A new data point on Utah birthrates


Just_A_Guy

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It's really amusing to hear anybody - American or European or otherwise - say, America should do what European countries do, spend more on people instead of military.  Europeans, of course, do not spend on their military because they rely on the American military.  That's why Europeans can go crazy on social programs... which, by the way, is imploding all over Europe.

In any case, the Federal Government exists only for 3 things - 1.) protection of the Bill of Rights, 2.) National Security, 3.) Interstate Commerce.  Anything they do beyond that is vote-buying.  The State Government is the proper venue for social safety nets.  Yet you see as many as 16 states, if not more, operate consistently in the red.  And this with loads of Federal subsidies.

But, that's still irrelevant to the question.  You can say - they should spend on this instead of that.  Well, they don't.  The government is in debt and they can't do programs successfully as evidenced by the problem still unresolved after decades of spending $ to fix it.  YET, you still think the government should be the solution to poverty.  Why is that?  What I'm suspecting is that you want the government to be the solution to the problem even as they suck at it so that they can impose charity at the point of the gun.

 

I'm not certain we are discussing the same thing.  Did you read the three posts I made?  If you are focusing on the money we spend on welfare, (and specifically the government security net programs), read the second post of 3 again, as I'm not sure how your remarks relate to it.  I don't think you've touched upon the immorality I've mentioned in regards to the actual welfare program I discussed there, which makes me think we are discussing two separate items here.

In your second paragraph above, is very different than what the question I answered was.  It wasn't whether it was constitutional, but whether it was moral.  Very different points of view.

The third question you posed is in regards to spending.  Welfare is a very small amount of what the government spends, unless you include other programs in it (the aforementioned Social Security, the Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP programs, or even the defense budget that pays for people to be housed and fed when not waging a war which differs from what it was originally when the Constitution was written, and multiple other facets of the budget).  It relates to what you ask, but without knowing what you personally define as social nets and moral, it is impossible to answer your original question.

In regards to debt, it gets tricky because it's been shown that when the government has a healthy debt the US actually has a better economy, and when it decreases it's debt where it is not as much in debt, it forces the US into a recession or depression in many instances.  I suppose it would depend on whether one considers debt immoral in any instance, or whether they consider causing a recession or depression on purpose moral or immoral.  That's a very tricky question to answer for multiple reasons, and kind of a minefield in regards to a straight yes or no answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not certain we are discussing the same thing.  Did you read the three posts I made?  If you are focusing on the money we spend on welfare, (and specifically the government security net programs), read the second post of 3 again, as I'm not sure how your remarks relate to it.  I don't think you've touched upon the immorality I've mentioned in regards to the actual welfare program I discussed there, which makes me think we are discussing two separate items here.

In your second paragraph above, is very different than what the question I answered was.  It wasn't whether it was constitutional, but whether it was moral.  Very different points of view.

The third question you posed is in regards to spending.  Welfare is a very small amount of what the government spends, unless you include other programs in it (the aforementioned Social Security, the Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP programs, or even the defense budget that pays for people to be housed and fed when not waging a war which differs from what it was originally when the Constitution was written, and multiple other facets of the budget).  It relates to what you ask, but without knowing what you personally define as social nets and moral, it is impossible to answer your original question.

In regards to debt, it gets tricky because it's been shown that when the government has a healthy debt the US actually has a better economy, and when it decreases it's debt where it is not as much in debt, it forces the US into a recession or depression in many instances.  I suppose it would depend on whether one considers debt immoral in any instance, or whether they consider causing a recession or depression on purpose moral or immoral.  That's a very tricky question to answer for multiple reasons, and kind of a minefield in regards to a straight yes or no answer.

We're splitting hairs.  And yes, I read every word.  But you keep missing the point.  I use the word "welfare" as a general term.  Not as what the government defines as welfare.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP are all programs for public welfare.  Nation-building by the military are also programs for public welfare.  Obamacare is public welfare.  Why do you think the government should be responsible for all these?

And no, I don't conflate Constitutional with Moral.  As obviously the case with legalized gay marriage and elective abortion, just because it is Constitutional doesn't mean it is Moral.

The question remains unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

We're splitting hairs.  And yes, I read every word.  But you keep missing the point.  I use the word "welfare" as a general term.  Not as what the government defines as welfare.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP are all programs for public welfare.  Nation-building by the military are also programs for public welfare.  Obamacare is public welfare.  Why do you think the government should be responsible for all these?

And no, I don't conflate Constitutional with Moral.  As obviously the case with legalized gay marriage and elective abortion, just because it is Constitutional doesn't mean it is Moral.

The question remains unanswered.

I stated in regards to the actual Welfare programs, but it seems that you are including a LOT MORE than what is simply the security nets or other items.

From your statement I would assume that you conclude Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP as well as the ACA and Nation building (bases of our military in other nations and other locations) as immoral.

I don't think all of those are immoral items.  I do not think it is immoral for a government to go into debt to support those items as long as it is healthy debt rather than unhealthy debt.  Having NO debt in the US, or close to it, has been shown to actually be absolutely disastrous for the US almost every time we've gotten close to it, to the point of people starving in the streets, people dying of exposure, and all sorts of inhuman and terrible things.  On the otherhand, the US has never had to deal with bankruptcy yet, though California has had to deal with that (though in all honesty, California is one of the largest economies in the world and doesn't seem to be doing so badly economically speaking).

A nation itself is a composition of the morality of those in the nation itself.  I think it is MORAL to care for the elderly, poor, and disabled.  This falls upon the responsibility of the nation itself.  One compass of the nation is how well it does or does not take care of those in these situations. 

The government is, in and of itself, a non-entity.  A Democratic Republic (such as what we live in the US) It is supposed to represent the collective will of the people that compose that nation.  If the collective will of the people is that it is to take care of the poor and needy and it is through that government, I do not view it as immoral, unless the way the PEOPLE are supporting it is immoral.

Hence, any blame of a government of the US ultimately falls back upon the people that government represents.  If one finds things the government does is immoral, ultimately that is because those who back those policies and that government are immoral.

Your question, if I boil it down, is whether it is immoral for a government to provide those items on the behalf of those who it represents, if it cannot afford to pay for it?

As I said previously, that's tricky.  Overall, I would say it is probably immoral, but not because of the government, but due to the immorality of the people who are supporting those policies, directly or indirectly.

With welfare, I gave a direct example of how that type of support is immoral.  The government itself giving out the support is not the immoral portion, nor are those who are receiving the welfare.  The immoral first starts with those employers who rely on that system so that they do not have to support those who work for them.  In a chicken and an egg situation, you can see those employers as one of the PRIMARY REASONS why welfare exists.  When you have people working 50-60 sometimes 80-100 hours a week and STILL not able to support themselves, something is seriously wrong with the employment system that allows this type of abuse from employers.  The Welfare system is something that is lobbied HARD on the behalf of some businesses, and a LOT of that has to do with the fact that as long as they do not have to worry about paying their workers a fair wage, they can pay something far below it because the government then takes up the slack.

This then also reflects OUR immorality.  Shopped at Walmart recently...congratulations, you have NO PLACE to complain about Welfare because you just supported that system.  Our greed for cheap goods is one of the primary factors that drives many of these business practices.  The blame, thus, for immorality is NOT completely on those employers, but the public that empowers those employers to do these types of abuses.  THIS is immoral.  If we had people making enough money so they could provide for themselves, that 34-35% of US citizens on Welfare would shrink to around 5% of Americans on welfare.  That's a HUGE reduction and right around the unemployment numbers.

This can be reflected upon other aspects.  Let's take Social Security.  Social Security as it is, is basically a Ponzi scheme.  I can't say I'm entirely in favor of how it is designed.  I AM in favor of helping our elderly and disabled, and as that is the main way to do it these days, I do not think it is immoral for a normal individual in need to utilize it.  In fact, with how it is designed, I think it may be immoral to deny individual people who need it that benefit.  It used to be that families supported their elderly and disabled.  If your mother could not support herself, YOU took care of her.  You did NOT discard her to the care of someone or something else.  If your brother was mentally disabled, you did NOT discard him to someone else, you took care of him or her.  It was a moral imperative that one takes care of their family.  One who did NOT take care of their family was seen as immoral.  Unfortunately, times and behaviors change.  We would rather buy that latest hot car or large TV than take care of our parents in their old age. 

LIKEWISE, it was upon the elderly to ACCEPT that help from their families.  Pride has entered into our modern society in a fierce way and there are elderly who refuse or would refuse that help even if offered.  Part of the equation in the past was that the Elderly should expect and accept that their family would be there for them and be their support in their old age.

Because of this, and the disintegration of the family unit as it used to be, the elderly were dying (and though not in the numbers they used to, we still have an occasional elderly die from lack of heating and cold exposure, or other items, even in our modern time).  Social Security is the way in place to provide that backup for those who have no means to support themselves.  It is not supposed to make them rich, but to provide a way for them to support themselves at least at a bare minimum when no one else will. 

Unfortunately, the way it was created is basically a Ponzi scheme.  I think that method is not exactly the most moral, but once again, the entire reason Social Security is necessary in the US these days is because the immorality of the populace that allows it.  If we all took care of our elderly and disabled, and the elderly and disabled allowed us to take care of them, Social Security would not be necessary. 

Once again, it is a reflection of the morality of the people.  To accept it on an individual level considering the state of our world today is, in my opinion, moral, even if the backings of it and how it was instituted may not be.

The same would apply to many of the medical programs for the exact same reasons.

The military is far more tricky.  Because of how tricky it can be to address it, I am not going to talk about it here right now.

Overall, one can be perfectly moral and even more righteous than many around them (the Lord in his mortal ministry at times noted how much easier it is for the poor to obtain heaven than for the rich) and utilize these social programs of government aid in their life.  The LDS church utilizes it in many locations.

However, that may not mean the way or reasons they are there are exactly moral.  I feel this is a direct reflection on the morality of the society they reside in.  Even in the Days of Joseph Smith it was noted that the people there were as evil as they were in the days of Noah (think about what happened to them).

It is much later and the people are even more wicked and evil today.  It is probably like the Book of Mormon times that when the Lord came to America, it wasn't the righteous who were saved, as there were almost no righteous living at that time.  It was merely those who were less wicked that everyone else.

I feel we live in a perilous time very similar to that today.  It isn't that we are righteous, we just happen to not be as wicked as everyone else.

That brings us back to your original question.  I think it is HIGHLY moral, in fact a moral imperative to take care of our elderly and disabled, and a commandment from the Lord to look after our poor and needy so that there is no poor among us.  We need to do this one way or the other.  It is a commandment and when we do NOT do this, we are joining all those who fight against the commandments of the Lord.  It does not matter WHAT excuse we make up, we are still in the wrong.

HOWEVER, it may matter HOW we do this.  I think it is moral for a government to provide aid to their citizens.  That aid should normally try to be within the restraints of reasonable spending.  It should not be done in support of corrupt men who exploit those in need (such as in my welfare example above, or in the disintegration of the family that ensures people have to use Social security in many instances).  When faced with situations in dealing with where we are at today, where spending is rapidly outstripping that of monies coming in, a moral look would be to see how to change that aspect to one that is more healthy and reasonable.  We have done that in the past consistently (even up to 2000), and I would say we can do it again.  I have my own ideas of how that might be done, but that isn't within the confines of the question you asked.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not think it is immoral for a government to go into debt to support those items as long as it is healthy debt rather than unhealthy debt.

You made a lot of good points, however, on this issue, I definitely disagree.  Debt is semi equivalent to slavery.  If the government was fully abiding the principles of righteousness from the beginning we would be able to eventually be debt free and then have a surplus in order to provide for the people in times of need.

Consider the history of the Church, while the church was in debt for a time, it was nearly on the brink of financial ruin before sufficient membership began paying an honest full tithe and the church began to operate at a surplus over time.  The church now operates in a surplus of Billions.

That being said, while there is no such thing as 'healthy' debt, I would concede that it can be argued that there are times where there is necessary debt.  However, this country is over 200 years old, debt is no longer classifiable as necessary, both at the federal and state level.  The current debt of the US could be classified as stupidity (among other things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I stated in regards to the actual Welfare programs, but it seems that you are including a LOT MORE than what is simply the security nets or other items.

From your statement I would assume that you conclude Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP as well as the ACA and Nation building (bases of our military in other nations and other locations) as immoral.

I don't think all of those are immoral items.  I do not think it is immoral for a government to go into debt to support those items as long as it is healthy debt rather than unhealthy debt.  Having NO debt in the US, or close to it, has been shown to actually be absolutely disastrous for the US almost every time we've gotten close to it, to the point of people starving in the streets, people dying of exposure, and all sorts of inhuman and terrible things.  On the otherhand, the US has never had to deal with bankruptcy yet, though California has had to deal with that (though in all honesty, California is one of the largest economies in the world and doesn't seem to be doing so badly economically speaking).

A nation itself is a composition of the morality of those in the nation itself.  I think it is MORAL to care for the elderly, poor, and disabled.  This falls upon the responsibility of the nation itself.  One compass of the nation is how well it does or does not take care of those in these situations. 

The government is, in and of itself, a non-entity.  A Democratic Republic (such as what we live in the US) It is supposed to represent the collective will of the people that compose that nation.  If the collective will of the people is that it is to take care of the poor and needy and it is through that government, I do not view it as immoral, unless the way the PEOPLE are supporting it is immoral.

Hence, any blame of a government of the US ultimately falls back upon the people that government represents.  If one finds things the government does is immoral, ultimately that is because those who back those policies and that government are immoral.

Your question, if I boil it down, is whether it is immoral for a government to provide those items on the behalf of those who it represents, if it cannot afford to pay for it?

As I said previously, that's tricky.  Overall, I would say it is probably immoral, but not because of the government, but due to the immorality of the people who are supporting those policies, directly or indirectly.

With welfare, I gave a direct example of how that type of support is immoral.  The government itself giving out the support is not the immoral portion, nor are those who are receiving the welfare.  The immoral first starts with those employers who rely on that system so that they do not have to support those who work for them.  In a chicken and an egg situation, you can see those employers as one of the PRIMARY REASONS why welfare exists.  When you have people working 50-60 sometimes 80-100 hours a week and STILL not able to support themselves, something is seriously wrong with the employment system that allows this type of abuse from employers.  The Welfare system is something that is lobbied HARD on the behalf of some businesses, and a LOT of that has to do with the fact that as long as they do not have to worry about paying their workers a fair wage, they can pay something far below it because the government then takes up the slack.

This then also reflects OUR immorality.  Shopped at Walmart recently...congratulations, you have NO PLACE to complain about Welfare because you just supported that system.  Our greed for cheap goods is one of the primary factors that drives many of these business practices.  The blame, thus, for immorality is NOT completely on those employers, but the public that empowers those employers to do these types of abuses.  THIS is immoral.  If we had people making enough money so they could provide for themselves, that 34-35% of US citizens on Welfare would shrink to around 5% of Americans on welfare.  That's a HUGE reduction and right around the unemployment numbers.

This can be reflected upon other aspects.  Let's take Social Security.  Social Security as it is, is basically a Ponzi scheme.  I can't say I'm entirely in favor of how it is designed.  I AM in favor of helping our elderly and disabled, and as that is the main way to do it these days, I do not think it is immoral for a normal individual in need to utilize it.  In fact, with how it is designed, I think it may be immoral to deny individual people who need it that benefit.  It used to be that families supported their elderly and disabled.  If your mother could not support herself, YOU took care of her.  You did NOT discard her to the care of someone or something else.  If your brother was mentally disabled, you did NOT discard him to someone else, you took care of him or her.  It was a moral imperative that one takes care of their family.  One who did NOT take care of their family was seen as immoral.  Unfortunately, times and behaviors change.  We would rather buy that latest hot car or large TV than take care of our parents in their old age. 

LIKEWISE, it was upon the elderly to ACCEPT that help from their families.  Pride has entered into our modern society in a fierce way and there are elderly who refuse or would refuse that help even if offered.  Part of the equation in the past was that the Elderly should expect and accept that their family would be there for them and be their support in their old age.

Because of this, and the disintegration of the family unit as it used to be, the elderly were dying (and though not in the numbers they used to, we still have an occasional elderly die from lack of heating and cold exposure, or other items, even in our modern time).  Social Security is the way in place to provide that backup for those who have no means to support themselves.  It is not supposed to make them rich, but to provide a way for them to support themselves at least at a bare minimum when no one else will. 

Unfortunately, the way it was created is basically a Ponzi scheme.  I think that method is not exactly the most moral, but once again, the entire reason Social Security is necessary in the US these days is because the immorality of the populace that allows it.  If we all took care of our elderly and disabled, and the elderly and disabled allowed us to take care of them, Social Security would not be necessary. 

Once again, it is a reflection of the morality of the people.  To accept it on an individual level considering the state of our world today is, in my opinion, moral, even if the backings of it and how it was instituted may not be.

The same would apply to many of the medical programs for the exact same reasons.

The military is far more tricky.  Because of how tricky it can be to address it, I am not going to talk about it here right now.

Overall, one can be perfectly moral and even more righteous than many around them (the Lord in his mortal ministry at times noted how much easier it is for the poor to obtain heaven than for the rich) and utilize these social programs of government aid in their life.  The LDS church utilizes it in many locations.

However, that may not mean the way or reasons they are there are exactly moral.  I feel this is a direct reflection on the morality of the society they reside in.  Even in the Days of Joseph Smith it was noted that the people there were as evil as they were in the days of Noah (think about what happened to them).

It is much later and the people are even more wicked and evil today.  It is probably like the Book of Mormon times that when the Lord came to America, it wasn't the righteous who were saved, as there were almost no righteous living at that time.  It was merely those who were less wicked that everyone else.

I feel we live in a perilous time very similar to that today.  It isn't that we are righteous, we just happen to not be as wicked as everyone else.

That brings us back to your original question.  I think it is HIGHLY moral, in fact a moral imperative to take care of our elderly and disabled, and a commandment from the Lord to look after our poor and needy so that there is no poor among us.  We need to do this one way or the other.  It is a commandment and when we do NOT do this, we are joining all those who fight against the commandments of the Lord.  It does not matter WHAT excuse we make up, we are still in the wrong.

HOWEVER, it may matter HOW we do this.  I think it is moral for a government to provide aid to their citizens.  That aid should normally try to be within the restraints of reasonable spending.  It should not be done in support of corrupt men who exploit those in need (such as in my welfare example above, or in the disintegration of the family that ensures people have to use Social security in many instances).  When faced with situations in dealing with where we are at today, where spending is rapidly outstripping that of monies coming in, a moral look would be to see how to change that aspect to one that is more healthy and reasonable.  We have done that in the past consistently (even up to 2000), and I would say we can do it again.  I have my own ideas of how that might be done, but that isn't within the confines of the question you asked.

Summary of everything you say here.  It is only moral for government to take care of the needy if the people cede over that responsibility to the government.

Many of us do not want to cede that responsibility to the government because we do not believe that the government makes wise decisions as a representative of the will of the people and that government is easily corruptible (as you so detailed above).  We would rather keep the portion of our resources that would have gone to government social welfare programs to send to the Church for fast offerings and the like or manage our own money with our trusted charities.

Therefore, for you and Miav to consider us uncharitable because we don't want to buy into your method of charity, is disingenuous.  And what's more, I personally believe that people who rely on government to solve all their problems will soon face their society's destruction, whether that government is autocratic or democratic.  After all, in a society represented by 5 wolves and 2 sheep, democracy is great unless you're represented by sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Summary of everything you say here.  It is only moral for government to take care of the needy if the people cede over that responsibility to the government.

Many of us do not want to cede that responsibility to the government because we do not believe that the government makes wise decisions as a representative of the will of the people and that government is easily corruptible (as you so detailed above).  We would rather keep the portion of our resources that would have gone to government social welfare programs to send to the Church for fast offerings and the like or manage our own money with our trusted charities.

Therefore, for you and Miav to consider us uncharitable because we don't want to buy into your method of charity, is disingenuous.  And what's more, I personally believe that people who rely on government to solve all their problems will soon face their society's destruction, whether that government is autocratic or democratic.  After all, in a society represented by 5 wolves and 2 sheep, democracy is great unless you're represented by sheep.

That's not really what I said, but it may be what you understood me saying.

In response to each of your paragraphs...

1. Government itself is merely a reflection of the people themselves, if the people (collectively) are moral or immoral.  Sometimes that occurs NOT because of what people SAY they want, but is reflected by immoral actions on their part (supporting welfare because we support a corrupt way of pay and employment, or the disintegration of the family unit).  It is NOT an individual thing or individual decision.  It is a collective reflection of the society itself.  This is true in our time, and was true in the Nephite times (as the people became more wicked and corrupt, that unfortunately also started being reflected in their government).

2. Most people don't pay enough taxes to make a difference in whether the government spends their money or not.  You normally have to be in the top 10% to actually make even a small difference in whether you are supporting government programs or not.  Normally, people don't pay enough to cover the costs of their percentage of the government.  Each person's portion that they pay of the budget would be about 10K a year in Federal taxes just to break even, and then whatever percentage of their state budget divided by the number of people "paying" taxes in that.  Once you get above that range, when you hit about 20K-30K in taxes, you are actually paying for those who pay less taxes or who through exemptions do not pay taxes at all.  I suppose in theory that could occur at 100K if you took NO rebates, no exemptions, no nothing and paid straight up taxes on that 100K (though I do not know why anyone would do that, that's not charity or anything else, but there could be those that do that).

You referred that you would do better with your money.  That may be true. 

I am NOT talking about the 90% who do not have as much of an expendable income.  This is specific.  This is a we for me and those in this situation.  This is not a YOU if you are not in that situation.  As I said, even if you were completely charitable and lets say you made a million a year and donated all but 75K (after taxes)of that to those in need, the elderly, etc, it still doesn't matter whether what you specifically want.  The moral implications are a reflection of society, not individuals in that society.  It is society (a we, as in We the people) that I am referring to in a general sense and to myself.

3. No, I don't consider you uncharitable necessarily (and most likely what I said had nothing to do with you).  I don't think I called you that, but I did refer to LDS people (us) and society that could be more charitable.  In this I was referring to those like me, that could can afford it but choose wants over aid.  If you are one of those, and my situation applies to you, then indirectly I suppose I was stating that.  In my opinion, the REASON these government aid programs exist is because of a society that does NOT act like a terrestrial (much less a celestial) where it ensures there are no poor among them.  We, the people (speaking as a society now, not individuals), are the cause of that through our own choices and immorality.  However, the greater the ability, the greater the offense.  As I tried to show in response to your paragraph 2, very few actually have the funds to do this (though those that do, when you start looking that way, have over 80% of the money in less than 10% of the population).  If you took what the top 75 individuals in the US made each year and had them contribute what they didn't need to help the poor instead of a welfare security net, there would be NO NEED for that government security net in the first place.  Even with taxes, with the sums we are talking about, it is very possible to enact this and have many of these programs go away.  Their greed is a mirror of the entire mindset that pervades those in the arena who make enough money to actually change things in our society (aka, WE, as in we the people).  This is especially prevalent in those who make more money, especially the top 10% and those close to it.  If that is why you have taken offense, because you fall in that group, than I suppose we may have to agree to disagree on this.  Other than that, have no more quarrel with me and go your way in peace.

Even then, I believe I stated right at the beginning, we can all have different opinions and still be good LDS members.  We have different opinions, and what I said is a reflection of my own thoughts in regards to me, those LDS in that type of situation, and society as a group at large (we, as a people, not you as a person).   We can each have different opinions on what is good or bad and all still be good members of the LDS church.  Our differences make us stronger together.  I appreciate your opinion and am glad you have shared it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Therefore, for you and Miav to consider us uncharitable because we don't want to buy into your method of charity, is disingenuous. 

I never said you or anyone else on this forum was uncharitable.  I said we shouldn't  lump all this that are in need into one category. (They are uneducated, they need to work harder, they are selfish, they don't know how to budget) And by doing that we forget Christ call the help those in need. 

Yes, people need to be as educated to their ability, yes they need to work hard, yes they need to be unselfish and need to learn how to budget. But unless you are them you have no idea if they do or don't do all of the above and therefore should not lump them all together.

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, miav said:

I never said you or anyone else on this forum was uncharitable.  I said we should lump all this that are in need into one category. (They are uneducated, they need to work harder, they are selfish, they don't know how to budget) And by doing that we forget Christ call the help those in need. 

Yes, people need to be as educated to their ability, yes they need to work hard, yes they need to be unselfish and need to learn how to budget. But unless you are them you have no idea if they do or don't do all of the above and therefore should not lump them all together.

Yes, you did.  See bolded below.

On 3/28/2017 at 1:22 PM, miav said:

And I can give you *many* examples where this is not true. People who are getting financial aid and still scrapping by and barely makinging, children going hungry. There is not doubt that there are those who abuse the systems. Other DO need help budgeting and or learning what is a need verses a want. But you can't just lump all people into one group and judge them all by that. And that seems to be a major focus in this thread. As I read through this thread it it truly saddens me how many have forgotten or make excuses for Christ call to help the hungry and needy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, miav said:

I guess you misunderstood what I meant @anatess2 and even when I further explained it you still misunderstood. Sigh... oh well

The problem, of course, with the statement "As I read through this thread it it truly saddens me how many have forgotten or make excuses for Christ call to help the hungry and needy." is the interpretation you have of some of our political views (which amount to -- there are better ways to help the hungry and needy than socialism, which is evil and will only make things worse) with willingness and desire to help the hungry and needy. Which is a ridiculous sentiment.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, miav said:

I guess you misunderstood what I meant @anatess2 and even when I further explained it you still misunderstood. Sigh... oh well

Okay, then what did you mean exactly?  I tried to understand your position by asking you a question but you didn't answer so there's nothing more to be gleaned by your position.  Yes, you said not all poor people are lazy.  I don't believe that either.  That doesn't address your sentiment of  "As I read through this thread it it truly saddens me how many have forgotten or make excuses for Christ call to help the hungry and needy."  And as we are talking about helping people through government programs, that to me meant if you don't approve or support those government programs you are making excuses for Christ' call to help the hungry and needy.

Which is kinda ironic that you rightly reprimand those who make blanket assumptions that poor people are lazy by wrongly making blanket assumptions that people who propose limited government are making excuses for Christ's call to help the hungry and needy.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
45 minutes ago, miav said:

I guess you misunderstood what I meant @anatess2 and even when I further explained it you still misunderstood. Sigh... oh well

Sometimes being misunderstood is the fault of the person trying to explain something. 

We (generic usage) like to think that we are fountainheads of wit, clarity and intelligence and that anyone who disagrees with us are simple minded fools. Life isn't like that though. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, miav said:

Again @anatess2 I am. Sorry you misunderstood, I explained what I meant above, I don't think any further explanation is needed.

Very true @MormonGator I probably could have worded it better or explained more. 

 

And I explained how I understood it.  If you really wanted a discussion you would tell me where I was wrong in my understanding.   Or not.  Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, miav said:

@anatess2 Again, I did explain it to you in my initial post this morning, I am sorry you still don't understand what I meant, I don't know how to explain it any better than I did this morning.

Miav, this is your explanation - you think it is wrong to think all poor people are (They are uneducated, they need to work harder, they are selfish, they don't know how to budget) .  Right?

That does not explain this statement:  "As I read through this thread it it truly saddens me how many have forgotten or make excuses for Christ call to help the hungry and needy."   Because the discussion is about helping them through government aid and that is the context that the "lazy, uneducated, work harder, etc." sentiment is placed.

So, you might want to consider that you don't understand me either.  So, if you would engage in the discussion, we can try to understand each other.  Or not.  It's up to you.

 

Okay, I'm editing this post because I was trying to be diplomatic on that post and it's not truly honest.  The honest truth is when you made that bolded statement, I felt that you think I'm one of the many who have forgotten or made excuses.  So, if you can disabuse me of that understanding, it would be better.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
32 minutes ago, miav said:

Very true @MormonGator I probably could have worded it better or explained more. 

 

Don't be to hard on yourself, it's certainly not just a @miav issue. Most people love to blame others for their misunderstandings. Rare is the person that will say "I could have listened or explained better" So you are already one up to many people my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...