[TheRealThing]

Benefits are earned or merited payments, goods and or services. You're doing what all libs do, renaming or mischaracterizing a concept we're all familiar with in order to make it seem different than it actually is, is. Like referring to the slaughter of the innocents at so-called abortion 'clinics', as women's health for example. And like renaming welfare handouts as entitlements or benefits.

Those who still do it the old fashion way by working to raise a family, look forward to the time in which they will be too old to work. With responsibility comes clear mindedness, thus people in this country who do work often participate in a retirement fund. They set back a portion of the money they make now, which is usually invested, so they have an ongoing income when they're old and unable to work. Those retirement payments are nonetheless still taxed to immoral extents by the government BTW, who then use those taxes to dole out payments to those who have not earned a thing except to make a deal with government. Votes for money. Benefits are earned. Handouts are welfare. The able bodied should work, end of story. Conflating moral laws with secular law is the argument of our day.

The responsibility for caring for and raising children for example, is not part of government. The responsibility is that of the parents of those children. Immorality ultimately is what has undone the vision of the founders. Many of the children who don't wind up murdered in an abortion clinic, are abandoned to become wards of the state or street people. You talk like it's okay to let the dam break as long as government is out making a good face by trying to catch some of the aftermath in buckets. Hello, the dam broke. But I digress.

These programs you speak of are not ever going to take the place of personal responsibility. And with the loss of personal responsibility so too comes the loss of our personal freedoms. You think Uncle Sam can just keep writing checks and it's all good. I say you're wrong. Meanwhile America's youth are what you see on the streets. Haves and have nots out there tearing up stuff and burning the rest down because nothing seems to make any sense. YOU blame Republicans for not caring enough, I blame Dems for insisting that we can handle society on our own without Godly guidance.

No, the day we 'moved the country forward' to the point we turned our backs on God, was the day we left the path.

YAY!!! You picked one!! 

I think you're saying you are against government-funded childcare?? I think.  Your diatribe isn't very focused.  

Wouldn't govt. funded childcare discourage some abortions?  Wouldn't it allow both parents to work and pay taxes?  both of these issues are high on your list of priorities, TRT.  

I know this for a fact; gone are the days granny can keep your kids because granny is still working herself.

I did not pick one and in no way am I accountable to answer, nor am I automatically bound to discuss your shallow view of what ails us. Abortions happen because we live in sexually promiscuous society. Starting with LBJ, throwing money at the idea is what got us to the point of societal no-return as things stand, because obviously, the US checkbook is not the answer to moral problems.

But yeah I guess an unemployment office employee would be somewhat familiar with issues of employment. Granny works because Granny's income is taxed to immoral extremes. And why? Because America is burdened with raising the progeny of the sexually promiscuous and we need the tax dollars to pay the bill, cause as I've been saying, it's waay past due. Dems/libs think bad behavior is a matter of income inequality, and not a matter of moral deviance. That's what happens when mushrooms declare themselves to be wise.

Past that, don't try and sell me on the lie which says Daddy and Mommy though working, cannot afford to raise a family. And I agree  the problems of the liberal mindset are not limited to the US. Greece teeters on bankruptcy as do many other nations. Any doubt that the world financial system could crash suddenly ought to become negligible with even a cursory glance.

Aww man, I was hoping you were showing some guts today.   But another post filled with archaic philosophy, LBJ, and Greece...just silliness.  

Your general misconceptions are completely off on this subject.  Govt. funded childcare would be for working American families.  You don't want to encourage working families. 

If you hate welfare, wouldn't you support childcare that would get Americans into the workforce by keeping their children and with jobs of keeping children?  

Oh boy, I look forward to the day when Joe Biden eases the taxes on Social Security recipients.    

If I worked for the unemployment office, why would I be for a bill like this?  

Who keeps Mommy and Daddy's kids while both are working?  Since the 1950s the birthrate has gone down by half.  If we want Americans to have children, we have to make it possible.

---

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/201...l-welfare/

This study is very enlightening as to how the U.S. stacks up to other countries in social programs.  Is Biden wanting to go too far, too fast in implementing his policies?  Probably, but since their seems to be no chance of the two political sides working together, this is what it has come to, the Republican Party is moving very quickly to the extreme right while the Democrats are moving further left.

"There is a strong, direct relationship between public social spending and poverty reduction. This is even more impressive when you consider that “public social spending” does not automatically mean “progressive.”

We see then that public social spending does not just reduce poverty. It also creates a more equitable environment for society as a whole.

Conclusion
It follows fairly obviously from the above that the U.S. should be making large outlays on social welfare that it currently is not making. While other wealthy countries apparently view their inhabitants as part of a society with universal needs, the U.S. largely leaves its people to fend for themselves.
More social spending is not the solution to every problem the U.S. faces. But it would certainly help a significant portion of them.

I don't understand the aversion to spending money on Americans for basic needs: education, healthcare, food. etc.   It's not like people are getting wealthy on THESE govt. handouts...some are.

You would think that someone who likes to quote Scripture all of the time would also believe in being more generous to the less fortunate.

1 John 3:17-18

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.

Matthew 6:1-4

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be

Deuteronomy 15:11

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

In addition to paying taxes, do you regularly give money to the Church to help the poor there Outsider?

My position is if government truly wants separation of Church and State, then the pendulum should swing both ways. Helping the poor used to be the purview of the Church, not government. Benevolence in this land used to be the mission of the Church until government took it over. And frankly it is likely that the Church's influence Centuries and decades ago is what motivated those in government circles to take on the role of distributing commodities and certain other helps. But now it's all gotten out of hand. Now Nancy Pelosi says people shouldn't feel pushed to have to work. Maybe they were meant to be artists and loll away their days on more whimsical pursuits?

You and Cardfan and vector will have my respect when you get your checkbooks out and lead by example, rather than misapplying Scripture. But the slurring of truth where it comes to the poor certainly does not end there. And to demonstrate the point here is another applicable Bible verse. 1 Tim 5:8  "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

As I said the able bodied are to work. And how you got that I oppose helping those who actually need help due to physical limitations or ailments or sudden loss of income and etc. is beyond me. But that is the way with the liberal argument. Failing the truth you guys always just start making stuff up. In any case your argument is not with me, it is with the correct function of US government in the historical sense that you cannot seem to latch onto correctly. And then as you just revealed, you have a problem in understanding the role of the Lord's Church. You don't have to worry, Christians will give.

Past that would be the disparity between us on what the limits of helping the poor ought to be. Not everybody who gets a free ride, deserves a free ride. Feed the hungry yes. Get them in out of the weather yes. Clothe them yes. Encourage them to get a job yes. But the cell phones and beer and cigarette money? Not so much. Nor this idea that income equality is a right of US citizenship. And certainly not a guaranteed minimum national income.

I'll give you an example and I know this first hand. This town has government sponsored housing for the poor. The government sees to it that their dependents get stimulus checks and income tax returns and much more. When the stimulus comes the tenets of government housing go out and buy stuff like 70" big screens and new XBoxes and etc. Every once in awhile these transients just up and vanish because for whatever reason, they just walk off and leave it all sitting in their apartment. The rules are that everything they leave MUST go into the dumpster. No exceptions. Can't be used by the next tenet, and can't be sold, and can't go home with anybody. It's the dumpster only. Now that's my definition of tax dollar waste. You guys tell about 5 percent of the whole story.