Originally Posted by
FactsRStubborn
This is a great question and one I have answered numerous times. For some reason it just doesn't sink in with you leftists. There isn't disagreement that we should help our fellow man. I happen to think it is the Christian thing to do. Others will do it based not on religious beliefs but other factors. The point isn't whether or not someone should receive help, the point is how should that help be accomplished. You prefer the government forcibly taking from one sector of our society using resentment and fear. I prefer individual freedom where people voluntarily give of their own volition. Now, will some like the Bidens, Gores and Obamas not give as much of their money to charitable causes as the Romneys? You betcha. But, that doesn't mean we should use the coercive power of the federal government to force people to do it. That presupposes that YOU know better, when it is clear by your posting that you do not.
The government knows who needs help. Do you know if your neighbor requires help much less someone across the State or at the other end of the country? While ones intentions may be good strictly voluntary giving does not address the problem. For example, one may donate to a charity that helps underprivileged children go to summer camp. Noble cause, however, if another family is going hungry wouldn't it be better to donate to a charity that supplies food as opposed to a trip to summer camp? What information could you possibly know that causes you to assume you know better? How can any individual know better without complete country-wide information?
I find it highly ironic that left wingers like Biden will claim "I am pro life but I won't force my beliefs on anyone else". Yet, he doesn't mind forcing his beliefs on everyone else when it comes to other issues. If over 50% of the people oppose OWEbamacare, Biden says FUCK YOU, you are going with my beliefs. Only when it comes to bowing at the altar of NARAL do left wingers not want to impose their beliefs on others, but everything else is fair game right?
There's nothing ironic about it. Studies have shown 45,000 people die every year due to a lack of medical insurance. There has been plenty of time for "voluntary givers" to step up to the plate and correct the problem. The same thing with SS. Old people were going hungry and homeless for generations. Voluntary giving did not address the problem so in the end the government had to step in. What is absurd is people thinking if government abandoned programs the private sector would pick up the slack, that voluntary giving would solve the problem. The fact is voluntary giving had the opportunity for decades, generations, since the beginning of time to correct the problem. They had their chance. Why would any sane individual suggest the government abandon programs and let the "voluntary givers" try again?
As for NARAL how does a woman's right to choose affect you? What does it cost you?
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."
Bookmarks