One thing I've noticed looking at profiles is that there is a large conservative base here. I am a Democrat and I think that puts me in a minority here. (I ain't scared. :boxing:) I'm moderate in most things.
Coming from a broken home, foster care and working class household (once my sisters, brothers and I were back together), we weren't bottom of the barrel impoverished, but there were challenges. We all have gone to University and have improved our situations to what people would say is middle class.
In Matt 26:11, Jesus says, when the woman with the alabaster box was being rebuked for wasting the oil, that the poor you shall always have with you. The government providing adequate resources will, in the long run, help those most who are striving to succeed on their own. It will provide a way to make it and get by, while they are on their journey.
There are of course those who will attempt to live off those resources all their life and are content to live in their present state. We can talk all day about the psychological and other reasons why that is, it's just a fact of life here and in all parts of the world.
And I blame no one or no thing (America included) for where I am in my economic life. God owns the earth and the fullness thereof, so He is my source at all times and provides me with what I want and need.
I think a lot of it goes back to the whole give a man a fish/teach a man to fish analogy. Giving people resources only solves a short term problem. Equipping them to obtain those resources for themselves is going to be a far more effective at reducing poverty in the long run.
Legalizing marijuana would probably help as well, since I know far too many guys who don't see any reason to get a job when they can make twice as much selling weed.
Finally, we would all agree that taking things from others is wrong, as is paying someone to take them for you. But what about promising to vote for someone who takes money from people you don't think will miss it and gives it to you? How is that right?
Interesting answers ya'll, although I'm not so sure I'd legalize reefer.
I agree with Tulip on the "teaching a man to fish" principle. My problem is too many people want other's to do their fishing for them while they sit back and milk the system. Too many are dependent on the various programs available to them. A lot of times those who actually need assistance can't get it and those that are physically and mentally able to work live off them.
As a conservative,Ms. Babygirl, I may have different views on a lot of the political brew-ha-ha going on in DC now, but too many government,... er,taxpayer-funded programs are what got us in the kettle we are in now.
I believe in a hand up, but only until you get on your feet (hence the name--hand up), but when you depend on these programs of assistance as your only means of support while you are perfectly able to support yourself they become hand-OUTS and the working people of the US slave everyday to foot the bill.
:ROFL: Not reefer!!?? How about pot or grass!! :ROFL: Haven't heard that term since I was 2, Whew! Thanks for the laugh.
I told you I was moderate, so I agree with you. I think programs should exist, with conditions and time restraints. We pay so much into the government it should be working for us as well in our times of need.
Oh, about my comments. Kenneth Galbraith was an economist that helped FDR with his "New Deal" and assisted every president with social programs until LBJ. He is the one that coined the phrase "insular poverty" describing poverty caued as the result of circmstances and "case poverty", describing poverty caused by an individual's choice.
Galbraith wrote that it did not matter why one lives in poverty, whether it is caused by his own doing or circumstances beyond his control, but it was our duty as Americans to support them. (BTW-he was a Canadian). He asserted the opinion that we should shell out money and other forms of asistance without questioning their means or motives.
(and I am paraphrasing) that a Government that "provided" for the people was a Government that eventually "controlled" those same people. And a Government that has that much control in essence has "robbed" the people of their Freedom.
Wild Boars are ferocious creatures and difficult to hunt. Yet by placing food in an opening in the forest...you can get them to "herd" at that spot. By slowly over time placing fences around them and eventually a gate...as long as you feed them...you have "control" over them and this once ferocious creature becomes Domesticated.
That is what this Regime (sorry...administration) is trying to do to this Nation. To slowly take away our Freedom and make us dependent on the government. As long as we Empower them...they will have Power!
I am not too much informed on the details of US social programs (some here in Europe would doubt there were any at all), but I have one small question about the fishing and the fish:
I agree that it's better to teach a man fishing, but I also do believe, that while being taught it cold be sensible to give him a fish or two, so he won't starve learning how to get his own fish.
I agree with Archimedes, too, that governmental care can be a threat to freedom, but I wonder if there is real freedom in all things in any state. Like you are not free to drive as fast as you want on the highway, you are not free to drink at the age of 18, you are not free in many things, where the government did put up fences for the public good.
The question is: How many freedoms are we (I say we because I live in a democracy as well, though not the USA) wiling to give up for the benefit of others? And which benefits would we support?
Just some thoughts, not trying to make any of you change to the progressive sie ;) I'm far too far left to fit into the US system anyway...
