Now those are republicans how I remember them. Ppl need to take care of themselves, let them rot and die before offering help.

Actually conservatives give more to charity than liberals both in absolute and per capita terms. It's not about let them rot and die; it's about not forcibly taking someone's property to give to another person. Pretty simple stuff really.

This post was edited by FGdumpster on Dec 10 2018 10:21am

Republican Jesus at it, again

You're changing to "conservatives" as they are better represented in church donations. I've seen this quite a few times



good thing you are against it though.

I meant not to give from the government obviously. Individual giving is encouraged.

Churches give lots of money to people charitably. As such, some percentage of what is given to a church goes to people in need. Same as some percentage of what is given to a nonprofit will do the same (after the operators are paid, offices, etc).

Ignoring large portions of the population that reside on the coasts doesn't seem to be equal representation.

It's interesting most of the billionaires and most of the naturally envious leftists are aggregated in the same areas.

The whole idea of income inequality is predicated on envy. Essentially, 'that person isn't 1,000,000x better than me so why does he make that much more money than I do?'

Of course, 'he should be stripped down so that he's no richer than I am.' People that truly care about poor people don't start by looking at the wealthy.

These figures we idolize, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Buddha, etc all started from a place of empathy not envy. They never sought to take from the wealthy, but rather to bolster the poor.

This post was edited by FGdumpster on Dec 10 2018 10:38am

the amount of money in existence is basically static. we of course increase it as more people come into existence, and not being on the gold standard means we can inflate the amount artificially. but if we're assuming responsible fed policy, and at the same time trying to bolster the poor, the money has to come from somewhere.

tbh your whole post reads like you think we should just print money for the poor, something i know you dont actually want. you basically said "stop focusing on Heads, these people focused on Tails." when in reality its the same coin.

The church fulfilled a role in that regard in my history as well, nowadays it's being replaced by governments being the non-profit giving help to those in need. Churches have lost their power to help over here.

Money is meaningless, it's the production it represents that equals value. Productivity has been steadily increasing year after year as innovation makes solutions cheaper and better.

This is why a computer that used to cost $2,000 can now be had for $400 or less. Furthermore, I do not worship money as a god. It's a paper that's value only exists because people's perception.

If a poor community has absolutely no currency in circulation, i.e. no dollars, they should use alternative currency or even better, trade labor to build value.