While I think we all agree that we should be benevolent

[PotimusWillie]

and help take care of the less fortunate.

I think the rub is in how we are held to be benevolent.

Are we to be charitable out of love from our hearts or billed in advance from the government?

Now, saying that, I understand that many don't give. But many do and many organizations give unconditionally because they feel called by God or just out of duty to humanity.

The biggest problem I see in being billed mechanically by the government to cover benevolent expenses is that these monies can and will be used politically. It bastardizes the system and allows politicians to gain control by awarding assistance.

Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Independent, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Muslim or Catholic, what do you think about this?

Do you feel the government has too much control over our funds being given out to groups or citizens without our consent? Why? Or do you feel the government should control this type of income and spending? Why?

And do you feel that benevolent giving affected the OL play against BAI'llMA? (shameless football plug for sports purists tired of political posts)

What cha got Loran?

 

[LumpLump]

>>>It bastardizes the system and allows politicians to gain control by awarding assistance.>>>
My feelings about "Citizens United". Terrible thing, imo.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Of course this country needs both charitable giving and government programs. We need both private and public institutions of all sorts. Why is it so many feel a need to over-simplify the nature of society and governmental relations ? I think politicians have stirred the populous into one limited ideology vs another to the great disservice of the whole. It is primitive to think in public vs private terms.

 

[PotimusWillie]

>>>It bastardizes the system and allows politicians to gain control by awarding assistance.>>>
My feelings about "Citizens United". Terrible thing, imo.

I don't follow you. Explain that. I am not a very smart man.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Of course this country needs both charitable giving and government programs. We need both private and public institutions of all sorts. Why is it so many feel a need to over-simplify the nature of society and governmental relations ? I think politicians have stirred the populous into one limited ideology vs another to the great disservice of the whole. It is primitive to think in public vs private terms.

I agree with you in general terms. But I do believe we are way over the top in government programs that allow political posturing. Once a politician can leverage the vote with programs, we have gone way, way too far. Then we are told we are bad when we question it.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I agree with you in general terms. But I do believe we are way over the top in government programs that allow political posturing. Once a politician can leverage the vote with programs, we have gone way, way too far. Then we are told we are bad when we question it.

These programs are leveraged by those who disapprove at least as much as those who support them.
Leaders should lead, not take polls on important positions. If they believe something is right, support it, if not, don't. We can't stop government functions because of political opposition to them.
If those who elected the representatives disagree strong enough, they have their vote.

 

[GrizzDawg]

I don't follow you. Explain that. I am not a very smart man.

That was obvious when you used the term "tea bag"...........

 

[LumpLump]

I don't follow you. Explain that. I am not a very smart man.

I don't believe you're not smart enough.

Just meant, when I read that sentence, it struck me that is exactly how I feel about Citizens United.

 

[LumpLump]

I agree with you in general terms. But I do believe we are way over the top in government programs that allow political posturing. Once a politician can leverage the vote with programs, we have gone way, way too far. Then we are told we are bad when we question it.

What I hate about all of it is labeling any program an "entitlement" like it's something free nobody worked for. Sorry, but Medicare and SS people worked or a spouse worked, same for miltary retirements, etc.

But they lump them all together as an "entitlement". Dang right we're entitled. We worked for it!

 

[PotimusWillie]

That was obvious when you used the term "tea bag"...........

I actually didn't even realize I said tea bag. Of course I m s ant tea party.

 

[PotimusWillie]

>>>It bastardizes the system and allows politicians to gain control by awarding assistance.>>>
My feelings about "Citizens United". Terrible thing, imo.

Why is citizens united bad?

 

[PotimusWillie]

These programs are leveraged by those who disapprove at least as much as those who support them.
Leaders should lead, not take polls on important positions. If they believe something is right, support it, if not, don't. We can't stop government functions because of political opposition to them.
If those who elected the representatives disagree strong enough, they have their vote.

The politicians should represent their legal citizens. When they make decisions their voters wiuldn't logically make, we have a problem.

 

[PotimusWillie]

What I hate about all of it is labeling any program an "entitlement" like it's something free nobody worked for. Sorry, but Medicare and SS people worked or a spouse worked, same for miltary retirements, etc.

But they lump them all together as an "entitlement". Dang right we're entitled. We worked for it!

That anyone would get a dime of social security money unless they paid in is a crime. This is the type of problem we have. Our government is now above us. We work for them.

That is not how it is suppose to work.

 

[HeulenHund2]

The politicians should represent their legal citizens. When they make decisions their voters wiuldn't logically make, we have a problem.

Nope, a person should vote their heart and/or mind. The problem we have is representatives who vote for other reasons. Be those reasons special interest or using robo calls to poll issues, it's chicken shit non-leadership. If you don't like how you're being represented, use your vote.

 

[HeulenHund2]

That anyone would get a dime of social security money unless they paid in is a crime. This is the type of problem we have. Our government is now above us. We work for them.

That is not how it is suppose to work.

Well in that case most people should be cut off long before they die. People are using up their SS savings, yet the checks keep coming. Oh, Jesus must love the hell out of the way you think.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Well in that case most people should be cut off long before they die. People are using up their SS savings, yet the checks keep coming. Oh, Jesus must love the hell out of the way you think.

If the government forces you to contribute, the money should be just for those who contributed.

If not, make it optional. I never asked to pay in. But I will take every dollar they pay me. If I could have privately invested that money, I could retire fairly wealthy. I am a tax payer. I am entitled to my portion of the investments. It is MY money. Not money some politician can leverage votes for.

What SS savings accounts do you speak of?

Are you saying you have a friend named Jesus who is an investment strategist?