1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Which Party's policys are likely to increase the number of abortions?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Paragraph and line beginning 'However...'.
     
    #21 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  2. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would such a family immediately fall into poverty upon the husband losing his job?

    In the U.S. a laid off worker gets 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

    Ditto

    You seem to have no concept of how deep and wide the safety net is in the U.S.

    99 weeks of unemployment benefits
    Welfare
    Food stamps
    Bridge cards (debit cards)
    Free breakfast and lunch at schools (often when school is out for vacation)
    Tax credits that are refunds of taxes never ever paid
    Subsidized transporatation
    Subsidized home heating
    Subsidized housing
    Free cell phones
    Free internet access

    The list is endless.
     
    #22 targus, Oct 9, 2012
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Do you agree though that the Republicans' policies aim to reduce the width and depth of that safety net.

    Also, children tend to stick around for a bit longer than 99 weeks, as can unemployment during a recession.
     
    #23 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, Maybe you are ignorant of some facts. If we stopped all spending on all Military, the judiciary both houses of congress in fact everything except entitlements we still could not balance the budget. The Entitlements in this country far exceed the amount of revenue being taken in. This is not sustainable and we cannot stop spending in those other areas. Be sure you know all the details before speaking on a subject.
     
    #24 Revmitchell, Oct 9, 2012
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    It's not a matter of ignorance of facts, as you so eirenically put it, but a difference of opinion as to the priorities when you have both a downturn and a deficit. We are faced with the same dilemma in the UK. The likes of Greece got themselves into a mess by over-extending themselves fiscally but, now they are in this mess, their attempts at fiscal consolidation (ie: cuts) are making the situation worse by deepening the recession there. It's a moot economic point as to whether such policies would have beneficial or detrimental effects in the UK or US...
     
    #25 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  6. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many who abuse the safety net.

    The government taxpayer support of the poor exceeds the need in many areas.

    Many people who are not in true need simply play the system.

    Should no program ever be cut even though it may be wasteful and inefficient?
     
    #26 targus, Oct 9, 2012
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wow! Let's see how can I reword this. We cannot afford, as a country, the unsustainable and current level of welfare programs. It doesn't matter what the need is. We cannot afford it. We have to cut back. That is what we are trying to do.
     
    #27 Revmitchell, Oct 9, 2012
  8. Zaac

    Zaac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    222
    Very good post Matt. I fear that Republicans are being pimped by the party with abortion. You rarely see anybody in the party making it a national issue until there's an election.

    I would like to know what all these folks are doing about abortion during that down time because for an issue they pretend to care so much about, the party doesn't seem to REALLY be doing much at all about it other than using it as a bullet point every four years as to why conservatives should support them and not the Democrats.
     
    #28 Zaac, Oct 9, 2012
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    It's pretty much the same here, but should we risk penalising those in genuine need in order to cut out those who abuse the system?
     
    #29 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  10. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would that be the case?

    Is it not possible to determine the level of need based on verified information provided by the person seeking assistance?
     
    #30 targus, Oct 9, 2012
  11. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    An example from over here which I suspect you have over there too:

    We have an underclass of young women who are in effect professional welfare claimants. They have large numbers of children, often by different fathers, starting whilst they are still at school, and they have no jobs or any intention of finding jobs; reproduction is their sole achievement in life. They get an uplift in welfare payment every time they have a new child, assessed on their need. A crude caricature, perhaps, but based on at least a degree of truth.

    The government here is seeking to limit the payment of child welfare benefit, partly in response to the above examples and also to reduce our deficit. It proposes to freeze welfare payments after Child #3 is born ie: any more children you pay for yourselves. At first blush, and as a taxpayer, I cheered at the news but, having thought further, I have my qualms. Firstly, whilst it might curb irresponsible behaviour, very probably it won't. Secondly, it's the children who are invariably hit by such cuts, not the parent(s) and such a policy therefore amounts to punishing the children for the sins of the parent(s). Finally, it's a bit of a blunt instrument, a sledgehammer to crack a (admittedly annoying) nut: it would unjustly penalise the sort of family referred to in my OP.
     
    #31 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The government is not the answer to all the worlds woes nor can it effectively resolve it. Marxism creates lazy people who lack enough imagination to address these issues in a real and reasonable way. It warps the brain.
     
    #32 Revmitchell, Oct 9, 2012
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    What would your answer be then to those in genuine need? Your above post is a fine piece of rhetoric but lacks substance in addressing the problems presented by the OP.
     
    #33 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2012
  14. Andy T.

    Andy T. Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree with the underlying premise in the OP that government solutions to poverty are the only viable solutions - i.e., that if the gov't spends less on "fighting" poverty, that the poor will do worse under that scenario. Thus, since the initial premise is false, debating Matt on this is a non-starter.
     
    #34 Andy T., Oct 9, 2012
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Same question to you, then: what is your solution to the couple in the OP?
     
    #35 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  16. Zaac

    Zaac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    222
    The answer is supposed to be the Church. But we all know that the Church and the Republican Party or conservative aren't synonymous.

    The Church has the wealth to wipe out need. We just have lost our way and find it more "timely" to build large buildings and hold fall festivals than meet the needs of the poor, the widowed and the orphaned.
     
    #36 Zaac, Oct 9, 2012
  17. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, three, four and even five generations of this is what pretty much created the same problem here.

    In the U.S. the problem was addressed by requiring those on welfare to work, enter a training program and then work in order to collect.

    Free day care was provided so that the children would not be neglected.

    The result was a dramatic reduction in the number of people on welfare as many found that they could earn more working than they were receiving on welfare.

    Obama removed the work requirement and we then saw an explosion of people on welfare and food stamps.
     
    #37 targus, Oct 9, 2012
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I know what the answer should be. But it rarely is. The Church failed, pure and simple: a cursory glance at the pages of Charles Dickens' novels tells us that.

    [reply to Zaac; Targus - fine and dandy and three cheers for the suggestion, but it doesn't work in a downturn when the jobs simply aren't there for the recipients to do - 'welfare to work' only works where there is the 'work'.]
     
    #38 Matt Black, Oct 9, 2012
  19. Andy T.

    Andy T. Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seek help from family, church, community. If none of those can help, then put the child up for adoption - plenty of childless couples in the U.S. who would oblige.

    Your OP is faulty and shallow. As is your thinking on this matter. I encourage you to escape from your false assumptions that the gov't is the answer to every question.
     
    #39 Andy T., Oct 9, 2012
  20. Ed B

    Ed B Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0

    Is this because you think the Church will provide an efficient safety net for the poor, widows, and orphans? And if so, won't that consume resources needed to build a new family life center with polished wood floors and a regulation basketball court? Surely you wouldn't suggest letting widows, orphans and the children of the poor fall through the cracks and starve and beg for bread on the streets.

    The church does some work in this area but by and large we have abandoned that calling other than token efforts here and there. Can local congregations pay for the health care needs of widows, orphans and the children of the poor? No, not if it goes beyond simple things and involved hospitalization.

    It is true that the Government should never have had to get into this business to start with. It is one of the callings of the Church. But we dropped the ball and show no real interest in picking it back up on a large enough scale to make government assistance for widows, orphans and the children of the poor unnecessary.
     
    #40 Ed B, Oct 9, 2012
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3
Loading...