...........

The Rogue Tomato said:
Two Anti-Choice Parties
We should use law to punish those who harm others, not to micromanage their lives.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/24/two-anti-choice-parties?n_play=54281378e4b01553416ef187

This is why I am neither democrat nor republican, but lean more toward being libertarian.
Click to expand...

That's a lot closer to my views than either a D or R. The problem I'm seeing from many other libertarians is they are also starting to see their own ideology as the very words of Jesus.  The thing about Jesus is He doesn't fit into any political box other than "Jesus is Lord."
 
rsc2a said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/jack-kingston-school-lunch_n_4467711.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Click to expand...

That is nuts, but I do see where he's coming from.  His "solution" is simply misdirected. 

And the notion of the poor in the USA going hungry is absurd.  96% of parents considered "poor" say their kids have never gone hungry due to lack of food. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

I'm not advocating getting rid of programs to help  people.  Some people really do need assistance.  I'm guessing probably about 5% of those who get it need it, but that's just a guess. 

And we can't just cut off all government assistance now that it's going, but we could reduce it slowly to zero and make it easier to shift the responsibility to voluntary assistance vs. today's confiscation and redistribution of wealth. 

This lack of progress in building self-sufficiency is due in major part to the welfare system itself. Welfare wages war on social capital, breaking down the habits and norms that lead to self-reliance, especially those of marriage and work. It thereby generates a pattern of increasing intergenerational dependence. The welfare state is self-perpetuating: By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future.

As the War on Poverty passes the half-century mark, it is time to rein in the endless growth in welfare spending and return to LBJ’s original goals. As the economy improves, total means-tested spending should be moved gradually toward pre-recession levels. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs should be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving benefits.
Click to expand...

I would clarify that when it says LBJ's original goals, it is referring to his STATED goals.  He was a liar, plain and simple.  He was buying votes, by his own admission.  "We'll have those n*ggers voting democrat for the next 200 years."

 
So... when 8 republicans take on a stupid racist, that demonstrates there are plenty of republicans AGAINST racism, not for it.

As Tomato mentioned, LBJ (democrat) was an awful racist. When it comes to racism, Democrats own it. They were for slavery, so Republicans became a party to fight racis.. Dems initiated Jim Crow laws... They started the KKK. They kept a KKK imperial leader in the senate until recently.... I could go on.

So... it is not fair or even reality to say that Republicans are just as guilty.
 
FSSL said:
So... when 8 republicans take on a stupid racist, that demonstrates there are plenty of republicans AGAINST racism, not for it.

As Tomato mentioned, LBJ (democrat) was an awful racist. When it comes to racism, Democrats own it. They were for slavery... They initiated Jim Crow laws... They started the KKK. They kept a KKK imperial leader in the senate until recently.... I could go on.

So... it is not fair or even reality to say that Republicans are just as guilty.
Click to expand...

In short, you wanted an example, but when given that example, you meant a different example. Got it.
 
I wanted you to document your statement that "plenty of Republicans... want kids to starve.... "
 
The "Summer Lunch" program for kids who get free lunches:
And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.

Since 2010, the program has operated from an initial appropriation of $85 million, and the goal has been to test alternative approaches to distribute aid when schools are not in session. The White House asked for an additional $30 million to continue the effort, but the House bill provides $27 million for what’s described as an entirely new pilot program focused on rural areas only.

Democrats were surprised to see urban children were excluded. And the GOP had some trouble explaining the history itself. But a spokeswoman confirmed that the intent of the bill is a pilot project in “rural areas” only.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/house-gop-agriculture-budget-white-house-106831.html#ixzz3EdfADtqj
Click to expand...

I don't even like the program, think it should be eliminated entirely. But this...this is just wrong on so many levels.
 
rsc2a said:
The "Summer Lunch" program for kids who get free lunches:
And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.

Since 2010, the program has operated from an initial appropriation of $85 million, and the goal has been to test alternative approaches to distribute aid when schools are not in session. The White House asked for an additional $30 million to continue the effort, but the House bill provides $27 million for what’s described as an entirely new pilot program focused on rural areas only.

Democrats were surprised to see urban children were excluded. And the GOP had some trouble explaining the history itself. But a spokeswoman confirmed that the intent of the bill is a pilot project in “rural areas” only.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/house-gop-agriculture-budget-white-house-106831.html#ixzz3EdfADtqj
Click to expand...

I don't even like the program, think it should be eliminated entirely. But this...this is just wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to judge when the article gives no details whatsoever about what the bill actually says. 
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
rsc2a said:
The "Summer Lunch" program for kids who get free lunches:
And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.

Since 2010, the program has operated from an initial appropriation of $85 million, and the goal has been to test alternative approaches to distribute aid when schools are not in session. The White House asked for an additional $30 million to continue the effort, but the House bill provides $27 million for what’s described as an entirely new pilot program focused on rural areas only.

Democrats were surprised to see urban children were excluded. And the GOP had some trouble explaining the history itself. But a spokeswoman confirmed that the intent of the bill is a pilot project in “rural areas” only.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/house-gop-agriculture-budget-white-house-106831.html#ixzz3EdfADtqj
Click to expand...

I don't even like the program, think it should be eliminated entirely. But this...this is just wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to judge when the article gives no details whatsoever about what the bill actually says.
Click to expand...

For necessary expenses to carry out the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 12 seq.), except section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21; $20,523,795,000 to remain available through September 30, 2016, of which such sums as are made available under section 14222(b)(1) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246), as amended by this Act, shall be merged with and available for the same time period and purposes as provided herein:

Provided, That of the total amount available, $17,004,000 shall be available to carry out section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.):
Provided further, That of the total amount available, $25,000,000 shall be available to provide competitive grants to State agencies for subgrants to local educational agencies and schools to purchase the equipment needed to serve healthier meals, improve food safety, and to help support the establishment, maintenance, or expansion of the school breakfast program:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, $27,000,000 shall remain available until expended to carry out section 749(g) of the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–80) in rural counties designated in 40 U.S.C. 14102.
Click to expand...
 
For necessary expenses to carry out the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 12 seq.), except section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21; $20,523,795,000 to remain available through September 30, 2016, of which such sums as are made available under section 14222(b)(1) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246), as amended by this Act, shall be merged with and available for the same time period and purposes as provided herein:

Provided, That of the total amount available, $17,004,000 shall be available to carry out section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.):
Provided further, That of the total amount available, $25,000,000 shall be available to provide competitive grants to State agencies for subgrants to local educational agencies and schools to purchase the equipment needed to serve healthier meals, improve food safety, and to help support the establishment, maintenance, or expansion of the school breakfast program:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, $27,000,000 shall remain available until expended to carry out section 749(g) of the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–80) in rural counties designated in 40 U.S.C. 14102.
Click to expand...

It probably means what you say it means, but this is one reason why I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.  I honestly don't understand the legal language, how it plays out in reality, or why anyone wrote it that way.  And I have to wonder if the people who wrote it understand it any better than I do. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
The argument is specious.  It doesn't even attempt to say food stamps are good.  It just says that another program is worse.
Click to expand...

Yep! I disagree with the farmer's part of that bill. It looks bad politically.

But hey! $17,000,000 is still being thrown at PART of the overall, bloated welfare food programs.

"Republicans want kids to starve" is the kind of language I thought would be beneath rsc2a.

With records numbers of people on food stamps, that argument is absurd and ignores the waste, fraud and problems with welfare.
 
Denying there are Randian nut jobs in the GOP is simply ignoring the weird uncle in your own family. 

And I honestly didn't expect to see conservative = Christian from you.
 
Christians have to find their closest political counterpart. Right now? I am libertarian economically and conservative socially.
 
rsc2a said:
Denying there are Randian nut jobs in the GOP is simply ignoring the weird uncle in your own family. 

And I honestly didn't expect to see conservative = Christian from you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I would hope not to see "conservative = Christian" from anyone. Back when I was active in the conservative movement (was an officer in YAF & YR), I knew good conservatives who were atheists. And now I belong to a very politically diverse church, which has good Christians of most every political persuasion. I don't think one could be a Nazi or Marxist-Leninist and also a good Christian. But Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Green all have very devoted followers of Jesus.
 
Or you can ignore modern political categories altogether and just go with "Christ-follower".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
 
rsc2a said:
Or you can ignore modern political categories altogether and just go with "Christ-follower".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

"Christ-follower" was in fact the preferred term at my previous AoG church. I still rather like it. It means the same thing as "Christian", but without so much cultural and political baggage, and is a better conversation starter.

But I do also fit the definition of "classical liberal" (AKA "libertarian" of the less ideologically rigid variety) as well as Christ-follower, and I don't find them at all in conflict.

 
If there was a "Christ-follower" political party, it would probably wouldn't be perfect either.
 
FSSL said:
If there was a "Christ-follower" political party, it would probably wouldn't be perfect either.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it wouldn't be. That's the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top