Serious QOTE
If we are such a christian nation and a majority of teh Republicans are no doubt christians, what do they have against helping the uninsure and taking care of the sick?
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- Joe Connor on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- nunya on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- El Somnambulo on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- El Somnambulo on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- FWIW224 on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- nunya on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- mediawatch on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- Jive Miguel on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- Arthur on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- Nancy Willing on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- Arthur on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Song of the Day 11/21: SSgt. Barry Sadler, “The Ballad of the Green Berets”
- puck on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- Deeks on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 21, 2024
- nathan arizona on DL Open Thread: Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024
- Alby on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- Ole on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
- Alby on SD 1 Candidate Forum Open Thread
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
Republicans notoriously fall back on “Charity”, even if real charity beyond immediate family is rare indeed.For some reason when government becomes involved feeding the hungry and caring for the sick becomes an act of evil and a perversion of the grand American…Well you’ve heard this speal have you not?
It’s all about faith. Faith defies logic. Faith allows them to believe God will magically take care of everyone so that the state doesn’t have to. And anyone God doesn’t take care was a bad person or a heretic anyway, except those persons who died that they liked, that was either the fault of the Devil or Liberals or Both.
They are like children. And they are being led by greedy dickwads who desire only to exploit their mindset for their own profit.
Not so fast…no problem with charity…or he government WHEN charity can’t do it..the problem is charity has been usurped by government involvement, to the point what can be more cost contained, now comes w/ an astronomical pricetag of regulation and bureacracy.
Charity has been usurped by government?
Joanne, I love ya, but that statement is nonsense. The need is great, and the Rs have a litmus test for who deserves help. Read: Real Americans. Although their need is far greater than the charity given. And with today’s economy… nobody’s giving what they use to – and even that wasn’t enough.
This “people should help people” is an example of the Libertarian utopia, but it isn’t – and never has been – based in reality.
shorter JC,
The government can’t do charity right…they give it the wrong people 🙂
Religious charities may not give charity to people of different religions – which is their right under the 1st amendment as long as they’re not giving public funds.
I think charity is fairly inefficient – there’s so many people in need who may not be the right religion or live in the right place or know the right people.
The idea of the common good is that we all have a stake and we can all help each other. Government services don’t negate private charity.
It would be nice if the government worked as a clearinghouse for charities, instead of killing any initiative someone may have to help oneself because of some bureacratic table, income requirement etc.. To that end people are at least left with the dignity of doing something, contributing, etc…instead of the bonanza of goods one can walk away with for nothing, instead of the encouragement to work wherever, and we are here to help with healthcare, food, housing, utilities etc. With the exception of food stamps and WIC, we are almost condemned NOT to work a full 40, for fear of losing the motherlode. There is dignity in all work–and that I can support with charitable services rendered to make up the lost difference in what individuals need.
That’s a pretty whacked view of poor and working poor people, JC. Those who are looking to play the system are not typical of the system, altho the TV and news tend to highlight those folks who are playing the system. There are plenty of working low-income people who will just never have healthcare. Think Walmart workers. And the trend is moving to working middle-income workers not having employer-sponsored health care, either.
Oh my.
DV, I submit that the QOTE is rhetorical. The teachings of Jesus, and his deeds as described in the Bible, demonstrate a seriously liberal message. Love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others, all that dfh stuff. Like any other story, the messages can be selectively followed when it’s convenient. Render unto Ceasar, curse the fig bush if it won’t yield fruit, etc.
This points at a great dichotomy in conservative ideology: It calls for everyone to simultaneously be self-sufficient, type A, industrious, ingenious Americans; everyone for themselves, and at the same time be upstanding Christians.
Read the response again. WORKING is the operative, and should not preclude the receipt of benefit.
Look at our Social Security recipients–how many times have I heard, they can’t be scheduled anymore hours (even though they may want and willing), because then the SS benefit is reduced? Why keep them at a “working poor” level, if more work is available? Why not let the receipt of benefit be because a working person stands in need of the benefit (just like your Walmart example,) and not solely because they are judged on income alone. Especially w/ healthcare…the difference between 15K/year and 50K in need of healthcare is incremental–yet 15K/year will get you the gold card of healthcare, yet the 50K earner will go without because it’s cost prohibitive, and the government won’t provide. Now where’s the incentive to work?
just so i’m clear, we demand a separation of church and state when it comes to our personal freedoms, but we demand that religious beliefs be considered when it comes to the nanny state. mmm..mmm..delicious hypocrisy.
doesn’t the bible say something like ‘god helps those who help themselves’? it’s not the government’s responsibility to provide citizens with health care, unless i missed that part of the constitution. i mean, to be fair, i didn’t watch the entire john adams mini-series, so it could be included for all i know.
it’s so cute how you lump all conservatives into one ideology. i don’t suppose you’ve ever considered that not all conservatives are extremists. i guess that would be a difficult concept for an extremist to grasp. i think people should be industrious and self-sufficient, but i am a very charitable person (god forfuckingbid i choose my own charity rather than have the government dictate where my money goes.) oh, and here’s a shocker – i’m not a christian! isn’t it maybe – just maybe – possible that some of us are FISCAL conservatives and *gasp!* still good people?
Glad to see you Dom..and Amen to all you said but the train has already left the station in regards to government healthcare….so doesn’t it make sense to provide perhaps the one thing a family or individual may need to keep them working, instead of illustrating what they shouldn’t do if they need any support?
Now where’s the incentive to work?
The incentive to work is a paycheck that pays your rent and puts food on your table. LOTS of people work in spite of not having access to health insurance or even access to Medicaid or SCHIP. There are alot of people out there (and you may say hello to some of them every day) who work at jobs without insurance precisely because the alternative isn’t palatable.
The current push to cover everyone with health insurance is partially to see that people have affordable options even if they have one of those 50K jobs with no employer provided insurance.
How nice that Dominique has returned to share her pleasant crack-pot idiocy with all the “vipers,” as she has so affectionately referred to the writers and commenters on this site.
Actually, my dear little lamby-pie, the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” never appears in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact. And the Constitution does allow the Federal Government to tax “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Does that help you out? Heaven forbid you break a nail actually opening a book.
You make an assumption here — that Republicans are, in fact, “against helping the uninsure[d] and taking care of the sick”. Where most of us differ with you and your fellow ObamaCare supporters is the HOW of it.
Rhymes With White: I am sure you’re right, but could you please refresh our memories about the universal healthcare proposals or healthcare reform bills offered or passed when the repubs were in full control?
A1 — your race-baiting has become rather juvenile. Go screw yourself.
Is that your answer?
I’m saying that I consider your juvenile race-baiting misrepresentations of who I am sufficient reason to ignore you from here on out.
The ends don’t justify the means.
My thoughts on the matter. Christianity teaches YOU to visit the sick and help the poor. It doesn’t teach you to have your country do it for you. For more see the link. I wrote about this topic about a week ago and had a nice conversation with Noman about it.
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/a-friendly-challenge/
Christians also believe that Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Whatever you do with the money, whether it is good or sinful still means the money is sinful by the way it was gained.
Taking money by force to pay for what you see as good deeds is still theft.
“but we demand that religious beliefs be considered when it comes to the nanny state.”
Morality does not equal religiosity. Atheists can have morals, even if not all of them do, and morality can (some would argue should) serve as a motivation for a public policy without the involvement of any “church” or even spiritual feeling.
“Christianity teaches YOU to visit the sick and help the poor. It doesn’t teach you to have your country do it for you.”
I have neither the time nor the interest, yet I have an interest in seeing them cared for. And frankly, their welfare should not depend on someone else’s charitable feeling.
“Taking money by force to pay for what you see as good deeds is still theft.”
If you’re using such language to characterize paying your taxes, set it to music and sing the blues. I feel the same way about taking my money to wage war, but I manage to live with it without whining. Why don’t you libertarians try it some time — the not whining part, I mean?
“the bonanza of goods one can walk away with for nothing”
Bonanza? BoNANza? If it’s such a great deal, why don’t more people emulate them? Surely if people could reap a BONANZA, they’d be flocking to the lush life on welfare, no? Surely the ground would be thick with a new leisure class, sipping on their fo’ties and living the life of Riley, right? Could you point me to where this Big Rock Candy Mountain might be?
I’ll stop whining about the abuse of power in Washington when it stops happening. I don’t like my tax money paying for unjust wars either. I refuse to sit back and take it, though. As long as I have my freedom of speech, and I have the power of my free will I will use them to try to make this country more free and more fair.
Until then you will hear me constantly whining about Representatives who don’t represent, corrupt politicians, those in power that have lost their purpose.
Otherwise you can take your “quit whining” acceptance attitude and shove it up your ass.
Geezer, the point to my post is that Christianity can not be used as a weapon against Christians to compel them to support government programs. Christianity teaches the individual, not the government.
The government is used for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the country. That’s why we pay taxes and the government provides a fire department, a police department, a military, etc. Providing health care for all citizens is the same thing. Our country is stronger if our people are healthy, just like our country is stronger if people are educated. Our country is falling behind because we’re not providing basic health care for all our citizens. One reason our labor costs are so much higher is because we’ve made our health dependent on our employer and our for-profit system is bankrupting everyone.
“Until then you will hear me constantly whining about Representatives who don’t represent, corrupt politicians, those in power that have lost their purpose.”
Call the wahmbulance. Sorry if I don’t rally to the cause of your paycheck.
Tim: Thanks for the clarification. I mostly agree with you, but I will point out that Christians have no obligation to object to government trying to do good.
Geezer, the point to my post is that Christianity can not be used as a weapon against Christians to compel them to support government programs. Christianity teaches the individual, not the government.
Okay… let me get this straight. Social Conservatives don’t want their religion used as a weapon unless they use it as a weapon? Or, Social Conservatives are the only ones allowed to inject religion into politics – see abortion and Terri Schiavo.
Got it.
Social conservatives inject religion into politics only because it lines their pockets. It helps them extract contributions from the ignorant masses of frightened “believers.”
Rhymey – Please feel free to ignore me as I will continue to point out your willful and deliberate lies – such as repubs are for healthcare reform. I will also unceasingly point out your pro-legalize segregation views.
By the way, doesn’t “white” also rhyme with your last name?
Anonone,
Maybe you wish the constitution states that the federal government is allowed to “provide” for the general welfare, but I believe it says “promote” the general welfare. Quit lying.
Hey h.,
Why don’t you look it up before you accuse me of lying. You are wrong:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
UI — one can make your argument, but there is a danger in it. At what point does attempting to do all these things make government a threat to liberty rather than its guarantor and protector? Our system is founded on the notion of LIMITED government — but your reasoning could easily lead to unlimited government. That is why one big issue is where to draw the line on the amount of power we give government over our lives.
I’m confused on how healthcare reform= government controlling my life? I don’t get how helping the millions without means that the government is going to screw me over royally…
Furthermore, I really, really don’t get how anyone, ANYONE is getting rich off of Social Security and/or welfare. Has anyone been on it in this post? Ssssh, I’ll tell a little secret, yes I have at one point in my life. GOD strike me down but I was on welfare and collected unemployment and BOY I was ROOOOOOLLLLLLIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG in the dough… I bought a new Lexus, new house, had my nails done every day… Man, those welfare checks let you live it up! (NOT!)
Get one thing clear JC and to others. Be Thankful to God that you’ve never had to be on that system. The leaches you talk about that milk the system isn’t the majority of the people using it and the majority of the people using it aren’t ROLLING in money.