Liberal and Christianity

[Qnts2]

22 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

What about where the bible says he who does not work shall not eat?

The bible says to take care of the helpless, not the ones who are too lazy to work. The secular govt was never supposed to be the answer to helping poverty. 

Actually, my point is that the government is supposed to help those in need. According to scripture, the government of Israel had laws and systems setup to help those in poverty. Israel is an example for all governments. Without a system to help those in need, people starve. That system must be central, to coordinate the method, the food etc, and reach the people in need. That means government.

Now who decides and regulates who has the need to receive assistance? Again, it must be centralized, so it is up to the central authority to weed out the lazy. But, in that process, a child should not starve because the grownups involved in caring for that child are too lazy. 

So, government, according to scripture, is to setup a system of assistance as shown by God's laws given to the government of Israel. Those scriptural laws are the examples given by God to all people and governments. 

[Qnts2]

27 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

My statement about the fields was completely valid.  It illustrates the point that poor still need to work for their food unless they are too physically infirmed to do so, which most of the time, isn't  the case.  I have seen people with extreme disabilities, Cerebral Palsy, double amputees and those with Downs Syndrome who can find something to  do and want to do something.  They are not lazy lumps on a log.   I am more than willing to help those who want to do something to contribute, to the extent that they can.

I am not against providing for the poor.  The point I made was that they need to be willing to work for it.  The Bible's plan was that the poor were provided for, but they still had to go to the field and gather the food.  No one gathered it for them.  The poor need to work for their food, perform some service for the community in exchange for food if they want to eat.   It's that simple.    I do find fault with lazy people who simply want to live off of the backs of people who work hard and pay taxes and don't get any of the breaks.   My solution would also include refusing any taxpayer funded benefits to non-citizens and illegal aliens.   If they have to work for their food, the allure of America will wane and eventually they will self-deport.   

My solution is to put people to work.   The liberals only perpetuate poverty.  They just want to spend more and throw money at the poor and so far that strategy has failed.  My solution is provide Welfare benefits on a sliding scale each month.   The first month you get 100%.  The second month, you get 80%.  The third month you get 60% and so on and that will provide some incentive to get out and work because pretty soon, you will get 0%.

Ok, let's start with the statement that the poor will always be with us, so no system in this current world will ever eliminate all poor. There will always be people in need of assistance.

Our U.S. government has system in place to help the disabled who could work, get jobs. Businesses have to make special accommodations. But, the disabled still have a tough time getting jobs. Those with mental challenges (used to be called retarded), if they are able to work at all, usually get minimum wage jobs and are lucky to get them. In a tight job market, there are not jobs for everyone.

So, based on you scaled welfare benefits, what about education? Or a way to gain skills? What about the family that can not find jobs that a sufficient to cover their expenses? Do they go to 0, and starve? In the system set up for the poor by God, no one was put in a position where they got 0.

The usual Republican proposal is filled with rules but shows no mercy. The Democrats don't want people to starve.

By the way, I mostly agree about illegal aliens, but non-citizens with work visa's sometimes do the low paying dirty jobs few want to do but are needed and they do need assistance. Also, the work visa system is broken, not allowing enough visa's to cover the farm workers needed for the dirty jobs. In some areas fruit rots in the field because of a shortage of migrant workers.

[Guest shiloh357]

42 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

 Ever wonder how those thousands of protesters can be in the street in the middle of the day?  I can't do that; I'd get fired.

Yes, they don't have jobs and I can imagine they are either on Welfare or something.   I remember the protesters in Ferguson were supposed to be paid for protesting.  They were supposed to get $5000 for it.   But the money didn't show up, even months later.  If they are not on some kind of government dole, I don't know how they are able to spend weeks at a time protesting with no visible means of income.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok, let's start with the statement that the poor will always be with us, so no system in this current world will ever eliminate all poor. There will always be people in need of assistance.

Our U.S. government has system in place to help the disabled who could work, get jobs. Businesses have to make special accommodations. But, the disabled still have a tough time getting jobs. Those with mental challenges (used to be called retarded), if they are able to work at all, usually get minimum wage jobs and are lucky to get them. In a tight job market, there are not jobs for everyone.

I know all kinds of extremely disabled people and used to work with some.  So the jobs are there for those willing to work, even if it is menial labor.  I knew mentally challenged people who worked in the mail room and made better than minimum wage.  They chose not to live solely on the government.  They may get some additional benefits, but that's fine because they choose to work and pay taxes.

Quote

So, based on you scaled welfare benefits, what about education? Or a way to gain skills? What about the family that can not find jobs that a sufficient to cover their expenses? Do they go to 0, and starve? In the system set up for the poor by God, no one was put in a position where they got 0.

There are jobs for those who can physically work.   It's not how much you make, it's what you do with what you have.   I also know that utility companies are willing to work with you if you talk to them and can demonstrate a genuine hardship and need assistance.  As long as you demonstrate a willingness to pay something on your bill, they are able to make accommodations so that no one 's power get's turned off.   But  it still requires discipline and planning and probably, for a lot of people it means giving up expensive self-destructive habits, too.   It means changing what you eat and simply eating for nutrition and not for recreation.

If a person on that sliding scale were to use their time wisely, they would find a job.  Even a 40 hour a week job.   The Democrats cannot crow about how Obama has turned the economy around and created millions of jobs and then claim that taking people off of welfare won't work because the job market is just too tight and no one can find jobs.  Can't have it both ways.

Quote

The usual Republican proposal is filled with rules but shows no mercy. The Democrats don't want people to starve.

The Republican plan is filled with something called "responsibility"  and pulling yourself up and exercising some personal initiative and taking control of your own life and doing what you can to help yourself.   That is extremely merciful.   The Liberal Democrat plan is to keep people dependent on the government for everything, to make government their god.   The Dems need people to remain poor and sit on the curb and blame, "the man"  for their problems and never taking responsibility for their own bad decisions and destructive life choices.

Quote

By the way, I mostly agree about illegal aliens, but non-citizens with work visa's sometimes do the low paying dirty jobs few want to do but are needed and they do need assistance. Also, the work visa system is broken, not allowing enough visa's to cover the farm workers needed for the dirty jobs. In some areas fruit rots in the field because of a shortage of migrant workers.

Those are jobs that Americans can and should get first crack at.   Americans will do those jobs, but unlike migrants, they won't do them for $2 an hour.   You pay Americans a living wage and they will do the dirty, hard jobs.  They did them before and will do them again.  I am not really concerned with noncitizens. If they can't afford to stay here, they need to leave; we should not be paying for them.   Illegals simply need to either self-deport or be deported by force.

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, Qnts2 said:

The usual Republican proposal is filled with rules but shows no mercy. The Democrats don't want people to starve.

Hogwash. A myth that is perpetuated. 

[Qnts2]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I know all kinds of extremely disabled people and used to work with some.  So the jobs are there for those willing to work, even if it is menial labor.  I knew mentally challenged people who worked in the mail room and made better than minimum wage.  They chose not to live solely on the government.  They may get some additional benefits, but that's fine because they choose to work and pay taxes.

There are jobs for those who can physically work.   It's not how much you make, it's what you do with what you have.   I also know that utility companies are willing to work with you if you talk to them and can demonstrate a genuine hardship and need assistance.  As long as you demonstrate a willingness to pay something on your bill, they are able to make accommodations so that no one 's power get's turned off.   But  it still requires discipline and planning and probably, for a lot of people it means giving up expensive self-destructive habits, too.   It means changing what you eat and simply eating for nutrition and not for recreation.

If a person on that sliding scale were to use their time wisely, they would find a job.  Even a 40 hour a week job.   The Democrats cannot crow about how Obama has turned the economy around and created millions of jobs and then claim that taking people off of welfare won't work because the job market is just too tight and no one can find jobs.  Can't have it both ways.

The Republican plan is filled with something called "responsibility"  and pulling yourself up and exercising some personal initiative and taking control of your own life and doing what you can to help yourself.   That is extremely merciful.   The Liberal Democrat plan is to keep people dependent on the government for everything, to make government their god.   The Dems need people to remain poor and sit on the curb and blame, "the man"  for their problems and never taking responsibility for their own bad decisions and destructive life choices.

Those are jobs that Americans can and should get first crack at.   Americans will do those jobs, but unlike migrants, they won't do them for $2 an hour.   You pay Americans a living wage and they will do the dirty, hard jobs.  They did them before and will do them again.  I am not really concerned with noncitizens. If they can't afford to stay here, they need to leave; we should not be paying for them.   Illegals simply need to either self-deport or be deported by force.

I know disabled people who are totally unable to work. (One has since passed away, and did not receive enough money from disability to make it. He was renting a single bedroom in a home, and ate frugally but ran out of money for gas to see his kids, so we gave him money for gas). I know disabled people who have trouble finding jobs and have tried. There are not always jobs. It depends on where you live. Utility companies in my area are not hiring. Your assumption that people who don't have jobs, or making minimum wage, are into bad habits in spending, and it is their fault, is a gross generalization. 

So, I disagree with your view.  Except, I do agree that Obama has NOT turned the economy around.

The Republican plan assumes people are lazy, slackards, irresponsible and unwilling to pull themselves up. Their plan is based on assuming the worst from people, and therefore lacks compassion, mercy, and any real assistance, but rather threats, demands, and ignores real people who are going hungry. Those who see it as a biblical rule that the governments should have laws and taxes to assist others sadly, are the democrats.

By the way, migrants work what I would call piece work. If a person can pick a lot of apples in a short amount of time, they will make a relatively decent wage, but it is hot, hard work, and very long hours. A person who is not as skilled, since it is piece work, a person might make $2 an hour. The migrant farm hands are skilled. Others need to put in the time to learn how to be faster but farmers have found few Americans are willing. Some farms contract with prisons to get enough workers.  

 

[Qnts2]

4 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Hogwash. A myth that is perpetuated. 

I do not see it as a myth since I have heard Republicans speak about that kind of things expressed.   

[ayin jade]

1 minute ago, Qnts2 said:

I do not see it as a myth since I have heard Republicans speak about that kind of things expressed.   

It is hogwash that the dems dont want folks to starve. Its hogwash that they view helping the poor as a biblical mandate. They are only enslaving them in order to buy votes. Nothing more. If they truly cared, they would do things a lot differently in order to help people. 

[Qnts2]

1 minute ago, ayin jade said:

It is hogwash that the dems dont want folks to starve. Its hogwash that they view helping the poor as a biblical mandate. They are only enslaving them in order to buy votes. Nothing more. If they truly cared, they would do things a lot differently in order to help people. 

I never said that Democrats viewed it as a biblical mandate. However, the bible does show that governments can and should provide for the poor by taxation so the democrat method is biblical. 

[ayin jade]

38 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

I never said that Democrats viewed it as a biblical mandate. However, the bible does show that governments can and should provide for the poor by taxation so the democrat method is biblical.