Joni Ernst thinks churches are enough...

[Czernobog]

In audio obtained by Iowa Public Radio, Senate hopeful Joni Ernst told a group of reporters that the reason Republicans oppose Obamacare is because the job of caring for the poor is simply not the purview of government. The poor, she said, should rely on churches and charitable organizations for help.

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”​

Iowa’s Joni Ernst: Obamacare is bad because people should rely on churches for help
This is precisely why I have always said that it is more important to learn history than to be fed propaganda in the form of selective histprical events designed to promote an agenda.

There are a couple of small problems with Ms. Ernst' opinions. First, there are still food pantries (we call them food banks) all across this nation.

Second, apparently Ms. Ernst isn't aware that the problem was never that we "have gotten away from" going to churches, and private organizations for help. The problem was that the churches, and private organizations simply weren't enough. When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family. Something had to be done to stem the catastrophe.
However, the problem wasn't just one of swelling numbers; it was also one of ideology. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn’t take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply. In addition to this general prejudice toward the poor, local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.


Finally it became clear that a national solution was needed for a national problem. Thus the Federal Welfare System was born.

Guess what? Private charities are still not enough. Many of the same prejudices still exist against the poor. For evidence of this, one need look no further than John Boehner's comments about "lazy people" as he went off for his three-month vacation.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply. In addition to this general prejudice toward the poor, local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

What's wrong with the above? You realize that government doesn't have money of its own, right? If some people are being discriminated against, then another group can form in response and offer to care for them. As for the single mothers, there are two dynamics in play, there is the issue of how to help her and there is the issue of preventing other women from becoming single mothers. Helping single mothers lessens the stigma and sends the signal to women on the margin that if they become single mothers that they can count on community sympathy to provide them with aid. This results in aid provided to one mother signaling to future single mothers that they too will be provided for. The counter response is to provide no aid to single mothers, thereby harming them, but saving young women on the margin from following the single mother path because they see that no one will be sympathetic to their plight.

Liberals don't seem to have a problem with socially sanctioning racists, sexists and anti-sodomites so why are you up in arms about normal people trying to social sanction out of wedlock birth?

Good for Joni Ernst. She understands that a community that is taxed less can then take care of its own. Some one has to finally yell stop at the totalitarian Left's efforts to push government into every damn nook and cranny of life. Look at California - the government isn't merely in people's bedrooms now, it's coaching and monitoring compliance of people during the act of sex.

 

[Katzndogz]

Churches and private charities are usually closer to the problem than Washington DC. When someone is too disabled to work then goes skiing for a week they know it.

 

[Czernobog]

Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply. In addition to this general prejudice toward the poor, local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

What's wrong with the above? You realize that government doesn't have money of its own, right? If some people are being discriminated against, then another group can form in response and offer to care for them. As for the single mothers, there are two dynamics in play, there is the issue of how to help her and there is the issue of preventing other women from becoming single mothers. Helping single mothers lessens the stigma and sends the signal to women on the margin that if they become single mothers that they can count on community sympathy to provide them with aid. This results in aid provided to one mother signaling to future single mothers that they too will be provided for. The counter response is to provide no aid to single mothers, thereby harming them, but saving young women on the margin from following the single mother path because they see that no one will be sympathetic to their plight.

Wow...thank you for making my point for me. This is the very attitude that created the dearth making it impossible for private charities to work in the first place. After all, there isn't a great deal of incentive to "donate' to charities to help people with "problems they brought on themselves". Thus, Private charities will never have the resources to deal with hunger, and the poor on their own.

Liberals don't seem to have a problem with socially sanctioning racists, sexists and anti-sodomites so why are you up in arms about normal people trying to social sanction out of wedlock birth?

You're right. We want to socially sanction the violation of people's individual liberties. You want to socially sanction what you perceive to be people's moral short-comings. The fact that you would even need to ask the difference means that you will never understand the answer, anyway.

Good for Joni Ernst. She understands that a community that is taxed less can then take care of its own. Some one has to finally yell stop at the totalitarian Left's efforts to push government into every damn nook and cranny of life. Look at California - the government isn't merely in people's bedrooms now, it's coaching and monitoring compliance of people during the act of sex.

Except her understanding has no basis in reality, or historical evidence to support it. Even when it was "less taxed", communities either couldn't afford, or just didn't care, to help the poor (I'll let you decide which). Which is why Churches asked the Federal government to get involved. And, as your own attitude during this post demonstrates, the very attitudes that contributed to private charities lack of resources for dealing with the problem during the depression still exist today, and would continue to cause them to be unable to deal with the problem.

 

[Czernobog]

Churches and private charities are usually closer to the problem than Washington DC. When someone is too disabled to work then goes skiing for a week they know it.

"Closer to the problem" is not even close to "have the resources necessary to deal with the problem".

 

[Rikurzhen]

Wow...thank you for making my point for me. This is the very attitude that created the dearth making it impossible for private charities to work in the first place. After all, there isn't a great deal of incentive to "donate' to charities to help people with "problems they brought on themselves". Thus, Private charities will never have the resources to deal with hunger, and the poor on their own.

Sure they will. All we have to do is to teach liberals to be charitable and to prevent them from deluding themselves into believing that the below is an expression of charity:

Government doesn't have it's own money. When you rob me of my money, then you prevent me from doing what I think is good with my money. Use your own money to help those I don't want to help.

You're right. We want to socially sanction the violation of people's individual liberties. You want to socially sanction what you perceive to be people's moral short-comings. The fact that you would even need to ask the difference means that you will never understand the answer, anyway.

You're confused. You're not socially sanctioning the violation of people's individual liberties, you're socially sanctioning the expression of people's individual liberties.

Secondly, are you trying to tell me that you don't see racists as having moral shortcomings? It sure looks like you do and you're socially sanctioning people all the damn time. Look at how you totalitarians socially sanctioned the CEO of Mozilla, Dr. James Watson, Dr. Jason Richwine, Dr. Helmut Nyborg, Dr. Larry Summers.

And, as your own attitude during this post demonstrates, the very attitudes that contributed to private charities lack of resources for dealing with the problem during the depression still exist today, and would continue to cause them to be unable to deal with the problem.

Using the depression as a case study doesn't tell us anything. The alternative was to declare a national emergency, impose the soup kitchens until such time as the Depression ended, and then undo the soup kitchen program. Liberals though didn't want that, they wanted a permanent welfare state.

Look, we understand your game, destroy all centers of community so that only government is left standing and facing no competition. Destroy community, destroy churches, destroy extended family networks, destroy nuclear families, and then everyone can only rely on government. The way to fight you totalitarians is to prevent you from locking in gains after you win a round of destruction. If you want charity to flourish again, then work on building up the religiosity that you destroyed, work at building church communities, work on reducing out of wedlock birth, work on increasing the marriage rate, work on creating larger families, work on building up fraternal organizations, work on creating a culture of support through extended family networks. None of that should be objectionable if you actually desire a more caring and supportive society, it's only objectionable if you want to increase the size and scope of government for each of these endeavors creates less reliance on government and so weakens the efforts to expand government.

 

[Czernobog]

Wow...thank you for making my point for me. This is the very attitude that created the dearth making it impossible for private charities to work in the first place. After all, there isn't a great deal of incentive to "donate' to charities to help people with "problems they brought on themselves". Thus, Private charities will never have the resources to deal with hunger, and the poor on their own.

Sure they will. All we have to do is to teach liberals to be charitable and to prevent them from deluding themselves into believing that the below is an expression of charity:

Government doesn't have it's own money. When you rob me of my money, then you prevent me from doing what I think is good with my money. Use your own money to help those I don't want to help.

Taxes are not "robbing you of your money". You don't like how some of your tax dollars are spent? Well, guess what? neither do I. Tough shit. You don't get to pick and choose how your tax dollars are spent, like off of a menu, any more than I do.

You're right. We want to socially sanction the violation of people's individual liberties. You want to socially sanction what you perceive to be people's moral short-comings. The fact that you would even need to ask the difference means that you will never understand the answer, anyway.

You're confused. You're not socially sanctioning the violation of people's individual liberties, you're socially sanctioning the expression of people's individual liberties.

Bullshit. Your right to "express your liberties" end at my nose sparky. So, when your "expression of your liberties" has the effect of denying me my liberties, guess who's wrong?

And, as your own attitude during this post demonstrates, the very attitudes that contributed to private charities lack of resources for dealing with the problem during the depression still exist today, and would continue to cause them to be unable to deal with the problem.

Using the depression as a case study doesn't tell us anything. The alternative was to declare a national emergency, impose the soup kitchens until such time as the Depression ended, and then undo the soup kitchen program. Liberals though didn't want that, they wanted a permanent welfare state.

Again, bullshit. You say that like that "alternative" was suggested. the fact is, no one was doing anything, until 1935. The emphasis during the first two years of President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was to provide work relief for the millions of unemployed Americans. Federal money flowed to the states to pay for public works projects, which employed the jobless. Some federal aid also directly assisted needy victims of the Depression. The states, however, remained mainly responsible for taking care of the so-called “unemployables” (widows, poor children, the elderly poor, and the disabled). But states and private charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these people at a time when tax collections and personal giving were declining steeply. It wasn't until the 1935 State of the Union address that Roosevelt finally Roosevelt declared, “the time has come for action by the national government” to provide “security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life.” So, please don't act as if Progressives rushed to create a "permanent welfare state". Furthermore, most of the "New Deal" was meant to be temporary. You know who made it permanent? That would have been a Republican - Dwight D Eisenhower, with the Welfare Act of 1953.

If you're going to go pointing fingers, you should, at least, know your history. As I said in the OP, this is why learning history as opposed to propaganda to support an agenda kinda matters.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Taxes are not "robbing you of your money".

Of course they're robbing me of my own money. Government will use violence against me to take my money if I don't comply. Secondly, even die-hard libertarians understand that taxes are necessary, so the necessity of taxes is not being disputed in that we all have to pay for the public goods that government provides, such as policing, border control, national defense, courts, etc. The actual thievery is to steal from me and to give to others. You're enslaving people to work for the benefit of others.

Bullshit. Your right to "express your liberties" end at my nose sparky. So, when your "expression of your liberties" has the effect of denying me my liberties, guess who's wrong?

Sorry to break it to you toots, but you don't have any right to associate with me if I choose not to associate with you no matter how much you try to dress up the high falutin arguments and paint forced association as some kind of human right. When you force your association on to me, then your liberties are intersecting with my nose and so are now a violation of my liberty.

Furthermore, most of the "New Deal" was meant to be temporary. You know who made it permanent? That would have been a Republican - Dwight D Eisenhower, with the Welfare Act of 1953.

Yeah, a nearly 20 year "temporary" program.

 

[Czernobog]

Taxes are not "robbing you of your money".

Of course they're robbing me of my own money. Government will use violence against me to take my money if I don't comply. Secondly, even die-hard libertarians understand that taxes are necessary, so the necessity of taxes is not being disputed in that we all have to pay for the public goods that government provides, such as policing, border control, national defense, courts, etc. The actual thievery is to steal from me and to give to others. You're enslaving people to work for the benefit of others.

You're equivocating. As a pacifist, using my taxes to murder people in unnecessary wars offends me. However, I do not get to insist that my money not be "robbed" from me to pay to "murder" people. That is because I do not get to pick, and choose how my taxes get used. Neither do you. Don't like, don't pay your taxes. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Bullshit. Your right to "express your liberties" end at my nose sparky. So, when your "expression of your liberties" has the effect of denying me my liberties, guess who's wrong?

Sorry to break it to you toots, but you don't have any right to associate with me if I choose not to associate with you no matter how much you try to dress up the high falutin arguments and paint forced association as some kind of human right. When you force your association on to me, then your liberties are intersecting with my nose and so are now a violation of my liberty.

And I don't know of anyone who is forcing you to have personal associations with anyone else, sparky. So, your complaint is without basis.

Furthermore, most of the "New Deal" was meant to be temporary. You know who made it permanent? That would have been a Republican - Dwight D Eisenhower, with the Welfare Act of 1953.

Yeah, a nearly 20 year "temporary" program.

Welfare Act of 1953 - Dwight D. Eisenhower - Republican. You can blame the welfare system on Progressives if you like, but that simply ignores history.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You're equivocating. As a pacifist, using my taxes to murder people in unnecessary wars offends me.

I'm not equivocating. National defense is the actual function, the primary function, of government. When our government goes to war it does so for all of us, whether we agree with the decision or not. We all bear the moral cost of the destruction that follows, we all bear the risk to our lives and property, we all stand together to protect or to fight. That's government.

What you totalitarians do is you trade on the experience of public goods, aspects of government that benefit us all - police presence paid by taxes reduces crime for the entire community, the benefit doesn't just flow to a crime victim who sees justice when the criminal is caught or for the person whom the police helped in a moment of need - the police who are helping me at one particular moment also help you at that moment by keeping society safer. You take this concept and use it to fund personal consumption. When one citizen gets public housing then other citizens don't benefit. Personal goods are different from public goods.

Me paying for your hemorrhoid operation doesn't benefit me, it only benefits you. Me paying for a police department that I never use but which is helping you with a robbery or assault case benefits both you and me. When you force me to pay for your hemorrhoid operation you enslave me - I have to work so that you can have the benefit of my work. That's immoral. We fought a Civil War to end such slavery.

And I don't know of anyone who is forcing you to have personal associations with anyone else, sparky. So, your complaint is without basis.

If I don't want to hire a Muslim to work in my business, totalitarian liberals are going to force me to hire the Muslim. If I don't want to bake a "wedding" cake for homosexuals, totalitarian liberals will force me to do so.

 

[Manonthestreet]

With libertarian out seems libs have gone into full panic mode on this one

 

[Czernobog]

You're equivocating. As a pacifist, using my taxes to murder people in unnecessary wars offends me.

I'm not equivocating. National defense is the actual function, the primary function, of government. When our government goes to war it does so for all of us, whether we agree with the decision or not. We all bear the moral cost of the destruction that follows, we all bear the risk to our lives and property, we all stand together to protect or to fight. That's government.

What you totalitarians do is you trade on the experience of public goods, aspects of government that benefit us all - police presence paid by taxes reduces crime for the entire community, the benefit doesn't just flow to a crime victim who sees justice when the criminal is caught or for the person whom the police helped in a moment of need - the police who are helping me at one particular moment also help you at that moment by keeping society safer. You take this concept and use it to fund personal consumption. When one citizen gets public housing then other citizens don't benefit. Personal goods are different from public goods.

Me paying for your hemorrhoid operation doesn't benefit me, it only benefits you. Me paying for a police department that I never use but which is helping you with a robbery or assault case benefits both you and me. When you force me to pay for your hemorrhoid operation you enslave me - I have to work so that you can have the benefit of my work. That's immoral. We fought a Civil War to end such slavery.

Except it does benefit you. You see, the hospital is going to give me my hemorrhoid surgery - it has to by law. Now, either I have insurance, pay in cash, or the bill never gets paid. Now, when the latter happens, because I simply cannot afford it, guess who that cost gets passed onto, anyway. So, you are going to pay for my hemorrhoid. The only decision you have to make is whether you would like to accept the fact that a few dollars of your taxes gets combined with everyone else's to do it, or would you rather see your own insurance costs continue to skyrocket, because the healthcare industry is going to make up those losses where they can. Personally, I think the more intelligent decision is to accept that taxes do what they do.

And I don't know of anyone who is forcing you to have personal associations with anyone else, sparky. So, your complaint is without basis.

If I don't want to hire a Muslim to work in my business, totalitarian liberals are going to force me to hire the Muslim. If I don't want to bake a "wedding" cake for homosexuals, totalitarian liberals will force me to do so.

Ah, but you see, now you are no longer talking about your individual right of association. Now you are talking about using a public accommodation to systemically discriminate. That you don't get to do. And, just so we're clear, that isn't some progressive conspiracy; that was the ruling of the Supreme Court concerning the 14th amendment. Tell you what. You think that ruling was in error? File suit, and bring it up to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that. Lemme know how it works out for ya.

 

[Czernobog]

With libertarian out seems libs have gone into full panic mode on this one

huh?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Except it does benefit you. You see, the hospital is going to give me my hemorrhoid surgery - it has to by law.

Change EMTALA. Done. Appealing to law doesn't win you an argument. If we passed a law which allowed men to rape women then you couldn't claim that you were raped because the law would say otherwise.

So absent EMTALA, hospitals would refuse to treat you unless you could pay for the treatment.

What we're left with is either you pay for your treatment and gain exclusive benefit or you force me to pay for your treatment and you still get exclusive benefit. It's not the job of government to deliver personal benefits to some citizens by robbing others to pay for those benefits.

Government's job is to provide public goods, goods which cannot be provided privately and which also benefit everyone. No one can have a private army to protect the nation and when an army does protect a nation, every citizen benefits from that protection.

Ah, but you see, now you are no longer talking about your individual right of association. Now you are talking about using a public accommodation to systemically discriminate. That you don't get to do.

WE all got to do that up until totalitarians hijacked the system and imposed prohibitions. Like your example above you're simply appealing to law. Dred Scott was law. Civil Asset Forfeiture is currently law. Marriage law was settled for ages and that didn't stop homosexuals from their agenda. So clearly, appealing to law doesn't actually settle a philosophical issue.

 

[Czernobog]

Except it does benefit you. You see, the hospital is going to give me my hemorrhoid surgery - it has to by law.

Change EMTALA. Done. Appealing to law doesn't win you an argument. If we passed a law which allowed men to rape women then you couldn't claim that you were raped because the law would say otherwise.

So absent EMTALA, hospitals would refuse to treat you unless you could pay for the treatment.

What we're left with is either you pay for your treatment and gain exclusive benefit or you force me to pay for your treatment and you still get exclusive benefit. It's not the job of government to deliver personal benefits to some citizens by robbing others to pay for those benefits.

Government's job is to provide public goods, goods which cannot be provided privately and which also benefit everyone. No one can have a private army to protect the nation and when an army does protect a nation, every citizen benefits from that protection.

Ah, but you see, now you are no longer talking about your individual right of association. Now you are talking about using a public accommodation to systemically discriminate. That you don't get to do.

WE all got to do that up until totalitarians hijacked the system and imposed prohibitions. Like your example above you're simply appealing to law. Dred Scott was law. Civil Asset Forfeiture is currently law. Marriage law was settled for ages and that didn't stop homosexuals from their agenda. So clearly, appealing to law doesn't actually settle a philosophical issue.

In both of your cases, the law is all that matters. You are only arguing that you happen to not like the law. Well, if you think you have a valid argument for having the law challenged, then challenge it. If not, well, then, just like the rest of us, you have only two choices: follow the law, or choose to leave for a place with laws more to your liking.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In both of your cases, the law is all that matters.

In an discussion of principles, appeals to law are irrelevant.

-Slavery is wrong!
-The Dred Scott decision says it's lawful. I win.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“There are a couple of small problems with Ms. Ernst' opinions.”

More than a couple, and they're certainly not small.

But this naïve, simplistic, and errant perception of poverty and public assistance is common among most of the reactionary right.

 

[AntiParty]

In audio obtained by Iowa Public Radio, Senate hopeful Joni Ernst told a group of reporters that the reason Republicans oppose Obamacare is because the job of caring for the poor is simply not the purview of government. The poor, she said, should rely on churches and charitable organizations for help.

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”​

Iowa’s Joni Ernst: Obamacare is bad because people should rely on churches for help
This is precisely why I have always said that it is more important to learn history than to be fed propaganda in the form of selective histprical events designed to promote an agenda.

There are a couple of small problems with Ms. Ernst' opinions. First, there are still food pantries (we call them food banks) all across this nation.

Second, apparently Ms. Ernst isn't aware that the problem was never that we "have gotten away from" going to churches, and private organizations for help. The problem was that the churches, and private organizations simply weren't enough. When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family. Something had to be done to stem the catastrophe.
However, the problem wasn't just one of swelling numbers; it was also one of ideology. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn’t take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply. In addition to this general prejudice toward the poor, local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.


Finally it became clear that a national solution was needed for a national problem. Thus the Federal Welfare System was born.

Guess what? Private charities are still not enough. Many of the same prejudices still exist against the poor. For evidence of this, one need look no further than John Boehner's comments about "lazy people" as he went off for his three-month vacation.

That's a very basic debate of many topics today, "The Church is Enough".

America needs to decide. Must be a hard decision for the "Freedom of Religion" folk that don't believe in Christianity. Should people fake being Christian to get care?

I have an ACTUAL family member that has major medical issues. The church offers to pay for a nights stay in a hotel. Nothing more, and for good reason. The 1% Doctors that rely on Insurance don't care about costs. A 1 hour Physical Therapy session recently cost us 5k. An ambulance ride to a major hospital cost us 10k. This is only the tip of the iceberg. No charity church can survive paying the prices the 1%ers charge........well, maybe 1, if they sold their fish tank
Largest Private Aquarium in a Church - Be Known for Something Effective Church Communications Be Known for Something Effective Church Communications

I'm sure the Church use to be able to purchase the medicines and treatment in 1950. But this is Corporate America we are talking about. And again, why force someone to be Christian to get care? Christianity is loving everyone, not just Christians.

 

[Rikurzhen]

[ And again, why force someone to be Christian to get care? Christianity is loving everyone, not just Christians.

You don't. Liberals are widely known in their own minds to be very generous people, so you rely on them to help you.

You understand that government doesn't actually have any money, or generate it's own money, it takes it from us. You get that, right? So what happens to everyone's finances when government stops taking so much of our money?

 

[AntiParty]

[ And again, why force someone to be Christian to get care? Christianity is loving everyone, not just Christians.

You don't. Liberals are widely known in their own minds to be very generous people, so you rely on them to help you.

You understand that government doesn't actually have any money, or generate it's own money, it takes it from us. You get that, right? So what happens to everyone's finances when government stops taking so much of our money?

You are clearly poor.

The poor blaming the Government is legit. You just think it's Big Gov. when it's not. Take 5 minutes out of your day to see who runs the Federal Reserve. Take 5 minutes out of your day to see who took a vacation after a Federal Bail-Out.

You are correct, It's at the Federal Level. You just don't understand Citizens United yet. And you clearly don't know what "Liberal" as a term means, but that's on everyone in today's politics.

Why do large Corporations have a lower tax rate than the poor? Why are they getting Billions Back in taxes?

Why is our Government making video games and taxing the poor people like you for the cost?

Because poor people are generally uneducated and they all blame Obama.

Let me edit, "A liberal amount of help" yep. That applies to Christianity and the laws passed by the people of the United States of America.