Please refute this comment I just read.

[LovebirdsFlying]

I hope you can.

Topic of discussion, the recent school shooting in Marysville, WA, not so far from where I live now.

Point proposed, the solution is taking mental health care seriously.

Comment made, proper mental health care requires money, and conservatives don't like money going to help the "wrong" kind of people.

Your feelings on that statement? Thank you.

 

[Sketcher]

This is a political question, not a theological one first of all. But to answer your inquiry:

Conservatives don't want to deal with unbalanced people any more than liberals do. Between that and our love for guns, we have an incentive to make sure people are properly cared for. However, without a diagnosis as to what went wrong with the shooter, or a detailed proposal for mental health care reform from either side, I don't have enough information to give an informed enough opinion to "oppose" anything.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I don't draw enough of a distinction sometimes between religious conservative and political conservative because there seems to be so much overlap. That's even though I'm a religious conservative but politically a moderate to liberal.

Should I move this to another forum, do you think?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I hope you can.

Topic of discussion, the recent school shooting in Marysville, WA, not so far from where I live now.

Point proposed, the solution is taking mental health care seriously.

Comment made, proper mental health care requires money, and conservatives don't like money going to help the "wrong" kind of people.

Your feelings on that statement? Thank you.

It seems to me that "conservatives" prefer to give money to corporations and wars rather than important things like people. They whine and fuss over the cost of social programs but have no problem blowing trillions of dollars on wars that were just to make sure the oil companies (and campaign donors) made their money.

It is nearly impossible to find a mental-health provider that is either sliding-scale for fees or covered by medicaid. Its just not a priority.

I am theologically conservative but liberal politically...and the two seem to mesh just fine. I can't find anywhere in my bible where it's politically expedient to let people go without food, shelter or medical care.

 

[Sketcher]

It seems to me that "conservatives" prefer to give money to corporations and wars rather than important things like people. They whine and fuss over the cost of social programs but have no problem blowing trillions of dollars on wars that were just to make sure the oil companies (and campaign donors) made their money.

With the debt that we have, and the amount of money that we actually spend on social programs vs. military, it actually does make sense to criticize ineffective social programs and advocate for their reform. I'm with you on corporate welfare, though.

It is nearly impossible to find a mental-health provider that is either sliding-scale for fees or covered by medicaid. Its just not a priority.

In Washington state? I'm just asking because I don't live there and have no idea.

I am theologically conservative but liberal politically...and the two seem to mesh just fine. I can't find anywhere in my bible where it's politically expedient to let people go without food, shelter or medical care.

Well, the Bible isn't a book about political expedience, it's a book about morals. But I can see how the two can mesh if the proper approach to Scripture and politics is being used. But many who lean left do not, as do a number of people who lean right. I will have none of it either way a person leans.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

On spending money on social reform, I see both sides of the issue. I'm thinking of the book Games People Play, in which Dr. Berne cites the case of a social worker whose job it was to "rehabilitate" disabled people so they can get work. She started doing exactly that, holding them accountable for job searches, and was rebuked by her superiors for putting "undue" pressure on them. The underlying real goal, it turned out, was to keep these people on the dole for their own job security. These people can support themselves, the social worker herself is out of a job, right?

The game as described by Dr. Berne was:

Social worker: I'll help you (as long as you don't actually get better.)
Indigent: I'll look for work (as long as you don't expect me to actually find any.)

As someone who was on disability for years, I hate that kind of attitude. It made me see several different shades of red at once when some social worker would try to discourage me from looking for work by telling me, "Don't make too much money, or you'll lose your check." The way I see it, if I'm doing well enough that I can earn that much money, why do I NEED the check? If I can work (I can't, but my husband earns enough income that I no longer qualify for SSI) I'd rather.

 

[A New Dawn]

I am theologically conservative but liberal politically...and the two seem to mesh just fine.

Where does the Bible say that it is OK to kill innocent babies? Where does the Bible say it is OK to condone non-traditional relationships? I have a hard time seeing where the two mesh at all.

And, just to let you know, conservatives would rather that the social welfare issues, like feeding the poor and providing for the homeless, etc., be put back in the hands of the church, where it is much easier and cheaper to provide services rather than in expensive, top-heavy government programs.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Where does the Bible say that it is OK to kill innocent babies? Where does the Bible say it is OK to condone non-traditional relationships? I have a hard time seeing where the two mesh at all.

And, just to let you know, conservatives would rather that the social welfare issues, like feeding the poor and providing for the homeless, etc., be put back in the hands of the church, where it is much easier and cheaper to provide services rather than in expensive, top-heavy government programs.

Democrat/Liberal DOES NOT mean pro-abortion. What it means is that it should be kept legal and I'm not going to play big brother over everyone else. They make their own choices.

Non-Traditional relationships...who cares. Marriage is a contract between 2 parties that bestows certain rights and privileges...it's issued by the state, not the church.

Churches do not have the resources necessary to help everyone...and in churches, usually that help comes with conditions. No...if one reads the scripture I often cite...there are NO conditions on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting the prisoner.

If the hawks would stop trying to pay for trillion dollar plus wars on a credit card, there would be no real federal debt. The last time the US had a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton...thought of as another anti-Christ by the right then.

If conservatives are for smaller government, why do they want to pass laws that deny me certain freedoms? If they want to end abortion, why don't they support medical care, food, clothing, paid parental leave and birth control? The conservative stance is totally illogical and completely upside down.

 

[A New Dawn]

Democrat/Liberal DOES NOT mean pro-abortion. What it means is that it should be kept legal and I'm not going to play big brother over everyone else. They make their own choices.

Non-Traditional relationships...who cares. Marriage is a contract between 2 parties that bestows certain rights and privileges...it's issued by the state, not the church.

Churches do not have the resources necessary to help everyone...and in churches, usually that help comes with conditions. No...if one reads the scripture I often cite...there are NO conditions on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting the prisoner.

If the hawks would stop trying to pay for trillion dollar plus wars on a credit card, there would be no real federal debt. The last time the US had a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton...thought of as another anti-Christ by the right then.

If conservatives are for smaller government, why do they want to pass laws that deny me certain freedoms? If they want to end abortion, why don't they support medical care, food, clothing, paid parental leave and birth control? The conservative stance is totally illogical and completely upside down.

You are making a bunch of close-minded statements that don't reflect reality. You really have no idea what churches require before they help anyone or what they support, birth control-wise. Your post is really quite humorous with the total lack of knowledge about what conservatives believe and do. Perhaps if you actually asked someone who is a conservative, rather than making off-the-wall accusations, you'd find out a thing or two (or maybe more).

However, I was just responding to your "they two mesh quite well together" remark, which can only be considered true if you rip half the NT out.

 

[Sketcher]

Democrat/Liberal DOES NOT mean pro-abortion. What it means is that it should be kept legal and I'm not going to play big brother over everyone else. They make their own choices.

Unless they want to start a business, buy any good or service from a business, purchase a weapon for self-defense, save more of their retirement money in a private fund, speak what's on their mind, or practice their religion in public. That's got to be regulated, but killing unborn babies for convenience needs to be legal. Got it.

Churches do not have the resources necessary to help everyone...and in churches, usually that help comes with conditions. No...if one reads the scripture I often cite...there are NO conditions on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting the prisoner.

Conditions can be adjusted by the churches and private charities as needed. I can also say that they treated my now-sister-in-law better than the state programs she had been on as a single mom.

If the hawks would stop trying to pay for trillion dollar plus wars on a credit card, there would be no real federal debt. The last time the US had a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton...thought of as another anti-Christ by the right then.

Clinton did not balance the budget. His administration cooked the books to project a balanced budget, after working with a Republican Congress who limited what he could spend. By the way, that Congress put to vote a Constitutional amendment to require a federal balanced budget, so that the federal government would have to balance the budget like the states do. They were only one vote away from ratifying it, the opposition came from Democrats, and one Republican who voted like a Democrat, Jim Jeffords.

If conservatives are for smaller government, why do they want to pass laws that deny me certain freedoms? If they want to end abortion, why don't they support medical care, food, clothing, paid parental leave and birth control? The conservative stance is totally illogical and completely upside down.

It's fallacious to claim that conservatives are against medical care, food, clothing, paid parental leave, and birth control. They leave more of it to the free market, as you wish abortion to be left to. Smaller government necessitates getting the government out of these things, as much as can be gotten away with. Though I do support more restrictions on abortion, since it's killing a human being.

 

[Albion]

I hope you can.

Topic of discussion, the recent school shooting in Marysville, WA, not so far from where I live now.

Point proposed, the solution is taking mental health care seriously.

Comment made, proper mental health care requires money, and conservatives don't like money going to help the "wrong" kind of people.

Your feelings on that statement? Thank you.

It's nonsense, just Democratic Party propaganda. You aren't one who actually believed it, are you??

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It's nonsense, just Democratic Party propaganda. You aren't one who actually believed it, are you??

Well.... I don't know the actual stance. Which is why I asked.

 

[Albion]

Well.... I don't know the actual stance. Which is why I asked.

Well, the idea that Conservatives want all "inferior people to die and to do it as quickly and quietly as possible" is just slanderous, and it isn't even close to the truth. Some people love to hate anyone who has more than they do, so this is typical of a certain kind of campaign format aimed at them. Negative advertising, it's sometimes called, but this charge is not only negative but untrue.

Conservative Congressmen certainly do support a wide range of "safety net" programs at both the state and federal level and, for example, took the lead to enact some of them such as the Medicare Part D plan that pays for prescription drugs for the elderly and needy. The Democrats opposed that legislation.

The only possible half-truth in the claim is that Conservatives often demand that public assistance programs actually go to the people who need it and for whom it is intended. There is much waste and fraud in some of these programs...and Liberals usually don't care about that, as history shows.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Thank you for that clarification. I've seen e-cards posted online, addressed to professing Christians, with this sentiment:

"Your job is not to judge. Your job is not to figure out if someone deserves something. Your job is to lift the fallen, to restore the broken, and to heal the hurting."​

To me, sounds an awful lot like, "Any time you're approached for a handout, don't worry about whether it's some kind of con game. Just open your wallet and shut your mouth, or else you're not a good Christian."

I'm not unsympathetic. I am disabled, and I have survived both child abuse and domestic violence. I've been homeless, I've been without adequate food and medical care, and I have needed help. But when there's nothing left for the people who need it, because all of the funding went to a bunch of ripoff artists, that makes me all kinds of angry. How can you determine who really IS "fallen, broken, and hurting," and who's out to scam the system and take advantage of other people's kindness, unless we investigate and hold people accountable?

But.... liberals don't care about fraud and waste? I can't be sure that blanket statement can be made either. I suppose I'd need to ask the liberals.

ETA: Our church runs a resource center to provide food for families and clothing for children. Every once in a while they get requests for other things, such as money to pay utilities or put gas in the car. Our head deacon says he can tell who's in honest need and who's probably running a con game with this simple test: Instead of giving money, they offer to pay the bill or take them to the gas station and fill the car. If they're grateful and accept that help, they needed it. If they're mad and want the church to just hand them the cash, they're most likely lying about why they "need" it.

 

[contango]

I hope you can.

Topic of discussion, the recent school shooting in Marysville, WA, not so far from where I live now.

Point proposed, the solution is taking mental health care seriously.

Comment made, proper mental health care requires money, and conservatives don't like money going to help the "wrong" kind of people.

Your feelings on that statement? Thank you.

Rather disappointing they couldn't find a broader brush for painting.

As a rule if a statement begins "conservatives like/dislike" or "liberals like/dislike" the chances are you can ignore what follows because it attempts to polarise people into two distinct groups who all think and act the exact same way.

 

[Albion]

But.... liberals don't care about fraud and waste? I can't be sure that blanket statement can be made either. I suppose I'd need to ask the liberals.

Possibly. But I did say "usually" and "as history shows." That's different from a blanket statement.

The fact is that they SAY they care, but I've noticed that, time and again, they (meaning the legislators, not the ordinary person who might be called "Liberal" but has no ability to make public policy) don't follow through.

And I feel that this owes to them thinking that there's always more where that came from--tax money, that is. They freely admit to believing that Americans are undertaxed, so of course waste and fraud is not going to seem as critical as they might to someone else.

What's more, it has been proven that Conservatives give more of their income to charity than Liberals do.