3-year olds?
hardly.
AH the typical conservative rhetoric is alive and well i see. putting aside your disgusting use of vocabulary for those children, most European countries are decades ahead of us with green energy, because their governments subsidized the development and research of these technologies, and now for example, large parts of Germany's economy is green energy and its a huge asset to them. We started in that direction with Carter, and then Reagan came along and put a halt to it, unfortunately for us. So when you look at the big picture, one failure in a business like that, is not a huge loss, its such a small part of the budget, especially when you take into account military spending, oil subsidies, farm subsidies, for businesses that do not need any money at all and are making huge profits.
Maybe one day we will concentrate on green energy as opposed to political paybacks also.
what a heartless approach towards helping children.
It's an approach that keeps us from being 15 trillion in debt with no relief in sight.
There are all kinds of brutality a people can do to keep debt down. Not sure I would recommend them all. I suspect even you have a limit. Sometimes it is better to drown saving another than pretend drowning is OK.
We've gone well past that point, if you cannot admit that...
...So...to reduce the debt...we should START BY CUTTING...programs that benefit poor young children? Nothing else in the federal budget stick out to you guys?
I mentioned one right off the bat.
Subsidizing daycare is cost effective. It cost far less than the alternative - having one parent stay home and having the family qualify for far more dollars in benefits than the daycare subsidy.
Say mommy and daddy work for minimum wage and get $100 per week of daycare assistance. Daycare subsidy is cut and mommy has to quit to take care of junior. Family income is halved. The household now qualifies for food stamps, rental assistance, medicaid and maybe WIC - and I guarantee those will cost more than $400 a month.
-----Originally Posted by Thunder----
what a heartless approach towards helping children.
MrVicchio
It's an approach that keeps us from being 15 trillion in debt with no relief in sight.
^thats kinda what i was talking about
Sorry, it's a peeve of mine. If you have a problem with those two statements then you should have addressed them, not make a vague accusation.
no, i know, my bad, i guess i was just kinda being lazy lol, won't happen again.
Heart Wrenching Emotion Driven story to further the cause for "Government to help cause no one else can!!!"
From a political standpoint, it is not up to the government to help the poor. From a religious standpoint, it IS up to those who profess a belief in God and Christ to do so. There are going to be a lot of people with a pitchfork up their ass wondering why the hell they are in hell. The reason is simple - Jesus said that "whatever people do unto the least of these they have done unto me". But no, it's not up to the government. People have free choice whether or not to follow the teachings of Christ. God intended it that way.
The **** does religion have to do with this thread?From a political standpoint, it is not up to the government to help the poor. From a religious standpoint, it IS up to those who profess a belief in God and Christ to do so. There are going to be a lot of people with a pitchfork up their ass wondering why the hell they are in hell. The reason is simple - Jesus said that "whatever people do unto the least of these they have done unto me". But no, it's not up to the government. People have free choice whether or not to follow the teachings of Christ. God intended it that way.
The **** does religion have to do with this thread?
I'm actually defending religion here (i can't believe it), but when someone actually holds to a belief like Christianity, then IT SHOULD be involved in almost every thread, they should always be asking "what would Jesus do" in a sense. the poor is a big issue in the new testament, and considering a lot of people make that book a huge part of their life, then i think it belongs here.
Yes, but the "giving and helping" part should be voluntary. Not fored by government because some people think it's a good idea.
Yes, but the "giving and helping" part should be voluntary. Not fored by government because some people think it's a good idea.
It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of children. That is a familys responsibility. Churches help all the time. Lay-off my tax money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?