Posted on 11/07/2012 3:27:11 PM PST by NYer
Ran across this Democrat Proverb:“Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes… and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.”
These people don't want jobs so unemployment is meaningless.
I’ll re-post basically what I put in another post that I cannot find.
Taking care of the poor is the responsibility of the Church, not the government.
Jesus gave that mandate to His followers. It is the responsibility of the individual believer to fulfill. It is not to be foisted off on others, or voted off onto the government to fulfill. Voting for the government to do the job is NOT obeying Christ in that matter.
It is part of spreading the message of the gospel and sharing the love of Christ to them. The good works like that are to show them that God loves them and to motivate them to turn to Him.
Individual church members have abdicated their responsibility by voting it away.
The other problem is that the government’s only source of money is taxes, which means that it is FORCING others through extortion, basically, to perform a service which they are to do out of love and service. Since it’s the heart that matters, forcing people to pay for acts of charity through extorted taxes means nothing. It cannot be credited to their account.
Actually, highly intelligent, but not rational.
You’re absolutely right about whose responsibility it is.
I just posted that on another thread.
We lived in a welfare town for 18 LONG years and saw it all.
Welfare destroys families, motivation to work, desire to do anything but drink, do drugs, and whine about the handouts they’re getting.
Hunger is a great motivator to work.
Cut the cord and let them learn the consequences of being on their own.
There will always be poor, and some by choice because they are too lazy to work, but there would be far less of the.
I quickly learned that most of the adults were beyond hope. I tried, but after a while, focused my efforts on the kids. I’d feed them when they came over if they were hungry and give them the (excellent condition) outgrown winter clothes from my kids.
And I’d talk with them. They’ll spill their guts if they think someone cares, and it’s heartbreaking what they’d tell you.
I think it all goes back to the fact that Catholics think the way to heaven is by “works”. Helping the poor is a “work” that no doubt scores a ton of points toward getting into heaven or at least a shorter time in Purgatory.
If Catholics believed the Bible that it is by grace through faith that you are saved, there might be a different result.
The older, near-retirement ones are idiots to believe that the crash won't happen when they are in retirement and can't earn and can't protect themselves.
This will be like the Greek tragedies of the days after the fall of the Mycean civilisation when "old men were crippled for sport and young maidens taken by lust and old women cried to see their lives brought to nothing"
sorry, i disagree. We are told to look after our brethren and Early Christians did that -- but remember that looking after includes helping the sick and helpless, but not to make them dumb pets or animals who can't help themselves. We are to leave the grain at the side of our fields for them to pick -- but they gotta do that work
I gave some examples in post 54 of real people who WORKED and let me add another one -- this one is a friend of mine who was poor, but worked as a grunt on a off-shore drill, dangerous work, but worked hard and now he's loaded -- really rich.
His brothers are well off and they own houses while his parents couldn't even dream of that.
If he was just given handouts he would never have worked hard to improve himself and quite frankly now he and his family are living much, MUCH better than if he just got welfare
well, playing devil’s advocate — we let it go in the 1800s. Bismarck set up the welfare state in response to the shocking conditions of poverty then.
Where do we disagree? It looks to me like we agree.
There's a big difference between helping the sick and helpless poor, like the widows and orphans, and helping the poor who just won't work.
In the NT, Paul admonishes the church to take care of those who are truly in need, who do not have family to take care of them.
Also, the help is not to be a continual, lifetime support of them, but rather enough to help them get back on their feet.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
I’m not very familiar with that, but as a whole, it doesn’t work because it fosters dependency and destroys the motivation to work.
They learned that the hard way with the Common Store system they tried in Jamestown in the early years of this country’s history.
There’s nothing the government can’t ruin once it gets it’s hands on it. When people have to go to a church for help, it comes with accountability. With the government there is none.
The abysmal failure that our public assistance system has become is proof enough that it does NOT work, or that it does not work beyond a very short period of time.
Corruption and fraud creep in pretty quickly when the greedy learn they can get something for nothing.
You and differ on the definition of "strong". When language such as "rape, incest and the life of the mother" are used to excuse the inexcusable the defense is timid at best. It is an acceptance that the state has a right or duty to facilitate the murder of a baby when circumstances of conception are not politically correct. I know many Catholics who see no clear choice between a party that is pro-abortion and one who is pro-death penalty, or between one that is OK with "collateral damage" in undeclared wars and euthanasia. I have had very sincere Catholics tell me that a child killed in a drone strike is just as dead as a child killed by an abortionist and it is no less a sin to kill a child because its father is a terrorist than because its father was a rapist.
A vote for either party is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Most often a vote is against a candidate, not for a candidate, but very vote requires Catholics to violate some tenet of faith. Many put great stock in the Beatitudes and vote accordingly. Some do not prioritize properly, others simply do not vote, and many others are not really Catholic. I would have thought someone who already understands everything about Catholicism would know some of this.....
I should’ve specified that I wasn’t referring to Catholic FReepers. My bad.
Exactly! Jesus said the poor would always be around - and we know that even in that first century there were many reasons why that was so. In the 1960's LBJ instituted the "War on Poverty", with grandiose ideals to eliminate poverty in America. How's it working out? The "poor" class has more than quadrupled, more people are on food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc. than there were when the "war" first started. Illegal aliens can even get subsidies now! The Bible says, "Those unwilling to work will not get to eat." (II Thess. 3:10) and "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Tim. 5:8)
I think we DO honor the Lord when we use our own resources to help those who genuinely cannot help themselves, but we DISHONOR those to whom we sacrifice for that are fully able to provide for themselves. We do them no good to encourage sloth and an entitlement attitude and they, in turn, will miss out on the blessing of helping others. Like Reagan said, "Government is not the answer to our problems, Government IS the problem."
Also, as you stated, family is important -- in the case of the poor kids I spoke about, it is incredibly clear -- a loving father and mother are invaluable in a child's development
One needs to speak to liberals with both scripture or in their own language to show them how leftist policies do not work.
Also, as you stated, family is important -- in the case of the poor kids I spoke about, it is incredibly clear -- a loving father and mother are invaluable in a child's development
One needs to speak to liberals with both scripture or in their own language to show them how leftist policies do not work, they do NOT help the poor, just create a set of dependents
And, in the end, those people sucking off the govt teat are unable to really fend for themselves and are reduced to a feral existence. Begging ruins the spirit.
I know you didn’t, but the only ones reading this ARE freepers and anti-Obama. Please do repeat the same on huffpost or nytimes — the readers are the exact target. Btw, I am doing this on huffpost, but it’s a losing battle almost kamikaze and well, one has to accept that when one invades enemy territory
Boatbums: You stated exactly what I was thinking as I read the original post that prompted your response.
You phrased it better than I could! It is true, indeed that the argument that the Reps are tepid in support of the unborn life falls flat when juxtaposed against the Dem. philosophy. For them to reject Romney in favor of Obama who voted more than once to withold medical care of infants born alive during an attempted abortion is unreconcilable in my mind.
The Republican approach to poverty and those in need is much more charitable, indeed, as it relies on the individual, society as a whole, and the Churches to provide assistance. They do not promote governmental largess, thru confiscatory taxation and redistribution, which does nothing but perpetuate the poverty and hopelessness of the less fortunate. If anyone needs proof, I submit that all the vast amounts thrown at the WAR on POVERTY since LBJ’s not-so-Great society programs have left us with an increase in governmental dependency and destruction of the family unit among the poor, and foster’s generational dependency.
Equally disturbing is the slight reduction in the Mormon vote for Romney vs that received by GWB.. 78 vs 80%. They state it’s becasue Romney wasn’t in full compliance with the tenents of Mormonism when he was governor of Ma. as he did nothing to stop abortion or gay marriage — so they vote for OBAMA??? Get real, people.
Unfotunately “Catholics” come in many varieties... there are true Catholics, Pre-vatican II catholics, traditional catholics, and then there are the so-called Catholics-in-name-only like the Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, Sibilius type of “catholic” who have rationalized any Catholicism on the altar of political expediency.
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.