RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined

RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 3:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The US is built on christian values.... Which GOP candidate has not uttered those sentiments? Hardly the same as being tasked with the administration of them, Tazzy. And because I'm sure the knees are already jerking, what nuts of the religious right, and the politicians who wish to pander to that vote would like to do, has no bearing on a discussion of what is actually the official rule of the land, as recorded and published in the Federal Register, and the bureaucracies and programs which currently exist and operate in our country. The Constitution quite specifically prohibits what some of the fundies would like to get up to in their version of a nanny state. Unfortunately, faith-based liberal bright ideas don't get the same injunction.

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 4:39:18 PM)
~FR~ Perhaps the definition changes from one discussion to the next (easy for me to miss since I don't read every one) but I thought the term 'nanny state' was in reference to seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and other such 'protect us from ourselves' legislation. Whatever the definition du jour; here we are again, after electing people who pass legislation and otherwise implement policy that result in more poor people than existed prior to such actions, the predictable complaining about the result, pointing fingers at the result as if it were the cause. The financial deregulation fiasco provides a recent example, but here's another 'contributor' that's been around for awhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act which replaced this: http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/JOBS.htm "JOBS was replaced by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, shifting the emphasis from job training to job placement." The prior JOBS program required welfare recipients to either go to school or search for a job. The subsequent "Contract on America" inspired PRWORA said simply, "forget school, go to work right now," job training was eliminated. There was fear that not having a sufficient surplus of Molly Maids might result in market forces possibly increasing their and other less skilled workers' wages some token amount, such fear causing much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth among some (bottom feeder) sectors of the business community. Developed economies are such by way of taking best advantage of 'human capital,' education level of the populace being the consensus means and measure in attaining higher development. To intentionally force things in the opposite direction, as PRWORA did, is beyond irresponsible. But those who think it is to their political advantage to push the country in a more third world direction have shown themselves to have no compunction in doing so. As has been said plenty of times before: If you don't like poor people, quit electing politicians that create more of them. If you insist on electing them anyway, then shut up about the poor people. Thank you.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 6:32:03 PM)
Who said anything about not liking poor people, Edwynn? Yes, we are running with a broader interpretation of, "nanny state" than seat belt and helmet laws, though those are reflective of the broader philosophy.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 7:16:54 PM)
Running on the repeal of seat-belt laws.......... Please do that![:D] Another illustration of how the GOP wants to take America back(ward).....

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 9:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The US is built on christian values.... Which GOP candidate has not uttered those sentiments? Hardly the same as being tasked with the administration of them, Tazzy. And because I'm sure the knees are already jerking, what nuts of the religious right, and the politicians who wish to pander to that vote would like to do, has no bearing on a discussion of what is actually the official rule of the land, as recorded and published in the Federal Register, and the bureaucracies and programs which currently exist and operate in our country. The Constitution quite specifically prohibits what some of the fundies would like to get up to in their version of a nanny state. Unfortunately, faith-based liberal bright ideas don't get the same injunction. Ahhh... and you are assuming I have a faith based liberal agenda? I have no jerking knee. Infact, I laughed when I read the thread. I often do these days. Like how its funny that on one thread, people will complain about how something is socialist or marxist.. and on another thread, complain about religious agendas. Its rather amusing if you take the time to read some posters as a whole, instead of just on a thread.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/11/2012 9:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Who said anything about not liking poor people, Edwynn? Yes, we are running with a broader interpretation of, "nanny state" than seat belt and helmet laws, though those are reflective of the broader philosophy. Would people be so quick to wish to get rid of the "nanny state" if suddenly embezzlement statutes were seen as such and wiped from the books, for example? After all, buyer, or in this case, investor/business beware.

thishereboi -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 4:44:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It's the big question for this thread. Is it the role of government to be the dedicated servant of the people, or the costly and burdensome nanny? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25.35-40 ESV) Are we a Christian nation only when it is convenient? I didn't realize you were a christian. And what does that have to do with the government acting like a nanny?

thishereboi -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 4:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Running on the repeal of seat-belt laws.......... Please do that![:D] Another illustration of how the GOP wants to take America back(ward)..... Where did he saying anyone was running on the repeal of the seat belt laws? Another illustration of how the libs can't read.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Running on the repeal of seat-belt laws.......... Please do that![:D] Another illustration of how the GOP wants to take America back(ward)..... Where did he saying anyone was running on the repeal of the seat belt laws? Another illustration of how the libs can't read. A common theme of your party is that government is poking it`s head in our personal lives.....to our detriment. I`m sure you`ve heard that.If not,maybe as you said"you really don`t understand politics" or just aren`t paying attention. Seat-belt laws are just one historical example of that theme. So when the anti-gov-paranoid mentioned seat belts(it`s there,if you can read),he set himself up for my snark. I know it requires a bit of thought and sophistication, with the context of history to to get it but I`m sure if you try harder and WANT to understand,you will(maybe).

provfivetine -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl In my opinion, the role of government is to protect the people. Government doesn't protect the people; it just steals the property of the people and then uses that confiscated property to protect itself. How could we expect anything else from a law-breaking law-protector that pretends to protect the private property it expropriates?

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:16:13 AM)
So on what planet does that NOT happen? Please.......share the Ivy League perspective on this issue. Don`t keep it a secret........[8\|]

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:19:51 AM)
. [image]local://upfiles/633062/CD3117C461AB414399559BA3EBB1CE4E.jpg[/image]

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 5:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So the government is supposed to be Jesus, then? Or tasked with carrying out his guidance? As is often pointed out, we are not a Christian country, we are a nation of religious liberty. We are, to go with the source you are using, to render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's. Nothing there about Caesar being God's account manager. The preamble to the Constitution states: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Article 1, Section 8 states: "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." "Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[15] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion." your question: So the government is supposed to be Jesus, then? Or tasked with carrying out his guidance? the answer: yup, if it wants to.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 6:11:47 AM)
quote: Another danger that springs from our good intentions is that we wind up promoting dependency, over self-reliance and personal accomplishment (both good for the self-esteem we used to hear so much about). What we have here are broad new lines of who is entitled to be done for, rather than doing for themselves. To your point, from the NY Times today: Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It "The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year." "And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age." Long article. The link is here. Your point regarding dependency on the safety net may be well taken but your use of the homeless to illustrate your point is misleading, I think. Anyway, these are hard times for the middle class. So, should they be left to sink or swim without any assistance? Or do we have a social compact to help one another? If not the government, then who? Tax loop-holed multinational corporations? Tax exempt charities? Tax exempt churches? Oh wait, loop holes and tax exemptions are benefits, aren't they?

provfivetine -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 6:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 So on what planet does that NOT happen? Please.......share the Ivy League perspective on this issue. Don`t keep it a secret........[8\|] Planet Earth ignores this advice, which is why it's so screwed up.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 6:33:43 AM)
Ivy League Fail...... Mayby you can save planet earth?.......[8\|]

provfivetine -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 6:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Ivy League Fail...... Mayby you can save planet earth?.......[8\|] You're really obsessed with my qualifications aren't you? Every post you make in response to me indicates this. Where on Planet Earth has your ideal society existed?

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:22:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It's the big question for this thread. Is it the role of government to be the dedicated servant of the people, or the costly and burdensome nanny? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25.35-40 ESV) Are we a Christian nation only when it is convenient? I didn't realize you were a christian. And what does that have to do with the government acting like a nanny? I don't think he's a Christian, Boi. Rather, I think he's leaping to an assumption that I am (because there is a religious right, all the right must be religious), and trying to use "my" religion to show some sort of hypocrisy that only exists in his head.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ahhh... and you are assuming I have a faith based liberal agenda? I have no jerking knee. Infact, I laughed when I read the thread. I often do these days. Like how its funny that on one thread, people will complain about how something is socialist or marxist.. and on another thread, complain about religious agendas. Its rather amusing if you take the time to read some posters as a whole, instead of just on a thread. No, Tazzy, I wasn't assuming you had the faith-based agenda, and I believe we have already gone over my thoughts on how the religious right gets exploited and manipulated by the Republicans, only to see the proposed laws never make it past the legislative floor, or get tossed by the courts right quick when they do. I know, however, that others are reading the thread, and figured I'd head their snarks off at the pass.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I believe we have already gone over my thoughts on how the religious right gets exploited and manipulated by the Republicans, only to see the proposed laws never make it past the legislative floor, or get tossed by the courts right quick when they do. Not a snark here, just a respectful disagreement. I feel that the Republican party is exploited by the Religious Right. Yes, most of their proposed laws never make it past the floor or get tossed by the courts but some of them slip through. Slowly but steadily, the Religious Right is eroding the separation of church and state and the only way they can do it is by coopting the Republican Party. Do they care that they are destroying the GOP in the process? NO is my guess. They don't care what they destroy as long as they can cram their agenda down the throats of the rest of the country. To the Fundies, the GOP is a tool to be used and then discarded when they finally wear it out.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625