What prevents liberals from seeing truth?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by gastropod, Jan 29, 2014.


  1. Private charity can't even keep up with the food stamp cuts. Meals on wheels is now delivering fewer meals because of it and private donations are not making up the difference.

    Yes private charity like the Red Cross can work very well in some cases. Absolutely. But they are simply inadequate for the larger nationwide and constant need social safety net things like food stamps etc.
     
    #91     Feb 3, 2014
  2. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    The National Republican Congressional Committee is doubling down on its use of websites that appear to be in support of Democratic House candidates but actually direct money to the Republican campaign effort. However, the NRCC said it would give refunds to donors who were confused or misled and contributed to the organization inadvertently.

    The Tampa Bay Times reported Monday that Ray Bellamy, a doctor from Tallahassee, had asked for a refund from the NRCC for the $250 he donated through a website which he thought would help Democrat Alex Sink. He claimed that the NRCC had denied his request.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/republican-website-donations_n_4719196.html
     
    #92     Feb 4, 2014
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
    Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

    1) That participation in the Program would be
    completely voluntary,

    No longer Voluntary

    2) That the participants would only have to pay
    1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
    incomes into the Program,

    Now 7.65%
    On the first $90,000.

    3) That the money the participants elected to put
    into the Program would be deductible from
    their income for tax purposes each year,

    No longer tax deductible

    4) That the money the participants put in went to the
    Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
    General Operating Fund, and therefore, would
    only be used to fund the Social Security
    Retirement Program, and no other
    Government program, and,

    Under Johnson the money was moved to
    The General Fund and spent.

    5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
    as income.

    Under Clinton & Gore
    up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
    now receiving a Social Security check every month --
    and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
    the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
    away -- you may be interested in the following:

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

    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
    Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
    General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically
    controlled House and Senate.

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

    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
    deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A: The Democratic Party.

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

    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
    Security annuities?

    A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the
    'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
    Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

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

    Q: Which Political Party decided to start
    giving annuity payments to immigrants?

    A: That's right!

    Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
    Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
    began to receive Social Security payments! The
    Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
    even though they never paid a dime into it!

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

    Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans
    want to take your Social Security away!
     
    #93     Feb 4, 2014
  4. The DemoCraps (Socialist/Communist) have an agenda. "The end justifies the means" in their eyes. Lies wherever necessary.

    :(
     
    #94     Feb 4, 2014
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Private charity would increase if people were allowed to keep more of what they earned for themselves.
     
    #95     Feb 4, 2014
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Sorry, the State governments are better and more practical. The states have their own vested interest at heart. To believe the Federal Government is run by some bureaucrats who have this benevolent view towards the states is asinine. They want a power grab, nothing more.
     
    #96     Feb 4, 2014
  7. CORRECTAMUNDO! The Founders recognized this with their emphasis on "STATE rights and controls".
     
    #97     Feb 4, 2014
  8. Wallet

    Wallet

    If the Government is so efficient why does private charity even exist? Your mixing entitlement with charity, The Government would do better spending it's money getting people off the tit, building their lives demanding they learn a trade and let local charity take care of the needy.

    Where I live almost all the local churches combine to supply a local food and clothing bank, next town over a large Baptist church operates a free medical clinic, comparable to any doctors office in the city, x-ray, diagnostic, etc.. Local churches partner with the YMCA to provide after-hours child services for the school district. My Church has a large life-center (gymnasium and kitchen) which is opened and used by the local authorities (staffed by volunteers) whenever there's an emergency or natural disaster in the area.

    I don't know where you live, or how involved you are in your community, but around here, folks take care of each other.

    Oh, btw..... if you were to look at your political maps you'd see Oklahoma is about as red and conservative as a state can be. All the outpouring of charitable work is done by a populace that's overwhelmingly religiously right winged.
     
    #98     Feb 4, 2014
  9. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Liberals don't typically support the poor. They want you to.
     
    #99     Feb 4, 2014
  10. stu

    stu

    The Bible Jesus story is set in a time when a massive non democratic imperial govt ruled. So in that regard, and others , it was as bad as fascist, and gave most people no say or voting rights at all.

    Yet the Jesus model, the model which those who call themselves Christians keep leaning their personal moral standings against, clearly requires both symbolically and literally, to sell all their belongings and give it to the poor. That is what exactly ? It certainly isn't Conservative. Is it Libtard?

    Yes, it is explained quite clearly by the Jesus dude. In order to enter the kingdom of god (whatever that might be), amongst other things....

    ....Jesus says to sell all you have and distribute it unto the poor.....

    ....while you say, it's futile to do what Jesus says. Don't fancy your chances much with that kingdom of god.

    Yes, do stop trying to rewrite and re-interpret everything out of all reason.

    Not sure why you should expect to be able to elect honest and competent people in govt when all you want to do is hypocritically find reason to not act according to what you set up to be your own moral standards - the Jesus model.

    But I'm not surprised. As a Christian you constantly need to rewrite Bible Jesus. He makes Che Guevara look like a Tea-publican.
     
    #100     Feb 4, 2014