Many liberals seem to believe any effort to cut a poverty-related program is hatred of the poor and abandoning Jesus' call to help the poor, the sick, the widow. Bush Republicans seem to think it is fine to cut taxes but not cut any government programs at all as well, but only because it ensures their re-election.
But Jesus didn't advocate government programs to help the sick and poor, he didn't refer them to a bureaucracy. He provided direct relief, he treated them as persons. Charitable organizations, faith-based or secular, do a fine job of helping people, and better than the government. Why not support that structure instead of expecting a massive government bureaucracy siphon off aid dollars and provide inferior service and results?
2006-08-17 09:22:41 · 10 answers · asked by kingstubborn 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Jackson-I am not expecting INDUSTRY to solve those problems either. I am expecting churches and private aid associations to do so. They receive tax exemptions just for such a purpose, they should live up to that purpose.
2006-08-17 10:59:34 · update #1
Steve-Absolutely it is especially not the Federal government's job to wage a "war on poverty." Although I will seem libertarian, which I am not, I do not support school prayer in public schools and do not think the government should certify or license any religous marriages (nor do I think persons married in the church should have to get marriage licenses from the civil authority).
2006-08-17 11:13:24 · update #2
That's interesting - you seem to be suggesting that it's not the job of the government to carry out the values of the Bible. I'm fine with that as long as you're consistent, and oppose such things as school prayer or laws banning gay marriage.
2006-08-17 10:01:00 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, that's part of the Democratic party platform, and not precisely a liberal issue. Most Democrats are liberals, and vice versa. But the two platforms are not always the same on every issue.
Liberals believe that people need to be taken care of. And if private and state agencies don't meet the burden, then the federal government should step in to pick up the slack. But if the needs are being met privately, there is no need for the government to get involved.
Democrats believe that it is the government's responsibility, first and foremost. And if private individuals or organizations help out, that's nice too.
So, this is one of those overlapping issues where the Democratic party platform does not line up with the larger liberal movement.
2006-08-17 09:55:20 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the very reality of the count number is that wages are dependant on the business fee of the artwork carried out. In result: minimum skills = minimum salary. we won't be able to get any of those people out of poverty. the purely those who can attempt it really is themselves. in reality - providing them with loose healthcare eliminates yet another incentitive for those people to strengthen themselves and benefit marketible skills. yet another situation is that the purpose of any subsidy is to improve the quantity of something. Agricultural subsidies improve the quantity of nutrition produced. academic subsidies improve the type of school graduates. An subsidising poverty produces more beneficial undesirable people. I genuinely don't have any situation with helping someone get themselves out of poverty - yet I call for that this be information for them to strengthen themselves, not only yet another handout.
2016-11-05 01:03:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's because liberals see poverty as a societal problem rather than one resulting from individual circumstances which is more often the case.
2006-08-17 09:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by Martin523 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps because, given industry's penchant for child labor, sweat shop conditions, black lung environments, meager pay unless forced, they are unwilling to trust the Forces of Raw Capitalism. BTW, all of those things occurred until business was forced to eliminate them- except for Asia, where they still exist.
As for private charities, like the United Way/Red Cross, have you examined how much of every $ goes for administrative and other expenses?
Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?
2006-08-17 09:42:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. October 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It would be nice if the government didn't have to get involved, but the fact is you just can't trust people to do it themselves. I don't think more government programs can solve anything, but you can't really rely on charity, either.
2006-08-17 09:43:54 · answer #6 · answered by Incorrectly Political 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh my!!! I am not going insane!!! Someone else thinks this too. Thanks for reassuring my sanity before i converted. They think that is the only solution is because it gets them votes. Why do u think they supposdly get the poor votes? The liberals appear as if they will help them. I agree, don't throw money at them. Don't help someone who does not help themselves.
2006-08-17 09:42:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they want to keep them poor and hopefully keep their vote
2006-08-17 09:32:55 · answer #8 · answered by pattycake 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they do.
The problem is compounded when the current administration is doing it as well.
2006-08-17 09:29:58 · answer #9 · answered by profile image 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because it is easier to point them to a government organization, than it is for them to practice what they preach themselves.
2006-08-17 09:29:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋