Like Pope Francis, Democrat Questions if Trump is a Christian

1. It subsidizes single parents (both genders) until they get past the financial rough spot that triggered welfare. Welfare doesn't prevent a single parent from re-marrying, which automatically removes them from welfare. Most single parents don't like being single, so welfare shouldn't prevent them from seeking a new spouse.
2. Well, let's see. . .712 years before 1994 was the year 1282 AD. Columbus discovered America in 1492, so no, I don't think the Democrats controlled the House then.
3. The House originates bills, but the Senate & the President must approve them to make them laws. What did Republican Presidents do to solve the issue we are discussing?

 

Single parent male homes?? Really?? You're going to count all 4 of them as a significant statistic??

X, most of these toothless morons can't even spell the word spouse.

Multigenerational welfare mamas, meth heads, crack whores, drunks, uneducated, tattooed, pierced, 6 kids by 8 dads, living in the projects...

Middle class to half the country is having a minimum wage job.

Pretty sure these charming, well adjusted folks aren't contemplating a hard work path off the dole to domestic bliss.

I'm not a Republican, so I don't have to play that game.

As I've said, the Establishment Republicans are just as committed to keeping the welfare state rolling as Democrats are to keeping the bombs flying. It's a pincer strategy.

That said, you can't argue that the welfare state hasn't been a disaster. It has. It has devastated the black community - and that's what it was intended to do.

 

Wanted to address these points a little more specifically.

For many, in fact most welfare recipients, welfare is not "a rough spot", it is a way of life.

Lower socioeconomic women will simply ride the dole for as long as possible. It is not uncommon for babymommas to plan out pregnancies to string them out for the sole purpose of staying on the dole well into their 50's.

If they have daughters, they will simply turn the enterprise into a multigenerational source of income.

If they have sons - they'll work unskilled jobs, father more illegitimate kids, and do their part to keep the cycle going.

Welfare does, in fact, prevent babymommas from marrying. The state is giving them income. If they get married?? No more income.

As I said, in the black community, 70% of kids are born to unwed mothers. Prior to the "war on poverty", that number was 20%.

Kids from single parent homes are more likely to drop out of school, get involved in drugs, commit crime, and carry on the cycle of poverty and despair.

Yet you don't think the family is not important or necessary??

Intact families tend to produce well adjusted kids; single parent and broken homes tend to produce dysfunctional kids.

Common sense should tell you that.

 

1. My reaction to your #1 post above, is that you seem to be totally one-sided in your view of welfare, & either unable or simply unwilling to see its positives. Yes, welfare has problems. But they are problems that could be worked out without destroying the whole system, if anyone cared enough to put the effort into a fix.
2. Welfare, like ANY OTHER human endeavor, has its negative aspects. But it also has positive ones as well. You can focus on the negatives exclusively & judge the entire program a failure. That's easy. Or, you can be a bit more objective, see the positives as well as the negatives, and conclude, while never perfect, welfare does contribute something good to our society. I would agree that long term welfare can be destructive to the lives of recipients, but welfare limited to a couple of years for any recipient, can help them out of a temporary mess & get up on their financial feet. It can also allow education or training necessary for them to succeed. So, I see welfare as a tool, & like any tool, can be used for good, or abused & misused by some for destructive ends. But it's not either entirely.

 

1. To be sure, you & I can find examples of such abuse around us, but to assume it's the "majority," is unsubstantiated. Regardless of the program, institution or activity, there are ALWAYS individuals who will try to abuse the system. We can't let that one fact dissuade us from supporting a good cause.
2. I disagree for one simple reason. Having someone you love as a life partner is far more important to most of us than a meager welfare check insufficient to live on. Any welfare recipient who would turn down marriage to a good partner that they have feelings for, would have to be a total idiot or a partner not worth having.
3. Statistically speaking, I agree. But two parent homes that are unhappy, or have a lot of conflict, do no better.
4. Families with two parents happily married who love each other, offer excellent environments for raising children. Single parent households have a larger failure statistic, but CAN be successful as well, if that one parent is a loving one. Families with two parents who don't get along can be as bad or worse environment for children than a single parent one, due to the constant conflict between spouses. It's NOT as simple as your post would pretend it is.

 

Social service programs essentially adopt dysfunctional parents/ families. Life coaches and behavior counselors work in the home as models/ organizers . Therapists monitor the progress of the interventions as required by evidence-based practice. Mental health support can radically improve a family in crisis to a functioning unit. In northern European nations, all people are cared for [housing/ stipend/ free university] even if they prefer not to work.

 

The Scandinavian countries seem to care more for their nations & their people than we do here. I admire them for it, and wish America would learn from them. We're already entering into a new kind of economy where robots are replacing human workers in droves, yet we're not talking about solutions. Conservatives feel that replaced workers can find new jobs if they want to, never considering that a growing number of those other jobs are being automated too. As time goes by, human jobs will be declining at an ever increasing rate, while automation takes over. This is happening in all advanced nations globally. Part of the answer for all of us will be to allow shorter work weeks for more workers, longer vacations, and eventually a recognition & acceptance of fellow citizens who never actually work at all, due to the job market. Governments will have to take up the slack & provide basic living needs for those out of work. It will change society dramatically over time.

 

Ivory Tower much??

Like most liberals you accept the theory as valid, so any empirical evidence or negative results should be cast aside for the greater good, or ignored altogether.

Couple of disclosures -

1) I lived that roller coaster of dysfunction as a kid and teenager.

My father was an abusive alcoholic, and my mother properly divorced him when I was young.

2) My mother used public assistance to support the kids and get thru nursing school.

This would be an example of the system working.

3) The resentment, anger, and accompanying dysfunction from the divorce ruined the childhoods of the kids.

My sisters both turned to alcohol, and I became a drug addict and petty criminal. Was thrown out of HS, and did some minor time in county jails - usually for disorderly conduct and fighting.

Trust me, I lived around dysfunctional parasites for more years than I care to remember.

I can assure you, having lived thru the hell, and knowing so many people on the dole - in general, the system as it is set up, is doing much more harm than good.

When my mother used the system it was not set up to he a perpetual free ride; and, as a responsible person, she viewed it as something to be ashamed of. Her goal was to get on her feet, and move forward with her life.

That's how the system should be set up.

Furthermore, it should be funded and administered strictly on the state level - which is perfectly constitutional. Any federal monies committed for such things is wholly unconstitutional.

The further breakdown of constitutional boundaries is one of the principle motivations for our ruling elite in pushing these destructive policies.

Out of time for now.

 

I was watching a clip of an interview with Dave Rueben today, and he commented on how people on the left are almost universally unwilling to engage in good faith debate.

As a former member of TheYoungTurks he was obviously pretty far left, but when asked how his change of view came about, he said "I woke up"!!

He went on to explain how he was interviewing Larry Elder, and Mr. Elder simply beat him up with facts.

Over time he came to see that people on the right, at least serious people, are always willing to debate and discuss.

While those on the left have no interest in debate, discussion, boiling down facts.

The Young Turks now routinely bad mouth, insult, and otherwise defame Mr. Reuben incessantly.

I am glad that you are willing to discuss.

It is difficult to convey depth of understanding on a subject when communicating via msg board. I would imagine you are in the same boat to some extent.

That said, I can say that I have looked at the issue from all sides.

Having done so, I can unequivocally state that the ledger isn't anywhere near balanced.

The negatives far outweigh the positives - as Larry Elder so directly pointed out to Dave Reuben.

Dave was, and is, intellectually honest - most liberals, leftists, ideologues are not. As a result, Dave began to look more in depth at the issues and not just accept the talking points.

He came away a changed man.

Thomas Sowell's path from Marxist to what I would term an intellectual libertarian (not sure what he self identifies as) was likewise only possible b/c he was honest. He calls himself an empiricist.

Hope you can find your way out of the wilderness my friend.

 

Trump's god is the mighty dollar. In any event, most Christian will now say that they don't care if the man is a Christian, as long as he gives them what they want. All you have to do is look at the Evangelical right. They complained that Obama isn't a Christian, eventhough he clearly attended church on a regular basis. Yet they turn right around and bless the faithless Trump and turned a blind eye to his cheating, womanizing ways.

 

First, let me say your early years & youth sound painful. I hope your life now is far better.
I agree with you that the rules under which welfare functions often run counter to the goals welfare set for itself or its recipients. I'm not sure having welfare controlled from state level is the best idea, simply because then you would have 50 different welfare systems working under 50 different functional plans, and that could make welfare an even bigger nightmare. I do agree the federal system has much room for improvement, but fixing it would be preferable to having 50 different programs.

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your compassion.

 

Great discussion. Kudos to wist43 & XploreR

 

Pope Francis is the worst. Most Democrats are atheists who love Muslims and hate Jews and aren't really Christian lovers either, so why do they care? Think of something else. This is a fail...

 

It's certainly easier to think of in terms of "one size fits all", but therein lies the recipe for fraud, abuse, corruption, rent seeking, and lifetime corruption of the family. (That recipe is intentional BTW)

Our Federal system was, in fact, set up to allow for 50 mini laboratories. Compartmentalizing in this way protects the nation as a whole, and promotes competition between the states - which is a social and economic good.

Think of it as a ship. If compartments are watertight and independent of one another, one or a few of the ship's compartments may be breached, but the ship can remain afloat. If the ship is not protected in this way, one leak, if it is serious enough, can doom the vessel.

Each state can decide on a more local level what is best for their state and their communities. States that realize success may be emulated, while problems encountered by other states can be avoided.

This is the essence of Federalism.

It is a foundational principle of our republic.

--------------------------

Sadly these facts, and the wisdom embodied in our Constitution are no longer taught in the government school system.

 

Been an edifying discussion with XP... seems like a nice guy.

As Dave Reuben discovered, most of us on the right are always willing to discuss and debate. This, in general, is not true of the left.

Mr. Reuben put it in an interesting way - I'll paraphrase -

... b/c people on the right recognize the individual and individual rights above the collective, they inherently understand that people are different, and possessed of different ideas and beliefs. They are therefore much more willing to engage in debate and an exchange of ideas.

The left, on the other hand, is fully invested in identity politics. Race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc.

They don't see the individual, they see the group they identify you with. Since you aren't an individual, you must subscribe to views assigned to your group, or you're a pariah.

If you don't comply with your assigned group characteristics, you will be attacked with all of the familiar vile verbiage.

 

Don't agree with your characterisation. Someone posted a psychological profile of the typical conservative versus liberal. I'll find it if you want. As a Christian, I see Democratic concern about the wellbeing of all people and am repulsed by the immorality of Trump and supporters.

 

I'd argue that your efforts are misguided - which was the genesis of the discussion I was having with XP.

If pouring $trillions into anti-poverty, social welfare, and public medical programs was intended to "stamp out poverty"?? It ain't workin...

The approach of the Democrats and the social welfare state is wildly misguided.

Well intentioned or not, the bottom line is, real harm is being done to those people - in the name of "compassion".

By every objective measure, the "war on poverty" has been a complete failure.

And that's the point.

 

Every advanced Western government disagrees with your resentment toward the poor esp considering that Pope Francis identifies Trump policies as not Christian. As does Buttigieg.

 

When did I say I resent the poor??

I came up from the gutter... literally. I was homeless as a teenager. Got shot at while trying to steal food, lol...

Contrary to resenting the poor, I genuinely want to help them, and help all Americans, be fruitful and prosperous.

The question is - how do you do that??

---------------------

As for Christian and government - seperation of church and state is a wise doctrine. The state is a secular entity.

Does the Pope's notions of charity and good deeds extend to the inquisition?? Or at any time throughout the middle ages when the Papacy was the Seat of Government.

Was that reign "Christian"??

---------------------------

Is it "Christian" to force someone to support something they find immoral??

Is it "Christian" to forcibly take money from one person and give it to someone else??

--------------------------

I don't care how you dress it up, you're still talking about using force against other people. Is that "Christian"??

Government is a very dangerous thing, which is why America's Founding Fathers did their utmost to constrain it.

Doesn't matter if your "intentions" are good or nefarious - the end result is always the same eventually - oppression of the masses.

 

Analyzing the Christian/welfare connection a little deeper, I think it's easy to lose sight of principles.

I often hear Christians make the argument Carlos is making, i.e. '... I support welfare programs b/c I want to help people.'

In reality, however, these people are not lifting a finger to help those less fortunate. They are simply passing that responsibility on to government and washing their hands of it.

In terms of "charity" and community, it is the height of laziness.

But their conscience is assuaged, their hands are clean, and they are absolved of any further responsibility.

It is a very neat and tidy out.

The fact that it does long term harm in a variety of ways is never considered.

When I was homeless as a teenager I found refuge in a Christian shelter. I lived there for several months. It was not welfare, it was not connected to government in any way.

I look back on my time in that shelter as one of the best experiences of my life.

 

Sadder still is the fact that most states have killed off all public school Civics classes. That was a huge mistake.

 

My recommendation would be to read the bible slowly with an open mind, each time you find something challenging ask yourself " what if this were true"

If you did this honestly I am sure God would reveal Himself to you. It's all there in black and white, fully revealed. It's your choice to believe it or not. He has done His part already.

 

Appreciate your personal insight/ thoughtful statements. I read recently that Social Security has been the greatest poverty-fighting program in the nation. Consider what would happen without social security for retired/ elderly Americans. Others have pointed out that technology is quickly eliminated jobs. Tesla is proving that self-operating vehicles are quite viable and inevitable. How will Americans make a living in the robot era? I live in a city overwhelmed with the homeless but rents keep rising beyond what many people can afford.

Northern European nations [all Christian] provide housing for everyone. Image how our lives would be if you didn't have to pay rent/ mortgage?

 

On the surface i think it's hard to look at Trump and say he is a follower of Christ.
That said i could say the same thing about myself.

 

That being said, I'd have to include myself but strive to be Christian. I found an article on the Trump family history. Evidently his German grandparents were marginally Lutheran; the Scottish side Presbyterian. Donald and Melania attended Easter services at an Episcopal parish. Hope the president put his cell phone down and opened his ears.