So, the Emancipation Proclamation was just an executive order and had no lasting effect.
Right?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Trumps first budget
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Right?
Werbung:
What your doing here is telling us that we are not Christians, and do not follow Christ, if we don’t want to give our earnings to the government. This is designed to wound a genuine Christian, by calling him a poor follower of Christ, and to elevate himself as an agent of morality at the same time.
You would be well-advised to read Matthew 6:2:
Therefore when you give your alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
It effected the slaves who ran for the border only to find they were still slaves. PR stunt gone bad for them.
OK, and after the Yankees won the war, then what happened to the slaves?
They were to be returned.
So after the constitution was amended they could thank republicans.
Obviously not all got returned neither were all slaves in the CIA to begin with.
And they did thank Republicans.
Which is why conservative whites in the south were Democrats after that.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Now the mind reader strikes again. Why not try to answer the question instead of getting on your usual pompous high horse?
There used to be a time in our country when the poor relied on family, Church, community, and if all else failed then the government. However, with the Great Recession the Church could not afford to care for the huge numbers of the poor. Families were destitute, and thus the government was forced to step in, or one like you could just walk over the dead bodies. After the recession ended it then became a fact that church's had money, and thus they built even larger church buildings, pastors increased their wages, and the secularizing of the Christian community began. Today's "christian" thinks nothing og theuir pastor receiving salaries that are double, triple, or even quadruple that of the average parishioner. Free college for the children of the pastor, free housing, free medical insurance, etc. are the norm. Joel Osteens 10 million dollar mansion, Robinsons million dollar home (one of three), and the list goes on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/best-paid-pastors_n_1214043.html?ref=religion
As to a "genuine" Christian, since when is one a "genuine Christian" when they defend the sins of one, and then castigate another for pointing out those sins?
Oh goodness. Once again you are going to use scripture out of context to try to "instruct" me. But tell me fool, when have I ever said what I do to help others? Your god Trump has. Maybe you should send that scripture to him. In any event, the very idea that you would try to use what you most often ignore only serves to show the depths to what your poor soul will delve.
The point is that
a. there is no role for the federal government in education here. all education spending, the actual teaching kids part, is state and local.
b. what the feds are trying to control has nothing to do with education. therefore no value in spending the money.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." A
It may be true that the American Federal Government dose not spend directly on education but it has control of income tax and some of this is given to the states to spend on education
No matter what the Constitution says The Federal Government has the income. The states can only increase education spending if the Federal Government helps. This is what happens in Australia. The federal government can direct how this money is spent.
a. there is no role for the federal government in education here. all education spending, the actual teaching kids part, is state and local.
b. what the feds are trying to control has nothing to do with education. therefore no value in spending the money.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." A
It may be true that the American Federal Government dose not spend directly on education but it has control of income tax and some of this is given to the states to spend on education
No matter what the Constitution says The Federal Government has the income. The states can only increase education spending if the Federal Government helps. This is what happens in Australia. The federal government can direct how this money is spent.
The states and localities can spend whatever they choose. They do not require fed money.
The State of California funds education largely through the state income tax and the sales tax. Most other states fund schools through the property tax.
Federal funds are a small part of school district budgets, and come with strings attached. This money is for this program, to help this group of kids (generally some category of poverty) and you can only use it for that purpose. There are audits and penalties for misuse.
Education is a function of the states. We'd be better off without the federal role in it.
You might think you are better off with Federal role in Education. But the rust ban states will do little to improve their education. Trump promises them jobs so he must do something to make them capable of doing new jobs. This is adult education and I think goes beyond the role of the Sates.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
There has always been a role in education by the Fed, and if not for the Fed setting up school districts, and the funding of them, there more then likely would be no education system for the poor as worthless as it has become. One of the problems with education in America is that there is no even dispensing of the funding thus districts that have little income are left out while the wealthier district reap the benefits. As to the trade school aspect, when I was in school back in the 40's, and 50's, we had shop class where we learned how to work with wood, metal, pottery, electronics, etc. Those programs are gone now largely because the right wing eliminated the funding for such.
I think you need to answer this one for yourself. I stand by my post.
Now to a thinking person who wasn't angry, that statement I made was telling you what you were asking Dog to reveal..was wrong..
The issue of poverty is one that we conservatives don’t spend much time addressing. For many of us, our religious faith convicts us to volunteer our time, skills, and financial resources toward ending poverty in our neighborhoods. But, The Word of God entitles no one, not even the poorest person, to something he's unwilling to work for. I didn't say "unable," but unwilling. When you and others want to defend state compulsion as "charity," You start calling others non Christian ..your words are nothing I haven't heard a thousands times, you just say them with more hate..
The traditional liberal solution to poverty is redistribution. If we only take more from the greedy rich, and give it to the poor, the thinking goes, we can eradicate poverty. But almost 50 years since LBJ first declared war on poverty, in many respects we’re worse off than when we started. As a conservative, I am very cynical and skeptical about government social services because, they are inefficient and fraught with waste and abuse.. they are often ineffective, and beyond ineffective, they can be detrimental to the people they allege to help... and it’s hard not to see these programs as a political scheme intended to ensnare a permanent class of Democratic voters.
Realizing that there will never be a end to poverty, as Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you” — it’s time to start looking for other solutions, solutions that encourage human flourishing, preserve the dignity of all persons, and empower individuals and communities to take responsibility for their own lives. From what I’ve learned of it so far, theFamily Independence Initiative (F.I.I.) appears to be a great approach that encompasses all these critical components. Maybe try something like this on a larger scale..
Last edited:
Werbung:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Again you deflect from answering the question with your lies of hate.
Problem is most do not do such, and that especially applies to the modern day leaders of "christianity"
Problem you have here is using the word "unwilling" to justify the greed of those who pay the worker. When one who actually works for a living cannot earn enough in working 2, or 3, jobs, to even be required to pay taxes, while the CEO takes home millions off the labor of the working man, you would support granting more welfare to the wealthy. In fact, and as I have shown before, the wealthy are the ones who actually benefit in the end from the welfare programs. The poor receive temporary relief while the wealthy own the sources the poor must spend that temporary relief at
Truth to you is "hate speech" as I have shown to you before. And I do not say you are not a "christian", I do say Trump is not and perhaps that is what you are feeding off from, but as to you I have called you a "carnal christian", or a "babe in the word of God", a hypocrite, and like in this thread, a liar.
Yep. More people are in poverty today, and that began with the tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan, and his attacks on trade unions. Then we had Clinton with the trade agreements that sent jobs out of country. Then Bush43 and his allowing China to enter the WTO, and more jobs were lost, and then there was the war in the ME which created the troubles we see there, and then there was the recession, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and a cutting of programs that help the poor. Corporations, and banks, were bailed out, and yet the middle class lost 7 trillion dollars of wealth while the top 10% saw an 11 trillion dollar increase in wealth.
So, basically you have waste and greed, on the right wing side, and you have waste, and compassion, on the left hand side. For some reason when I read where Christ told the wealthy to sell what they have to help the poor, or where He said that the wealthy were given their wealth by God to help the poor, or when He said that the widowwaho gave two mites as compared to the wealthy who gave greater amounts, that she had actually given more, or when we are taught that out of our abundance we are to help others that there might be an equality of wealth, and neither the wealthy, nor the poor, are to be burdened, then I would believe that Christ did not support the "conservative" point of view which would allow the poor to starve.
That is true hatred, and greed.
It is still government funded. And if there are no jobs for the poor to work at, or if the wealthy control the market driving the small business entrepreneur out of the market, it will not succeed, and is probably a major reason why it has not been done save for a few local enterprises. Until you, and the millions like you, accept the teachings of God, and ignore the "promises" of Satan, nothing will change.
https://www.newamerica.org/asset-building/policy-papers/the-family-independence-initiative/
Similar threads
