Stephen Colbert on America as a Christian nation

That about says it all I think. People can call America a Christian nation if they want, but then they need to actually mean it.

 

What constitutes helping the poor in this context?

 

Through private means and public means.

 

Let's zero in on the "public means" for now. What does that constitute?

 

Americans do help the poor. The poor can afford to have more children than I can, because they automatically get more money from the government for every baby they have.

 

Colbert put it out front; many others are going to keep making 'excuses' for not helping the poor.

 

Minimum wage, progressive taxation, welfare, other programs to aid the poor, etc.

Would you rathe be poor or not poor? Don't think about it too long.

 

We already have millions of people who are paid for not working. What would satisfy Steve Colbert? A nation where no one works? As usual, liberals fail to think things through. Someone has to work and pay taxes to pay for all this. What if all the taxpayers got fed up and stopped working? What's the plan after that?

 

Stephen Colbert and John Stewart--Comedians/Leaders of the Democrat Party......on the #1 Network for Liberal News--Comedy Central.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

If anyone needs a lesson on charity....clearly its the Left in this country.....and all their elected hypocritical blowhards.
.
.
.

 

Absolutely hilarious as always, you know what they say "The Truth" hurts. LOVE STEPHEN! (He should have gone for the "greener" Audi instead of the

 

I like it!

 

I have seen many articles that have said that those who are poorer are more apt to help those less fortunate than themselves than those more well-to-do.

I have yet to see an unbiased account of how much those who make more than $100K a year actually contribute to the poor, or their actual motives for doing so. However, I seem to recall that one informal survey of Salvation Army red kettle donations, and most of the donors were not that well dressed, or seemed to be dressed in a more impoverished manner.

Being a pessimist on this, I tend to believe that those who are richer tend to gravitate to giving money to the poor more for the benefits of the tax breaks they receive than of any actual personal moral requirement to help those less fortunate than them.

 

Yep. The above is why the cold-hearted, tight-fisted, ultra-rightwing Conservative Christians are marginalizing themselves daily.

 

Jesus said that the only way to be perfect is to sel all your possessions and give all of the money made to the poor. and he lived under a vow of poverty.

 

How does anyone know what Jesus actually said? Isn't it claimed that the authors of scripture never met the man?

 

An American Christian who is socially conservative but not also a Christian democrat in favor of a mixed economy and thorough, strong system of welfare often seems to be either inconsistent in the application of their views on account of biases leading them astray from the Lord's moral expectations or do not believe their religious values should carry over to the realm of crafting public policies. It seems kind of common to me for RWA types to wrap themselves in the symbolic and cultural power of Christianity, patriotism, and other conventional labels without fully being some of those things at the very core of their beings. Personally, I have more respect for Christians who bring all their faith's values to the table in politics than those who opt tp present prejudice, anti-egalitarian stances, and market idolatry under a misleading guise.

 

I see your point.

But really, the days of far-right Republicans selling "Christianity" as a way to get 'votes' are about over. People are essentially 'done' with the lies and hypocrisy, and they SHOULD be.

 

Jesus was talking about charity. Not dependency welfare schemes designed to keep the poor where they are. Completely different.

 

It's not up to Jesus, he's been bead for about two thousand years by now.

Now, the politicians, they seem more apt to appease their campaign donors, and screw everyone else.

 

republicans are just jealous

.

 

Welfare doesn't help people. Project housing isn't compassion.

 

I live in what would, in a larger city, be considered akin to "projects". I am disabled, and unable to hold a job at present until my medical conditions improve, having low-income housing allowed me to move out of my parents' house, have my own space, as well as allow me the freedom to do what I want. It isn't a free ride though, there are a lot of regulations which I have to abide by.

So, yes, I would say this "welfare program" did in fact help me, as does my monthly FoodShare, without those, I would not be able to do anything but sit in an empty apartment, stare at the walls, and exist in little better a condition than a prisoner. I use my benefits judiciously and am thankful for them. In time, once I am able to hold a job, I will be demanding my employer take FICA out of my pay check at double the rate of my coworkers.

 

You would be better off with a voucher.

The truly disabled are never part of my posts. I have absolutely no problems there, I feel the people that abuse the system steal from them.

 

How would I be better off with a voucher?

 

You can pick where to live, it sets up incentives for landlords to keep places nice and safe, something lost on government. Some places have this, it depends on where you live in many cases. Vouchers can also be used for transitioning by making them partial. Ideally, a rent voucher system would have no regulation on its use, therefore giving people an incentive to cohabitate, something that government frowns on, but shows leads to prosperity because of enhanced savings ability with to earners.