Stanek Sunday funnies 11-18-12
Here were my top six favorite cartoons this week, starting with a twofer by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
and finally, a reminder of the insane world pro-lifers negotiate, a cartoon by liberal Joel Pett, equating our movement, which simply strives to save innocent babies from being slaughtered, with the Taliban, at GoComics.com…
Nov.18, 2012 9:30 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
#2 is hilarious. The creator of #6 is a certifiable idiot.
Those who equate us to the taliban have no real arguments against us and so they resort to this type of name-calling and mischaracterization. Typical. But it’s kinda hard to defending pulling babies into pieces.
Sydney M.–It’s a way to marginalize us, make us look like we don’t care about women (or born Americans), and dismiss our argument. In short, it’s equal to putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and singing “LA LA LA LA” at the tops of one’s lungs. However, doing that doesn’t change reality.
As a pro-lifer I completely do NOT condone violence. Plus me being pro-life is not just a religious view on my part, but also a part of the Natural Order. It’s a natural result of sexual intercourse for children to be conceived (granted, there are cases where a couple doesn’t or can’t conceive, but I’m talking IN GENERAL). But in general, children are a natural result of sexual intercourse. If they weren’t, why would anyone have any concern about avoiding or achieving that result?
The Obama chest thumping cartoon and the four graves captures the sociopathy of our president once again managing to find a way to make it all about himself….”you have a problem with me”. Oh yes, knees are wobbly and the earth trembling now that the great one has spoken!
The comment from one of the graves about wishing Obama was consistent in his passion for defending people brings to mind something else our president is passionate about; namely abortion. Whenever he addresses Planned Parenthood he is glowing in the adulation coming from the like minded unborn baby killers. He is so passionate about abortion that he would rather a baby born alive in an abortion procedure be allowed to die without medical attention than take a chance on abortion rights tumbling down on account of an act of human compassion. That’s our president.
If I could modify the cartoon I would add a fifth grave with the headstone marked “Born Alive in an Abortion”. The word from that grave would be ”Ditto” to the “sometimes” comment next to it.
#1 and #4 are completely stupid. So is #6. #2 is pretty dang funny.
A ‘health’ care fix that mandates life preventing services and strips away tax free shelters to pay for actual health services. hmmmm….
I am glad my state is not setting up Obamacare exchanges. This thing is a cluster that the DemocRATs forced down our throats and we should let the DemocRATs own it.
JackBorsch says
#1 and #4 are completely stupid. So is #6. #2 is pretty dang funny.
I give up…. what’s stupid about #1 and #4?
For my part, #4 was the truest and funniest of the bunch.
Re #6: Is it really so hard to fathom the pro-life case? I’m pretty naive to ask that, huh? I think we should do more to frame the right to life as a human rights movement. They could keep and contort “women’s rights” and we could highlight human rights. It’s a giant word in academia. It could block some lefty indoctrination.
The Taliban just LOVES unborn kids, look the huffington pest proves it.
I think i’m most concerned about the fact that the head of the cia doesn’t know how to encrypt his email.
I’m with you, Del. People are entranced by the shiny object of the awfulness of letting people rightfully hold on to their money, and ignoring the bloated spending.
Truth
Two things
1) Your state will have an exchange
2) Who touted this? “Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.”
“I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years… If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” – President Obama
Also note he inserted an L to make Taliban (and deleted 5 other letters).
That’s adding and subtracting a “L” of a lot.
“I don’t pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president” Mitt Romney
“Hans and Del, I’m just tired of conservatives constantly repeating the ‘free money’ thing over and over and painting everyone with a broad brush and ignoring corporate welfare in favor of whining about ‘entitlements'” – Jack B
Ex,
That’s right. Mitt only paid the government what it was due. He was more than generous to his church and other charities. That’s called spending your money wisely.
Jack,
All we ask is that the government cut “it’s fair share” before it thinks about getting a further “unfair share” out of our pockets.
Hans – that is wrong – that’s factually incorrect:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-paid-required-raising-tax-rate-141-percent/story?id=17291504#.UKlqKuOe_0k
Romney paid what he paid to charities – but he didn’t take all of it as a deduction (he could have taken more) because he had previously said that his rate was always above 13%, and if he took it all, it would have been less than that.
He did NOT, as you claim, pay more to charities to minimize what he owed the government. He had his taxes done, saw that the rate was under what he said he always paid, and took less in deductions to surpass his previous statements.
1. Yes indeed, how dare the citizens of a modern, wealthy nation feel entitled to food and shelter. Really, the gall of some people!
2. Well he is a man isn’t he.
3. Same old conservative lies.
4. Free stuff? Careful what you wish for. Some of you are receiving ‘free stuff’ that you don’t even recognize or acknowledge as such.
5. The states which are shouting loudest about seceding are the ones which would most benefit the rest of the US by seceding.
6. The most accurate one!
Ex,
I didn’t say Romney’s charity giving was for tax reasons. Just that it was better spent than what the government would do with it.
Jack 5:31PM
I have no problem at all with someone who is legitimately in need of help getting it. I donate to a number of charities in my city that I know are serving those truly in need. I am involved in collecting items for people in need at my church, and the members have been more than generous.
I’ve got a problem with those who think there is “free Obama money” to pay their mortgage and gas. I’ve got a problem with people who demand “free”(i.e. someone else is paying for it) health care, but have plenty of money for drugs, tattoos, dogs, snakes, I-pads, the latest I-phone, and the McDonald’s drive thru.
My religious view on abortion is that it is serious mortal sin that results in automatic excommunication. I don’t want that to be the law.
Liberals, however, insist that their interpretation of the Gospels must inform our national economic policy.
Hans – no, you said “That’s right. Mitt only paid the government what it was due.”.
Which is false – and I can point you to 10 articles that says the same thing, if you’d like to read them.
“1. Yes indeed, how dare the citizens of a modern, wealthy nation feel entitled to food and shelter. Really, the gall of some people!”
Indeed.
That wealth is created by ordinary citizens who get up each day and go out and serve others through their various vocations. If you want food and shelter, then you also need to serve others through your vocation whatever it may be. Food doesn’t get to you by magic. Someone else has to work to provide it by growing, processing, transporting, selling it. Why should they work to serve your needs if you are unwilling to provide them any service?
I’m a liberal who is against abortion. I keep coming back to this site for fellowship and I am continually driven away by posts like this one that tell me not-so-subtly that my pro-life isn’t really pro-life because I don’t believe in the same tax policies that you believe in. What does that have to do with protecting life? Jill, you could have such influence in this country if you made everybody feel welcome in your tent. This is my dozenth visit. I don’t think I’ll be back.
Hey Tom – you should stay – you and me are cut from the same cloth!
My ultimate goal someday is hope that it dawns on at least one person that our countries economic policies impact abortion decisions in this country.
Hippie
So in your world, if somebody doesn’t work, they shouldn’t eat – is that a quick and correct summation?
JackBorsch says:
“Hans and Del, I’m just tired of conservatives constantly repeating the ‘free money’ thing over and over and painting everyone with a broad brush and ignoring corporate welfare in favor of whining about ‘entitlements’” – Jack B
Okay, thanks. I don’t know much about “corporate welfare.” That is a buzzword that has never been defined for me.
Except that Planned Parenthood gets a half-billion taxpayer dollars each year. I want to see that stopped. Who pays for their free stuff?
I do believe that “Food Stamps and Birth Control” are the new “Bread and Circus” that our emperor tried to use to appease the hoi polloi and win re-election.
Tom, you should stay. Need some more balance on this blog. :)
“So in your world, if somebody doesn’t work, they shouldn’t eat – is that a quick and correct summation?”
If you take into consideration that someone doesn’t necessarily have to have a job in order to work, then this is a great idea. Oh yeah, someone really awesome said that once.
So in your world, if somebody doesn’t work, they shouldn’t eat – is that a quick and correct summation?
Did you read what I responded to? The issue was the gall of those who feel entitled to be served and feel no obligation to do anything for those who serve them. It is inherently honorable for you to offer services to others and negotiate what they will give you in return. It is inherently dishonorable to demand others provide you services while refusing to give them anything of value in return.
“The issue was the gall of those who feel entitled to be served and feel no obligation to do anything for those who serve them. ”
Nah. The issue is people who don’t think they should have to go without food or shelter in a developed nation. No one said anything about whether these people want to be served without giving anything back or eventually finding a way to take care of themselves, that was you. The cartoon that Reality responded to had the turkey that was labelled “entitlements”. Considering that Social Security and Medicare are the majority of “entitlements” that we are spending money on, I don’t know why people automatically assume “lazy able-bodied people that don’t feel like working”. Who are these people? Retirees that payed into the system for their entire lives? Disabled people collecting SSI?
“It is inherently honorable for you to offer services to others and negotiate what they will give you in return.”
Lol so is drug dealing honorable? That’s one of the things I did when I was homeless, but I didn’t take government help so I guess I was being honorable! ;)
^Being sarcastic.
He he he! Nice one Jack.
EG: “Which is false – and I can point you to 10 articles that says the same thing, if you’d like to read them.”
I’d settle for five, as long as their data are independently derived. Numbers are meaningless if they cite the same fundamental source.
“We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you, nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you. Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us. In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6-10
Isn’t that verse specifically talking how Christians should deal with Christians, not non-Christians?
Those verses are about busybodies who were able to work but instead chose to gossip and stick their noses into other people’s business rather than work. According to St. Paul, these people should be given nothing to eat, and should eat their own food.
Oh I thought that Paul’s epistles were directed at Christians in the specific churches on how to deal with issues within the church. I was told that specific verse was Paul giving Christians advice on how to work and take care of yourself without being a burden to others, and how to deal with those that don’t within the church and that it wasn’t meant to be taken as a broad statement on how to treat everyone, especially non-believers. Was I taught wrong?
“I keep coming back to this site for fellowship and I am continually driven away by posts like this one that tell me not-so-subtly that my pro-life isn’t really pro-life because I don’t believe in the same tax policies that you believe in. ”
Don’t be such a baby. Is not Jill entitled to her own opinion? I don’t see her saying, nor have I ever seen her argue, that you can’t be economically liberal and pro-life. I notice you didn’t complain about the Petraeus cartoon. Why not? It has nothing to do with pro-life, either.
If these cartoons hurt your feelings so badly I don’t think you would last long in the comments section here. I suggest you find some kind of “Democrats for Life” forum or some other similar fraud where they claim to support right to life but it’s really all about expanding the Welfare state. After all, the Great Society has been such a smashing success in our inner cities.
“Was I taught wrong? ”
Unless you believe that the Christians of Rome had a problem with many of their own being haters of God, Paul was addressing the Christians about the problems in their society as a whole, not just within the church.
Considering that Social Security and Medicare are the majority of “entitlements” that we are spending money on, I don’t know why people automatically assume “lazy able-bodied people that don’t feel like working”. Who are these people? Retirees that payed into the system for their entire lives? Disabled people collecting SSI?
Just to be clear here. Social Security is just a plain old tax and the benefits can be changed or eliminated at any time. You have no right to any benefits whatever. That was what the Supreme Court ruled in 1937. The whole idea that it is insurance is unconstitutional. Just like the Supreme court recently ruled that the individual mandate is just a plain old tax. You have to pay it and you are guaranteed nothing. It is not an enforceable contract of any sort whatever. Although they are called entitlements, you are not legally entitled to anything no matter how much you paid. That is the Supreme Court’s ruling. Just think of it in terms of contract law. The legislature can’t force people to enter a contract. They can arbitrarily levy taxes and they can dole out benefits based on their guidelines, but it is not a contract. The entire program can legally be eliminated at any time. The government is under no obligation to pay anyone any benefits ever.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Luke 3:11
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. James 2:14-18
But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:17-18)
rasqual – how are they going to cite any other source than Romney’s tax return? They’ll all cite the same source – “This is what the stink is in Romney’s tax report”. Where else is the data going to come from? What’s 5 plus 5 class? Make sure you tell me a few different independent methods of math that led you to this…
What other sources are you reaching for her? Some dude named Phil who lives in a trailer and heard from somebody that knows Romney?
Come on man – use that brain of yours.
Here’s the deal – Hans thought he was being witty by posting a quote in which Obama said he shouldn’t be re-elected if something happened. I then posted a quote where Romney said he shouldn’t be considered if he did something. In both cases, we should have disqualified the person. If you’d like to argue that, feel free. Do a little research – will take you three minutes tops.
Ex-Gop,
Those religious texts are directed at those with something to share, not those who seek something from them. So, how can you apply them to the seeker? What is the seeker’s role in all of this?
Why do we assume the poor and needy lack moral agency?
They aren’t like the environment where we are the stewards and the environment is passive.
So Ex-GOP, you really believe that anyone here is saying not to share with and help the needy? And do you actualy think that Jesus would want us to keep certain people in a constant state of neediness?
Why not community service or some type of work by able-bodied people to help their less able neighbor? That is THEIR way of giving to the less fortunate. Everyone is suppose to give, and one reason is that it is GOOD for the givers. Work helps others and it is good for the workers.
But, as Jack implied, it is just us Christians pushing out beliefs unto others once again.
The Taliban thing is getting sooo tired. The Taliban stones women who are pregnant out of wedlock. We try to help them. And not every prolife person is religious, as some of our posters (Jack, Xalasie, etc.) show. Although I believe in God, I am wary of organized religion and haven’t been to church in years. But if someone showed me irrefutable proof that God was dead or never existed, I would still be prolife.
I am also sick of hearing the “free stuff” mantra. What free stuff are these people referring to? You can’t win over people by insulting them.
Ex, indeed, if a brother or sister is in need, he or she must be aided with the needs of the body if necessary. But if a person is incorrigible and refuses to work because he wants to goof off instead, he can eat his own food. There is no contradiction here.
“What free stuff are these people referring to?”
“Obamaphones” and the promise of money from “Obama’s stash” are reasons why many people voted for the man. Though the most obvious example that comes to mind is free birth control and abortion paid for by your Catholic employer, because your right to have endless consequence -free sex must come at the expense of religious freedom.
These people shouldn’t be insulted by our words; they should be ashamed of themselves.
” But, as Jack implied, it is just us Christians pushing out beliefs unto others once again.”
Excuse me? I implied no such thing. I asked a question because I was taught something completely different than John was implying with that verse. Whatever.
Jack, please explain something to me. You were taught that when Paul said that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat that he was talking ONLY about how fellow Christians should treat each other. Is it therefore your understanding that if an incorrigible lazy person refuses to work, Christians should feed him if he’s not a Christian, but if he IS a Christian he should NOT be fed? Does that make any sense? In that case if I were a lazy person who chose not to work, I could simply claim to not be Christian and Paul would feed me? That seems somewhat counterproductive for someone who was trying to spread the faith.
“That seems somewhat counterproductive for someone who was trying to spread the faith.”
Or it could be living by example and make people want to know what’s so special about Christianity that these people are so industrious and generous. That’s how it was explained to me. But I am seriously the wrong person to ask if I think things in the Bible make sense.
Jack, why be industrious or generous when you can just be given whatever you need or want? That is exactly the problem we have in America today. It’s one thing to provide Welfare to people because they truly need it. It’s quite another to give food stamps to a lazy bum who plays on the internet, watches TV, listens to music and/or terrorizes the neighborhood all day long because he doesn’t feel like working. Many able-bodied young men voted Obama to ensure that they wouldn’t lose their food stamps, essentially stealing from the mouths of the poor. Do you call that justice?
Here’s the deal – Hans thought he was being witty by posting a quote in which Obama said he shouldn’t be re-elected if something happened.
Ex-GOP,
No, I was being sadly ironic. He was re-elected despite what DIDN’T happen. He failed in encouraging an economic recovery.
What’s also ironic is your quoting verses that encourage us to be generous. No kidding. And no group outdoes the charity of conservatives. I thought the Left was against mixing church and state. But apparently you want to rely on the government for “Christian charity”.
Sorry, Jack. I accept that your question was sincere. It’s just a surprising idea to me I guess. I would emphasize in John’s explanation that requiring treating non-Christians differently in this regard would be asking us to love them less, not more. I’m sure I don’t need to enumerate why work is good and healthy. I agree that we should give, give, give. We should let our generosity reflect the blessings and grace of God. We should give to those who don’t deserve it. BUT the good Lord spoke a good deal more about giving to orphans, widows, the sick, etc. Able-bodied people should be asking what they can give, not get. He is speaking to everyone in His word.
Tom says:
I’m a liberal who is against abortion.
To which ex replies:
Hey Tom – you should stay – you and me are cut from the same cloth!
Ex:
Thank you for your candor. Now that we know you are a self-professed lib we can quit scratching our heads wondering how serious of an ex gop voter you once were.
A minority of liberals and a majority of conservatives profess to be pro-life. My guess is that the percentages are mirror opposites. Some only give lip service to pro-life while supporting candidates who are professed pro-aborts. Others give not only lip service to pro-life, but also heart service to pro-life and will not support candidates who pursue policies that promote the killing of unborn children. And then there are some who try to play both sides against the middle by the old “I am personally opposed” Ted Kennedy two-step. Now just about every so called “Catholic” democrat major office holder blathers the same BS. Biden gave a stirring rendition of this with his faux display of seriousness in the VP debate.
It is very clear that on this blog we have some who say they are pro-life, but at the same time support and vote for the most pro-abortion president ever. These are the ones who for whatever reason think they can blow smoke up our (you know where)–claiming they are pro-life—but supporting the politics and policies of pro-aborts. They are not fooling anybody.
John (and Jerry to a lesser extent) seem to make a lot of assumptions about someone who has made all of one post on this blog, lol. Sorry Tom, you gotta be tough to have any liberal leanings and hang here. If you stick around I will stick up for you.
“Many able-bodied young men voted Obama to ensure that they wouldn’t lose their food stamps, essentially stealing from the mouths of the poor. Do you call that justice?”
And many able-bodied young men are simply out of work right now. Able-bodied and young =/= able to get a job right away. I would be willing to bet that some of those able-bodied young men voted for Obama because Mitt has zero respect for the 47% of the population they fall into and they were afraid of not having enough money for food or rent. Not saying they are right, but I bet that was a factor for some people.
“Able-bodied and young =/= able to get a job right away.”
Bull. They can get minimum wage part time work at any time. And if it’s not enough for them to live on, absolutely give them Welfare. But currently in our society we have people getting more money on unemployment than they can make working. So why work? In essense, government is now paying people NOT to work.
“Bull. They can get minimum wage part time work at any time. And if it’s not enough for them to live on, absolutely give them Welfare. But currently in our society we have people getting more money on unemployment than they can make working. So why work? In essense, government is now paying people NOT to work. ”
Bull. BULL. Have you ever tried to get a job with a drug or assault conviction from when you were young? It’s flat out impossible, especially in an economy where there are many job seekers who don’t have those problems. There are several guys in my neighborhood with that problem. The only reason I have a job with my convictions from when I was eighteen is because my ex-wife’s dad knew him professionally and personally and begged him to let me work there. Or have you ever tried to get even a job at McDonald’s in an area that’s absolutely saturated with low-income job seekers? Have you ever tried to get a job completely reliant on public transportation. It severely limits your prospects. Or how about getting a job when you have no phone for call backs? Or tried to get a job when you don’t have clean clothes because you can’t afford to do laundry except in your sink?
And I call bs on getting more money on unemployment than working. Most of the people I know get about 150-200 dollars a week. That’s not even minimum full-time wages. I suppose your supposition could be true for some people that had a good paying job and got laid off, then they would probably have a decent amount from UI that actually covers the bills, rather than working minimum and having to get assistance ANYWAY. I don’t know about you, maybe I would rather take unemployment (which isn’t money you get handed, it’s money that you paid insurance for in case this scenario happened) while I looked for a job that didn’t put me in an even worse position.
Umm….yeah. I’ve been looking for awhile now, and I got nothing. I don’t even have any law troubles in my past. Just crappy, crappy, CRAPPY credit after my divorce. But I think it’s a moot point, anyway, since I know Republicans would’ve been the ones to help make businesses so successful they’d be in need of workers (even a mess-up like me!). I don’t really care about what other Republicans think of me personally. But then again, if I cared what people thought of me personally, I probably wouldn’t be Pro-Life right now, either. ;)
Don’t lie, X, John informed me that anyone can get a job at any time. ;)
Yeah, sorry John, that is EXTREMELY untrue.
As far as people working full-time and still needing welfare – honestly, I think that if someone is putting in a full-time work week and STILL needs and qualifies for food stamps, then the government has some beef with that employer, because the bottom line is that you can’t have people do a job that helps you profit and STILL have society pay that person’s bills, absolving you of the burden of a fair wage. You shouldn’t have the government subsidizing lazy business practice any more than you should have it subsidizing lazy personal habits.
As far as people making more on unemployment – to my knowledge that is not really ever the case, but I admit it may be possible in some circumstances, who knows. What is more common is that people who are receiving aid despite being gainfully employed have their aid cut as they move up the ladder, so they end up putting in longer hours, doing harder work, etc, as they get promoted but not earning a dime more in actual money. I don’t really know how you solve that problem, but regardless it is one that specifically afflicts those who ARE working hard, inclined to better their lot in life, etc. Any old schmo with a minimum-wage job who wants nothing more will fare better working than collecting welfare.
x, as far as businesses being so successful they’re in need of workers – that’s the kind of statement I never really understand. Businesses need workers when they have too great a demand for their current supply. Nobody just creates jobs because they have extra money lying around. People create jobs because there are people they could be selling to/serving but aren’t. People at the top with cash to spend are only half the equation of job creation – you also need a base of reasonably secure people in the middle, also with cash to spend. Or it would just be sheer idiocy to create a bunch of jobs for no reason. That’s the one thing I never really get about “trickle down” economics – demand doesn’t trickle down from the top, it rises up from the low-middle; and demand is what drives capitalism. It does feel like chicken-and-egg stuff but I don’t think I really know of any successful company, ever (except for, like, shell corporations) that created a supply just to be ready in case demand arose. That’s not an entire worldview commentary there, just a reaction to a comment I see a lot and never really understand.
Alexandra,
I’ve always thought “trickle down economics” would better be described as “fountain economics”. You rightly point to supply and demand being the core of capitalism. Business owners are reticent to spend money hiring and expanding when there’s not the buying atmosphere to support it.
I agree with xalisae that the Republicans are better suited to getting this “circulating pump” of the economy working by not emphasizing taxes, but instead reining in the budget just as we would in our own households.
It may be a slow climb to grow earners and businesses together, but this chicken dance between the classes we’re in now is going nowhere but in circles.
Jerry -
I just don’t believe anything meaningful is going to be done at the federal level regarding legislation, so we need to create economic situations where women feel that having a baby is the better option. Quite frankly, the path to curing abortion through through laws just doesn’t seem to be reasonable. I know people will disagree – that’s there right. Maybe we can wait another 30 years and see the ‘progress’.
The thing about welfare is that I want to care for the poor. But how can I say “yeah, lets give them welfare” when it isn’t MY money they’re giving away? I mean, it isn’t. How is it fair to for me to be charitable with OTHER people’s money?
I like the whole idea though that people on welfare should be given some jobs to earn that welfare money. They get job skills, work is done for the town, county, state, country…its a win win.
Jesus told the church to care for the poor. We haven’t. We have done a miserable job and so the government has taken over and we know how well the government does ANYTHING. Welfare is a vicious cycle of dependence and hopelessness. It isn’t the answer at all. Not even close. We definitely need to reform it but I would never advocate turning our backs on those truly in need. And I don’t think anyone here would ever do it either.
Hans -
There’s a whole lot of legislating one’s moral and religious beliefs – have you not read this thread?
Charity should exist from individuals, churches, and organizations -that is great. But it shouldn’t be completely left to them. If we as a nation, in regards to military spending, can outspend the next ten or so nations combined…then we can afford to feed those less fortunate around us.
LifeJoy – I honestly have no idea if people are arguing that we shouldn’t feed the poor. I do know that a verse was posted that says only those who work should eat.
If you look at the monthly polling done by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), you see the same result month after month after month.
They’re asked, “What is your biggest problem?”
The answer?
Customers.
It’s not taxes, it customers, the economist’s word for demand.
“LifeJoy – I honestly have no idea if people are arguing that we shouldn’t feed the poor. I do know that a verse was posted that says only those who work should eat.”
Working does not necessarily mean having a job. Individuals do not have a lot of control over the job market, but they do make choices with what to do with their time.
ex opines:
I just don’t believe anything meaningful is going to be done at the federal level regarding legislation, so we need to create economic situations where women feel that having a baby is the better option. Quite frankly, the path to curing abortion through through laws just doesn’t seem to be reasonable.
So we can just pretend that the consequences of continuing to support proabortion pols does not matter? Sorry, it does not work that way. Using this as a justification for supporting Obama and other proabborts is at best self delusional, and at worse morally complicit in the killing of unborn children. Electing pols whom one thinks will create an economic environment that results in a trickle down prolife dividend is wishful thinking.
Prolife has been given a legal path to overtuning the legal framework that permits abortion. You say it is not “reasonable” to expect progress through legislative and judicial means, and yet on the state level we have been able to make significant strides. The legislation that has passed HAS saved lives, and that IS meaningful, despite your claims to the contrary! At the federal level we used to have the Hyde amendment, but thanks to libs voting in proaborts that has fallen off. The latter is “exhibit A” of the shortsightedness of giving up on congress.
Thanks to people voting in Obama a second time overturning the pernicious proabortion Obamacare is off table. People voting in Obama and proabort senators may have paved the way to a leftist SCOTUS which will basically remove any chance of ending abortion on demand for another 50 years. But of course if we approach the process with a defeatest attitude we are sure to lose—kind of like a self-fufilling prophecy. If everyone were to adopt these attitudes the legal fight against abortion would have been over before it started.