Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Keep Christ in Unemployment
Townhall.com ^ | December 11, 2010 | Bill O'Reilly

Posted on 12/11/2010 5:25:54 AM PST by Kaslin

Tis the season to be jolly, but you can forget about that in political circles. The current angst about the economy and taxes is so intense that even Santa's reindeers are spooked. Speaking the other day on a cable news program, liberal Congressman Jim McDermott put it this way: "This is Christmastime. We talk about Good Samaritans, the poor, the little baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff. And then we say to the unemployed we won't give you a check to feed your family. That's simply wrong."

As I wrote in this space a couple of weeks ago, the liberal agenda in America is expanding and now includes demands for guaranteed jobs at good wages for all who want to work. Unemployment benefits were extended again this year, and if the Obama tax compromise is passed, $150 billion more will be added to the deficit. Adding it all up, the total debt of the United States will soon exceed $14 trillion.

By invoking the baby Jesus, McDermott puts an important question in play: What does a moral society owe to the have-nots? How much public money should go to those in financial trouble?

Many liberals believe there should not be any limits. Just this week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency because his state is bankrupt. The liberal legislature in Sacramento has spent so much money on entitlements for the poor and state union workers that it owes an astounding $158 billion.

If the wild spending continues on the federal level, the entire country will be adversely affected. Right now, the financial future of most Americans hinges on the dollar retaining its dominant position in the world. But if our currency collapses under unpaid debts, so will personal assets.

There comes a time when compassion can cause disaster. If you open your home to scores of homeless folks, you will not have a home for long. There is a capacity problem for every noble intent.

America remains the land of opportunity, but you have to work for it. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 5 percent. For high-school dropouts, it is 16 percent. Personal responsibility is usually the driving force behind success. But there are millions of Americans who are not responsible, and the cold truth is that the rest of us cannot afford to support them.

Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don't make distinctions like that. For them, the baby Jesus wants us to "provide" no matter what the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive.

The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: elitistgasbag; loofahman; tedbaxter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last
To: Aevery_Freeman
In the Republican party, it is still a sin; Democrat Party, it's a sacrament.
41 posted on 12/11/2010 11:38:46 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Fear God and Government - especially when one tries to become the other!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti2
The cutoff, which this is all about, is 99 weeks.

For now. Then they will be extended and the same arguments will apply, just like the same arguments existed as each tier was passed and increased.

The attacks on those getting 26-99 weeks on here are sick.

Period.


The closest to an "attack" on this thread came from you.

Imagine, the people who are paying for these programs are questioning their efficacy. The nerve!

If people are unable to recover in that time due to this economy they may need to move up the stage.

You’re bringing up strawmen with that 150/300/lifetime, bad bad BAD form.


You can whine about my form when you don't get your posts pulled.

Your last sentence is essentially an admission that 99 weeks may not be enough. Well what number is enough? My "strawmen" are going to be real questions in pretty short order. And you're going to call into question the motives of anyone who draws the line at 110 weeks, or 150 weeks or 300 weeks, just like you're doing now at 99?

You are apparently the expert. So, again, at what number of weeks will taxpayers funding it be be justified at questioning your holy program?
42 posted on 12/11/2010 1:53:49 PM PST by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

When the economy is this terrible, 99 weeks seems proper to me.


43 posted on 12/11/2010 3:54:25 PM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson