32:57 PM

Talondel: Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.
 
2013-10-29 08:36:44 PM
He should know, since he voted for "welfare reform."
 
2013-10-29 08:43:36 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


When you make a deliberate choice to shift as much as the nation's wealth to the top percentile, you have to deal with the consequences of that monetary shift.  Either reverse it, spend money to feeding the poor, or let them starve in the streets and hope they don't start revolting to form a less evil government.
 
2013-10-29 09:00:54 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


I was just about to berate you for your 1/10 trolling attempt, but fark it, you caught one.
 
2013-10-29 09:14:54 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


Or, wages could get back to a level where both adults in a middle class household don't have to work just to stay afloat. Pick one.
 
2013-10-29 09:15:17 PM

impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?


Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.


Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.


It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.


Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?


No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."  Matthew 6:1-4.

skullkrusher: Stop. This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing


They're similar, but not identical.  Typically both groups believe that certain rights are 'fundamental' or 'natural'.  Many (but not all) libertarians believe "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  Objectivists believe that the fundamental human rights can be determined by the application of pure reason (i.e. objectively) without reference to any god.
 
2013-10-29 09:22:41 PM

Talondel: impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?

Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.

It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.

Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?

No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your ...


they're not even similar. One is a political philosophy and the other is a moral philosophy.
 
2013-10-29 09:26:48 PM

buzzcut73: Or, wages could get back to a level where both adults in a middle class household don't have to work just to stay afloat. Pick one.


In a global workplace, we are kind of stuck with suppressed wages for a while as Mexico, China and India catch up.  Better grab a snickers.
 
2013-10-29 09:28:59 PM

Talondel: You.  The individual.


Yep, charity with other folks money is not charity at all.
 
2013-10-29 09:29:30 PM

skullkrusher: they're not even similar. One is a political philosophy and the other is a moral philosophy.


Well, they both suck, but, yeah, in totally different ways.
 
2013-10-29 09:32:09 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Either reverse it,


That would require getting rid of Clinton's NAFTA and a host of other free trade agreements.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-10-29 09:36:12 PM

skullkrusher: Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility. It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that. That's modern social science, not Christianity.


Where Jesus said that individual responsibility failed?  That's not a quote, that's a historical observation.

Christianity itself doesn't specify the means - it says we need to take care of each other, it doesn't say how.  Either individual or collective action could in theory reach those ends.  However, in practice, history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work, while the other has produced far better results.

I'd argue if you have a moral imperative to help others (and I believe that we do), you also have a moral imperative to choose an effective means to that end.  If individual action and collective action were equally effective, the choice would be amoral - either option would be just as good.  However, if one method is substantially more effective than the other, then it's the morally correct path.
 
2013-10-29 09:39:09 PM
For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   www.humanevents.com
 
2013-10-29 09:41:20 PM

Sum Dum Gai: history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work,


Where?  Show your work.
 
2013-10-29 09:49:09 PM

HeadLever: Where? Show your work.


Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.  Can you name a single society that relied on individual charity, at any point in this planet's history, that was as effective at helping the needy as modern social democracies with their social safety nets?

Look at the conditions of the poor in America a hundred years ago versus today - poverty today is still harsh, but it's not even close to how bad it used to be (early 20th century America was similar in many ways to early 21st century China).  The safety net, by and large, works very well.
 
2013-10-29 09:55:40 PM

HeadLever: welfare cliffs


Cato was pushing this as well. It's nonsense.
 
2013-10-29 10:06:26 PM
First, Kasich tells the GOP legislators in the statehouse to EABOD when he goes to accept the federal expansion of Medicaid, and now he is concerned about the poor.

WTF is going on? Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!
 
2013-10-29 10:06:39 PM

Sum Dum Gai: Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.


Again, back that up.  You saying so does not make it true. Don't forget that if these charitable programs 'simply did not work' there wouldn't be many folks sending them money.  As it is the amount of charitable donations are about on par with SSI, EIC, Unemployment, SNAP, Child Nutrition programs, Foster Care, Making Work Pay and all other programs under the umbrella of 'Income Security'.

My point is not that they should be the only means, but they are just as important as the federal safety nets.

Again, show where they don't work.  The ones that I see work fine.
 
2013-10-29 10:14:47 PM

Serious Black: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.

I've tried arguing with Evangelicals about what the Bible says using explicit quotes from the book, from religious scholars, and from clergy members (primarily my uncle who is a Catholic priest of about 40 years now). You're exactly right; they inevitably say I am not reading the Bible right, am ignoring context that somehow proves my point is wrong, and that I should stop talking about shiat that I don't believe.


I'm sure they're able to articulate their arguments well and provide evidence to support them.
 
2013-10-29 10:18:49 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Cato was pushing this as well. It's nonsense.


Actually, that article is perfectly consistent with that figure.

Item No 1 - Is perfectly shown where different programs phase in and out based upon income.
Item No. 2 - The 'Single Mom' analysis is disclosed in the figure
Item No. 3. -  You can see where work and Income assistance is cumulative

If you are going to debunk a figure, you may want to read your link in context with what was posted.  If you would have done that you could see that my figure addresses all of your article's concerns with the CATO study.
 
2013-10-29 10:22:15 PM

HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]


bringing the min wage up to 1965 levels would go a long way towards that. stop taxpayer subsidizing neo-slave wages.  also stop the "free trade" agreements with 3rd world labor.
 
2013-10-29 10:22:55 PM
Poor House(s)
Debtor's Prison.
Tax cuts for the wealthy.

You're Welcome.
 
2013-10-29 10:28:15 PM

Hobodeluxe: also stop the "free trade" agreements with 3rd world labor.


You would like to ignore that argument wouldn't you?  The fact is that someone making a widget for $3 in India is going to have a competitive edge over your minimum wage cost of $20 per widget and this inconvenient fact puts tremendous pressure on the middle class.  You want to see more jobs flee the US, please continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

You may fantasize about all of us buying those $25 dollar, made in the USA widgets, but when you are financially stressed, those $10 India made widgets will work just fine.
 
2013-10-29 10:28:55 PM

HeadLever: Again, back that up. You saying so does not make it true. Don't forget that if these charitable programs 'simply did not work' there wouldn't be many folks sending them money. As it is the amount of charitable donations are about on par with SSI, EIC, Unemployment, SNAP, Child Nutrition programs, Foster Care, Making Work Pay and all other programs under the umbrella of 'Income Security'.

My point is not that they should be the only means, but they are just as important as the federal safety nets.

Again, show where they don't work. The ones that I see work fine.


I didn't say charities don't do good - I give tens of thousands to charities each year because I strongly approve of the work they do.  I said charity alone is not sufficient, and never has been.  Americans certainly do give an impressive amount of charity, but still not near enough - I notice you don't count Medicaid in that number; the total sum of charitable donations of all Americans couldn't pay for the Medicaid program alone.

My grandfather grew up dirt poor in the early 20th century, and it was not pretty.  The quality of life they eked out for themselves was terrible compared to even the poorest of the poor today.  We've come a long, long way since then.
 
2013-10-29 10:32:35 PM
I don't have a mansion and a yacht but some people do so those people are making war on me.
 
2013-10-29 10:36:08 PM

HeadLever: Again, show where they don't work.


48 Million Americans Remain Uninsured, Census Bureau Reports

Or is that a triumph of private charity to you?
 
2013-10-29 10:37:31 PM

Sum Dum Gai: I didn't say charities don't do good


You said they didn't work.  That is what I am taking exception with.
 
2013-10-29 10:39:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Or is that a triumph of private charity to you?


Charity is not about insurance.  It is about giving the necessities of life.  Insurance does not fit that bill.  Medical care would.
 
2013-10-29 10:42:48 PM

HeadLever: You said they didn't work. That is what I am taking exception with.


That was a poor choice of words.  I think my key point still stands:

However, if one method is substantially more effective than the other, then it's the morally correct path.

Social programs to improve the quality of life of the poor (which, yes, are augmented by private charity) have been substantially more effective than private charity alone.  The quality of life of the poor in the first world has risen massively, largely thanks to the existence of safety net programs.

There will always be a place for private charity - but there's very clearly a significant benefit to having social programs as well.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:58 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.

Well, they're not really Christians at all. All you'll ever hear them talking about is the Old Testament. They almost never do or say anything the reflects the teachings of Christ.


Some call them leviticans- they stopped reading the bible after Leviticus. Honestly they only follow old testament law as much as they feel like.

Often the same people who hate Muslims- though they believe virtually the same things
 
2013-10-29 10:44:01 PM

HeadLever: Charity is not about insurance. It is about giving the necessities of life. Insurance does not fit that bill. Medical care would.


Insurance is a way to get medical care, so is much like charity in that respect. Which is more successful at providing medical care?
 
2013-10-29 10:44:41 PM

HeadLever: Actually, that article is perfectly consistent with that figure.

Item No 1 - Is perfectly shown where different programs phase in and out based upon income.
Item No. 2 - The 'Single Mom' analysis is disclosed in the figure
Item No. 3. -  You can see where work and Income assistance is cumulative

If you are going to debunk a figure, you may want to read your link in context with what was posted.  If you would have done that you could see that my figure addresses all of your article's concerns with the CATO study.


It says right on the figure 'if we stack on welfare benefits'. The whole thing relies on that, and that's not how it works. Very few people qualify for all of those programs. It is nonsense.
 
2013-10-29 10:46:39 PM

Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


Pretty much. The only thing you really need to do to call yourself a Christian is believe in Christ. Now, it's true that throughout history many people have claimed that you need to adhere to specific political philosophies as well as believe in Christ, but they've been pretty much all over the map, and have included things like monarchies, caste systems, colonialism and even slavery. The socialist iterations of Christianity seem to be a more recent innovation which only really took root after Vatican II.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of societies maintaining strong safety nets. I'm just not convinced that employing this kind of religious rhetoric actually adds anything to the conversation, since from a purely empirical level any individual interpretation can't possibly be any more correct or valid than that of a different sect from the same religion.
 
2013-10-29 10:49:22 PM

randomjsa: Do you know why liberals pretend to care about the poor?

Because they vote for Democrats.

And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid for that reason alone.


So I read an article where a GOP
Gov says something that could get me to vote republican again. I read the comments and you derp. So I am back to thinking- oh yeah I am not just getting to vote against GOP policies but against their trollish base. Thanks for being the D-bag you always are!
 
2013-10-29 10:53:10 PM
Haven't we had enough lessons in history to learn that relying solely on charity to address poverty never works?
 
2013-10-29 10:57:41 PM

Sum Dum Gai: There will always be a place for private charity - but there's very clearly a significant benefit to having social programs as well.


That is a statement that will draw no argument for me.
 
2013-10-29 11:01:17 PM

Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.


Hm, I see you didn't read the article.

Although he opposes the Affordable Care Act, Kasich broke with many Republican governors when he accepted the Medicated expansion under the law... Kasich unilaterally secured the federal funds which will be used to provide coverage to up to 275,000 low income Ohioans - through a manuever that could face conservative legal challenges.

Guy's got some balls, I think.
 
2013-10-29 11:02:04 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Insurance is a way to get medical care, so is much like charity in that respect.


But that is an extra step that is not necessary and just reduces the effectiveness of said charitable contributions.  Besides, the entire premis of insurance is a pooling of resources in order to take out what is needed when TSHTF.  Charity is giving of ones resources to help someone else.  Both have thier place, but they are set up on a different premis.
 
2013-10-29 11:05:53 PM

RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.


And yet, in Ohio, he's stirred up the same shiat Scott Walker has.  He's only saying this because he's worried Ted Strickland will take him out next year*. I don't think he's concerned about a primary, because Ohio is purple enough that a Tea Party candidate hands the governor's mansion to the Democrat, who ever s/he is.

*At least, I assume that Strickland will run for governor again.
 
2013-10-29 11:08:04 PM

Sum Dum Gai: HeadLever: Where? Show your work.

Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.  Can you name a single society that relied on individual charity, at any point in this planet's history, that was as effective at helping the needy as modern social democracies with their social safety nets?

Look at the conditions of the poor in America a hundred years ago versus today - poverty today is still harsh, but it's not even close to how bad it used to be (early 20th century America was similar in many ways to early 21st century China).  The safety net, by and large, works very well.


Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson. This is what many conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-10-29 11:08:24 PM

Gyrfalcon: Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.

Hm, I see you didn't read the article.

Although he opposes the Affordable Care Act, Kasich broke with many Republican governors when he accepted the Medicated expansion under the law... Kasich unilaterally secured the federal funds which will be used to provide coverage to up to 275,000 low income Ohioans - through a manuever that could face conservative legal challenges.

Guy's got some balls, I think.


And yet, Ohio has to use the national exchange, just like the other red states that refused to set up their own.

Again, nothing but posturing to get the fence-sitters to vote for him over a Democrat.
 
2013-10-29 11:12:31 PM

Talondel: impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?

Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.

It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.

Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?

No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."  Matthew 6:1-4.

skullkrusher: Stop. This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing

They're similar, but not identical.  Typically both groups believe that certain rights are 'fundamental' or 'natural'.  Many (but not all) libertarians believe "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  Objectivists believe that the fundamental human rights can be determined by the application of pure reason (i.e. objectively) without reference to any god.


Jesus also attacked the money lenders- big business. Jesus admonished the Pharisees- mega church charadmatic pastors. Jesus said give unto Ceasar- pay your taxes.

Never, however, did Jesus say- vote down social programming that the modern capitalist democracy can provide on unprecedented levels which could make poverty so much less harsh and could greatly reduce nationwide poverty through such unrighteousness and unholy things as nutrition programs, education programs, birth control, and emergency assistance.

Yeah I am pretty sure I missed the chapter where Jesus said don't pool the resources of the richest nation on earth to try and eradicate poverty- for lo my father really will only reward thou who giveth to charity in the least efficient way. For that wouldeth be very unchristian for the method of giving must specifically exclude the government

Ps I hate figs
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report