Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

No! I just favor capitalism esp when opposed to communism. Yes! gasp! Nothing sounds worse to me than working for 10% of my paycheck for the alleged "greater good."

well, it's due to them both. But idk what you're suggesting. If you're suggesting shutting down corrupt industries- sure I'm on board! But if you're suggesting Capitalism is the problem; I wouldn't want to dream of a world which every company was overtaken by government. It would be over priced, long lines and, pissy workers who treat you like shit because they hate their jobs.

It's not bull shit. I have very legitimate reasons to feel the way I do. Government wastes our money on a daily basis. I think Liberals "Tax Me More" protests are bull shit! The government can't run schools right, run healthcare right, hell, the federal government can't even build roads as well as private corporations. The fact of the matter is, the problem IS government. Because without government, corporations would have no power.

We need a government which adheres to the constitution.

 

What about a woman (lets say she is single) who has children (lets say two) who was working and then was made redundant. She finds it really hard to find another job. She might be physically able to work - but the time she has been off has eaten into any savings she has: child care, bills etc. What should happen to her?

 

Well the current system wouldn't help her either. If she has a job, even if it doesn't pay enough to survive, the government wont help her.

Plus, I know you guys bring up these scenerios so I look like the bad guy. Like I don't care about women and children. But as a member of the working class of this country, I know charities and churches are more than willing to help women with children find housing and food.

 

She doesn't have a job. Why wouldn't they?

I'm not trying to make you the bad guy. It's just an e.g of a working person through no fault of her own finds herself in difficulty. Unemployed. I've never really seen you add that to any argument you make. It's usually: People who refuse to work, and instead, live off of the government.

What if she wasn't Christian and didn't think about going to a church? I know charities MIGHT find her some short term help - but they would usually end up finding her some government programme wouldn't they?

 

No. There are charities that provide food, housing and, vehicles without government. Although, people who donate receive tax deductions, which I support.

I would eventually like to see government entitlements ended completely, but not right away. So although it's easy to say what you probably want me to say; I think government created the problem, and cutting food stamps would come after the wealth and jobs come back. I think rich people steal more. But some poor people take advantage of our system. But government theft, over spending and, waste is more of a problem than food stamps. I'd still like to see them done at a local level, or through charities. I don't think we need government from cradle to grave.

 

i had a girlfriend with kids that was staying at some charity/government building. it looked like a motel to me. each mother and her kids had a room with a couple beds. and as long as they followed the rules they could stay there for a certain amount of time, which was more than enough to save up enough to get on their feet again. i never asked her who funded it, but if a down on their luck mother asks for help they usually get sent to the place that will provide it for them. now there are those that cant follow the rules of the house and it is very unfortunate for the kids but its the mothers fault in these cases if they cant get to a place where they can contribute enough to society to make them useful members of society.

 

Encore! Encore!
Very well said, and I agree totally, the solution to all our problems is not MORE government control, but Constitution based government, which is based on having the consent of the governed which would return us, in the words of Lincoln, to a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", and not simply by the politicians who we elect NOT to rule us, but only to carry out the duties assigned to them without re-interpretation of what the people have defined them to be.

 

Where's the Father(s)?

 

Another excellent point, and when did it become the Federal governments responsibility to govern us on a case by case basis? Government should never be, or perhaps more appropriately stated, should never have been made a or "THE" source of charity.

 

In this e.g cruelly killed in a freak boating accident.

To be fair, I have heard you say this. I suppose if there are charities out there that could support everybody that needed help and not turn anybody down - fair enough. My perception is there are a lot of 'faith based' charities in America, and you have to be of a certain moral fortitude to be looked on kindly.The ones that don't judge are few and far between. But if your answer is: 'charity' and 'church' - fair enough.

 

Don't you mind the government being involved?

 

If the Father is deceased, then charity is the answer. You can create examples and continually mold them in an attempt to promote the desired answer, and THAT is a primary reason the Federal government should not be the source where problems of individuals should be resolved. The variables, as you point out are too great, and perhaps there are many differences in each similar case which leaves many different solutions as the proper answer in solving them. Like I've said numerous times before, "problems are best solved at their source."

Charities, run by the private sector, or Churches, are the most efficient means of solving needs problems, and will rise to the occasion as they find necessary, without increasing the indebtedness of the Nation.

Are there ANY who don't judge?

 

I did try and give an e.g that was perhaps out of certain groups remit, yes. But the simple answer seems to be 'charity' 'church' - I just hope that is sufficient, and they are the most efficient means of solving problems, and will rise to the occasion as they find necessary. I did say if that's the solution given - fair enough. I think it's a big ask.

Are these groups unregulated?

I would say - yes. But I just hope so.

 

What regulations do you feel should be necessary for a charitable organization in particular?

Whenever there are choices to be made, how would that be accomplished by those who would not apply some form of judgment in deciding which choice to be preferable? Do you really hope such persons exist?

 

A guaranteed length of stay. Not shipped around from site to site within the organisation locations. No discrimination. It's not really for me to say.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. If you don't like the rules, tough shit?

 

There are no guarantees related to charity, it's a free act of giving, and it allows those who fund charitable organizations to freely choose where to place their donations based on the results produced, and make changes as they find necessary.

I'm saying when there are choices available, isn't it NECESSARY to arrive at a decision as to which choice to select by judging them against one another? By rules, I assume you refer to what has been chosen previously, and if they are found to be bad rules, should we not be allowed to discuss and reach agreement on how they could/should be changed to make them better rules? And change them as a result?

 

If there is no government housing/food/child assistance and charities/the church are willing to take this burden on - then they have to be even handed and not discriminate - or what's the point? You say if rules are found to be bad rules, should they not be allowed to discuss and reach agreement on how they could/should be changed to make them better rules. Obviously they can do exactly what they like (within reason), and hopefully that is the case. What's to say the church or charity says these rules are biding. Leave those in need at the mercy of a bunch of people on a board who might or might not alter their programme to accommodate individual needs, and have the ability to turn people away if they find them undesirable (church groups turning away homosexuals/unmarried couples/single parents etc)? It would be nice if all parties could come to an amicable agreement, but it's likely to be patchy at best - especially in more rural areas. What happens if funding dries up?
Like you say, there are no guarantees related to charity, it's a free act of giving.
If you StpLSD25 are leaving it charities and the churches hands - then it will be upto them, and not upto us.
You have to weigh those risks up, and not just hope for the best, imho.

 

Quite the opposite, it returns to US, individual citizens who make up the societies within our Nation to be more aware of the needs of others and take actions necessary to provide assistance where needed, most efficiently and effectively. People helping other people helps to buid a stronger union between individual members of societies, while those who wish to govern tend to benefit more by dividing us one against the other issue by issue for their benefit.Maybe then, even corporations and the wealthy would do less lobbying of politicians for access to power and more charitable work in attracting the interests and business of consumers, voters and prospective future employees.
I don't believe discrimination or racism, as often presented by the Left, to be near the problem they would like us to believe they are, although they seem to be quite effective when used as tools to divide and manipulate us with.

 

Population:
1776: 3 milliuon
2013: 311 million
(black) Slavery: Then - 95% Now - trace
It would be nice if this actually occurred, but it's a big risk - given the complex nature of society now.
Where this doesn't happen and it it ends in ghettos what happens?
Well, tough - if they don't wish to organise that's their business.
Individualism or selfishness?

A belief and reality are two very different things.

Bench test your idealised country - not with some idealistic notions but with reality, and remember it has to work in a very short space of time.

 

im not sure the government was involved thats why there was a slash there---> /charity. if it was a government program then i would hope the building was a business that went under and the government got it for the taxes owed on it.
one of the things i always said the government should have is free after school child care so that the parents could go out and work. so i dont mind that aspect of it at all. as for all the other costs of the program...well i wont change what i have said earlier, i dont think the other stuff that is paid for there, should be from the government (if that is the case) but on the plus side it is going to better use than some of the other things that the government puts our money into.