Biden Perpetuates Stingy Liberal Argument

Yes, it is offensive - Biden is a hypocrite on this, as are many on the left, as studies have shown. They don't really care about the poor, only power.

 

Now you see their REAL "concern" for the un-insured and this "shudda-been-aborted" health care(?) bill.
Now you know why her highness wanted the bill passed "so we can see what's in it".
Now you see why the libs LOVE social programs - it's OP (other people's) money.
Now you can see why the libs won't look at the results of their programs, but just want to spend more on failed policies.

Everything the libs do is, in some manner, increasing gov't interference and control in your life; and if "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN", be doubly cautious, cuz you are about to REALLY get snookered!!!!

 

We should be really careful in our gossip. Charitable giving is a personal issue, and I am against that information being public.

 

What part of capitalist economic doctrine supports giving away money? Why should anyone give money to poor people? If it is evil to support public charity then it is plain stupid to give to private charity unless the charity will increase your personal power base. Unless you are trying to buy your way into Heaven . . . .

 

I think it falls under the category of "It's the thought that counts". In other words, liberals may have good intentions, but either they don't follow through, or if they do, their plan of action doesn't work, or sometimes it exacerbates the situation.

Think Obamacare. Think cap and trade. Think cash for clunkers. There are many other examples...

 

I agree with you. I do my giving in cash when I can and I don't ask for a receipt and expect it to be not recorded. If you were to look at my tax returns you'd see 0% charitable giving.

 

It's easy to be "liberal" with someone elses money.

HankD

 

There was a similar situation when Gore was VP. Not to defend either, but to them, running around with people whose income is in the multi-millions make them feel poor. Yes, I know, I would like to be poor to the tune of $379,178 too.

 

I agree with you. I do my giving in cash when I can and I don't ask for a receipt and expect it to be not recorded. If you were to look at my tax returns you'd see 0% charitable giving.

That's fine for you but I certainly appreciated not having to give the State of Alabama any more tax money than necessary.

 

2000 years ago there was no charity funded by tax money. These days our tax money funds many charities. Paying taxes might cover one's charity obligations.

The most efficient charity might be the Social Security Administration. They claim 3% administration cost.

 

SS was never intended to be a charity. It was a safety net not a retirement account. It is being taken way to far and people are planing their retirements based on it. That is abuse of the system.

 

SS was sold a one leg of a three legged pension system, SS, company pension, and personal savings. It was not an insurance system or a savings plan. 40 quarters of SS credits was supposed to guarantee a SS check at age 65 with the spouse getting half if the primary person died.

Technically, SS might be classified as an annuity. Any current insurance agents out there?

 

The part that allows you to be personally involved in your charity and the choice you have to meet intimate needs according to your own discretion. When you are FORCED to fund something that is inefficient and at the discretion of the few elites in government, you are no longer being charitable; you are just a number. You are not personally involved in the well-being of others. And of course, when you have government middlemen managing the system, they will take their administrative fee.

 

And let's not forget that we are FORCED to fund wonderful charities like Planned Barrenhood. The loving and caring liberal Senate had the opportunity to stop this nonsense. Instead they voted to continue to FORCE everyone to give money to an organization that will do anything to profitize their abortion business, including destroying the lives of young teenage girls.

 

Compare SS and police departments. Before local police departments were invented by Sir Robert Peel, the rich people had to hire body guards to protect them at home and while traveling. The working people and the poor were without protection from routine theft and assault.

Police departments WERE an economical way to bring civil order to the cities. For the last 20 years Americans have spent more on private protection and alarm systems than on the total of all local, county, state, and federal police, combined.

(Especially since the end of red lining in 1964) Almost all high end residential construction is now in gated communities or guarded high rise condos. WE now legally segregate by income instead of legally segregating by skin color.

50 years ago residential burglary was considered the most serious crime because it could end in violence if someone was home. These days in most jurisdictions residential burglary is not investigated by the police but has become an insurance company matter.

Before SS many old people lived in poverty and had to worry about freezing to death in the winter. The lucky poor people (Maybe 15% were 'middle class') lived in county old folks homes which were a living hell. SS is the most successful universal welfare system in the history of the world. Without SS half the old people would be dumpster diving.

Maybe half the money put into police departments should go to SS and Medicare. Would the typical community be much less safe? I don't think so.

 

It's funny you mention that. Last week I spent three days serving on a jury in Circuit Court on an armed burglary case.