• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Democrats love poor and helpless Americans

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HGC

Senior member
Dec 22, 1999
605
0
0
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? James 2:15-16
That's a beautiful quote and I agree 100%.

Note that it did not say:

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not take from your neighbor and give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
That's a beautiful quote and I agree 100%.

Note that it did not say:

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you too are poor and do not ask of your neighbor who has much surplus to spare to give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
:hmm: righty bias fix-ded
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
The troll thread about how R's love stupid Americans got me thinking, who do Democrats love? I believe I came up with the answer.
Consequently, might we say that the Republicans love having a large impoverished underclass of Americans because they love helping the upper classes become even wealthier at the expense of the other 95% of the population?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Democrats love poor and helpless Americans
They only love the poor and helpless only so long as they stay that way. Should those same poor become self-sufficient (or worse yet, successful), the Democrats would begin to envy them for it. They'd be accusing the no longer poor person of "taking advantage" of other poor persons, being greedy, and calling for confiscatory taxes to be levied against them in order to "level the playing field."
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
That's a beautiful quote and I agree 100%.

Note that it did not say:

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not take from your neighbor and give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
Does this only apply to individuals? I would contend that it applies to nations AND individuals. In that case it isn't stealing if it is part of a consistent tax structure. If we as a society decide that we do not want people to go without food/shelter, then we as a society are obligated to put in place programs to do something about it. Simply relying on individual charity is not sufficient. It is in a sense saying 'let somebody else do it'.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Does this only apply to individuals? I would contend that it applies to nations AND individuals. In that case it isn't stealing if it is part of a consistent tax structure. If we as a society decide that we do not want people to go without food/shelter, then we as a society are obligated to put in place programs to do something about it. Simply relying on individual charity is not sufficient. It is in a sense saying 'let somebody else do it'.
Best explanation I've seen.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I guess that is why so many rich people from New York choose to live in Florida or someplace else where they are not taxed as much. You see the truly rich can move some place where they are not taxed. It is only the middle class that are truly punished for the sins of the elite ruling class.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Does this only apply to individuals? I would contend that it applies to nations AND individuals. In that case it isn't stealing if it is part of a consistent tax structure. If we as a society decide that we do not want people to go without food/shelter, then we as a society are obligated to put in place programs to do something about it. Simply relying on individual charity is not sufficient. It is in a sense saying 'let somebody else do it'.
It's easy to rationalize statism when you implicitly assume it to be valid. (Of course that is what statists do...) You anthropomorphized the society, imagining it to have a collective will. Now in terms of averages and polls of course we can talk about what "we" want. However there is a reason that specific limits were put on the jurisdiction of the collective will. It is because invoking a presumed moral right of "the people" is always shorthand for seizing the property or abridging the liberty of some (typically unpopular) group of people against their will. It is never more or less than this.

There are times when it is right to do so (like abridging the liberty of murderers or confiscating the property of people who have caused damages), but to confiscate the wealth of law abiding citizens just because a larger group of citizens decides they feel like it is an uncompelling morality no matter which way you slice it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS