Really? Please cite evidence of that in any of these posts. You liberals are amazing. You equate opposition to the nanny state with a lack of "heart for the poor".
As I have cited here before, conservatives in this country... those who oppose big government... give more to charity than liberals who claim moral superiority. The key difference between conservatives and liberals here is that liberals think the indigent should be relieved with OPM while conservatives give of their own.
People are poor for a number of reasons. When the churches and private citizens cared for the poor, they were discriminant. People got a hand up, not a hand out. The truly needy or disabled were helped. The lazy and immoral were not enabled to continue their errant ways.
Bureaucrats and politicians aren't motivated by kindness or charity. They are motivated by job security. They don't discriminate between the needy and the slothful. They discriminate between people who will help them stay in power and those who won't.
The US Gov't has spent billions on Great Society social engineering. What have we gotten? A permanent entitlement class, rampant illegitimacy, crime, divorce, drug abuse, declining school performance,... and according to our government, the percentage of people living in poverty has remained flat.
Excuse me but "Please pull your head out of the sand."
In the US, we have millions of legal and illegal Mexicans. The vast majority of them are filling jobs that "the people" you are talking about turn their nose up at.
I have supervised some of "the people" that have no skills. They literally think that work is beneath them and have no appreciation for the privilege of employment. They were uncooperative. They sought to find out what the minimum expectation was and do no more. At the same time, they complained constantly and had terrible attitudes.
These aren't "skill" deficiencies. They are moral and ethical deficiencies... that aren't going to be solved by gov't sponsored training.
Somehow people have bought into the idea that we have a "right" to a certain standard of living. Immigrants from Mexico and other less wealthy countries do not operate under this misconception.
By contrast, our Mexican temps worked for less money, did easily twice as much work, and never complained. That is why I have mixed emotions on the immigration issue. The Mexicans I knew had more of the American working spirit than Americans do.
You want to know why someone can come to the US without knowing the language or having any particular skill then become successful? They see the opportunities and don't think they are above living in less than comfortable conditions until they can afford better. Many of the "poor" you refer to think that if they can't afford better that someone else should pay for it.
Jesus cares first and foremost for their soul. Jesus never said "Go your way and do whatever you want to do... He said go your way and sin no more". Enabling someone to continue in sinful, self-destructive behavior (which slothfulness and being a poor servant are) is not Christlike, it isn't a fulfillment of the gospel, it isn't even kind...
Actually I am just not deluded by the notion that welfare is the same as charity in any sense.
There is no genuine kindness involved in demanding that government take money from someone else and give it to the poor indiscriminately. That is feigned love at best. That is "love" that says "Something should be done because I have a guilty conscience but I don't want it to be done by me or at my personal expense."
IOW's, you love people so much that you want government to force someone else to give them money because you think they ought to
... nope, you want find that in the commands or example of Christ or anyone in the NT.[ September 27, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
