Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You didn't find Scripture directing the government to help the poor. Sorry, that's not in the Bible.
Read the rest of the Bible where it tells us, as believers to care for the needy ourselves. Never does God put that responsibility on government, and no government every took it upon itself until the 20th century when government all began building toward that time when there would be only one worldwide. The way to build consensus among the populous worldwide that this is acceptable is both by force (there are enough weapons in the world to accomplish the level required0 and dependence (through social welfare). None of these are God's ideas. He will allow them however in order to bring His order back to the world, in judgment.Read the Book of Romans. God is not telling us to worship the emperor, but to do our best for the govt soas they know we are good ppl.
I can do that without routing my tax money through the government, where it is wasted, lost and comes out the other end of the system at only 30% of the amount that went in. The government is eating that other 70% to feed itself. We could use that money in the church to take care of the poor without the bureaucratic avarice involved.Im certain if you look deep enough inside your heart you will find, that as a citizen of the US, you are the govt, and as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven you must help those in need.
I agree we have far too many pork barrel projects. And I agree the govt wastes more money that it utilizes well. But the food stamp program is almost 95% efficient. The medicaid program saves thousands of lives/yr. HUD, while often abused, actually has about an 80-85% effeciency rate. Not bad for a govt program when only 15% of the users are using it without proper eligibility.Read the rest of the Bible where it tells us, as believers to care for the needy ourselves. Never does God put that responsibility on government, and no government every took it upon itself until the 20th century when government all began building toward that time when there would be only one worldwide. The way to build consensus among the populous worldwide that this is acceptable is both by force (there are enough weapons in the world to accomplish the level required0 and dependence (through social welfare). None of these are God's ideas. He will allow them however in order to bring His order back to the world, in judgment.I can do that without routing my tax money through the government, where it is wasted, lost and comes out the other end of the system at only 30% of the amount that went in. The government is eating that other 70% to feed itself. We could use that money in the church to take care of the poor without the bureaucratic avarice involved.
Perhaps you've heard Ronald Reagan's opinion of the greatest lie in the world? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
It's never been that efficient and never will be. The government has claimed that of the total costs of the program were only 13.4% of benefits distributed, but that number failed to factor in the cost of field investigations of fraud, which totaled nearly $50 billion in 2011. Here's how Food Stamps (now known as SNAP) have expanded:I agree we have far too many pork barrel projects. And I agree the govt wastes more money that it utilizes well. But the food stamp program is almost 95% efficient.
No offense, but that's not even close. For one thing, it only covers 45% of the people who are technically eligible, which more than double the on-paper administrative costs, which are figured based on eligible clients, not actually enrollees. Also, Medicaid is rejected by more than 50% of the doctors and hospitals that technically should be accepting it because the approved payment levels on all but the most basic procedures fall woefully short of the actual cost of providing those procedures.The medicaid program saves thousands of lives/yr. HUD, while often abused, actually has about an 80-85% effeciency rate. Not bad for a govt program when only 15% of the users are using it without proper eligibility.
You misunderstood my initial point. Overall, the entitlement programs consume 70% of their budget in administrative costs, with only 30% actually reaching the "consumer." Medicaid and food stamps may be better overall than the other programs, but their administrative costs are completely unreliable, fabricated as they are to reflect a "best-case scenario" rather than actually reflecting total costs.So long as we fund those FIRST....I would have no problem cutting every ounce of pork out of the budget. Problem is, that if we want to pass a democrats budget, the Republicans fill it with their pork. If the Republicans want to pass their defend budget, the Dems fill it with their pork.
Two-point-2 million may sound huge, but compared to the waste, fraud and utter disregard for fiscal responsibility in the federal government, it was nothing. Literally. We spend $2.2 million every 19 seconds of every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.I dont think we should be studying bear poop in Minnesota, but Rep Congresswoman Michelle Bach thought the need was so great that she sponsored a pork project for 2.2 mil/yr and pigbacked it to something the dems needed her consent to pass.
oh well, the republican house didn't pass last years farm bill so not only food stamps are effected but also farmers facing drought and wildfires.It's never been that efficient and never will be. The government has claimed that of the total costs of the program were only 13.4% of benefits distributed, but that number failed to factor in the cost of field investigations of fraud, which totaled nearly $50 billion in 2011. Here's how Food Stamps (now known as SNAP) have expanded:
No offense, but that's not even close. For one thing, it only covers 45% of the people who are technically eligible, which more than double the on-paper administrative costs, which are figured based on eligible clients, not actually enrollees. Also, Medicaid is rejected by more than 50% of the doctors and hospitals that technically should be accepting it because the approved payment levels on all but the most basic procedures fall woefully short of the actual cost of providing those procedures. You misunderstood my initial point. Overall, the entitlement programs consume 70% of their budget in administrative costs, with only 30% actually reaching the "consumer." Medicaid and food stamps may be better overall than the other programs, but their administrative costs are completely unreliable, fabricated as they are to reflect a "best-case scenario" rather than actually reflecting total costs.Two-point-2 million may sound huge, but compared to the waste, fraud and utter disregard for fiscal responsibility in the federal government, it was nothing. Literally. We spend $2.2 million every 19 seconds of every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
- When food stamps were first expanded nationally in the 1970s, just 1 in 50 Americans participated; today the figure is almost 1 in 7. The program has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.
- Food stamps are one of nearly 80 means-tested federal welfare programs, including 17 for nutritional support. Collectively, these programs cost $700 billion annually, plus $200 billion in state contributions.
- From 2001 to 2006 the food stamp budget doubled, even as unemployment remained around five percent.
- Food stamps make up 80 percent of the current farm bill, costing $770 billion over the next 10 years.
- Food stamp spending is projected to remain permanently and significantly above pre-recession levels.
- Were food stamp spending returned to pre-recession (2007) levels, and increased at the rate of inflation, it would produce 10-year savings of $340 billion. The current farm bill calls for only $4 billion in savings. Food Stamp Reforms Will Help Both The Recipient And The Treasury - Budget Background - Research - U.S. Senate Budget Committee
2010 list:Contrary to popular belief, the best indicator of "economic growth" is not statistics of employment or spending but rather the standard of living.
According to the United Nations, the people of the United States have a generally higher standard of living than the people of Sweden.
Republicans will let the rich have tax cuts and the poor go hungry. Anti-Christ policies is my opinion about the GOP House.The Senate has already passed a major overhaul of the nation’s farm programs, but a parallel effort in the House has been stymied, in large part by conservatives who have pressed for deep cuts to the expanded food stamp program. Without movement, a bipartisan drought relief package has had no vehicle to get out of Congress on.
Republican Leaders in Tricky Spot on Farm Bill and Drought Aid - NYTimes.com
After a late-night drafting session that ended early Thursday, the House Agriculture Committee easily approved a farm bill but House Republican leaders, fearing a divisive and messy intraparty floor fight, may want to hold off a floor vote until after the November elections to avoid being portrayed by conservatives as big government spenders who approved $969 billion in outlays over 10 years, and by liberals as the party that wants to virtually gut school lunch and food stamp programs. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/us/politics/house-agriculture-committee-agrees-on-farm-bill.html/
1. What are all those countries with "socialistic" tendencies doing in the top 10? Thought "socialism" was the sure way to devastation?
2. Norway, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden would certainly qualify for "socialistic" according to your definition. Now, how did they want up all the way up there?
3. "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
3. "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
Show me where Mr. Gilbert or, more importantly, Jesus, said to do that through the government?3. "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
Show me where Jesus states that it is against God's will to give to the poor, whether it be via an individual, a congregation, or a government??? God never has anything against the giving to the poor, no matter who or what the source is.Show me where Mr. Gilbert or, more importantly, Jesus, said to do that through the government?
PSShow me where Jesus states that it is against God's will to give to the poor, whether it be via an individual, a congregation, or a government??? God never has anything against the giving to the poor, no matter who or what the source is.
I am not sure where your thinking is at. You seem to think you have some money, I have some money and the government has some money.
Isn't all of it God's? Are we not merely stewards? What do you have that you have not received? You entered this world naked and you will leave it naked? Where is your treasure invested?
Show me where it say's not to.Show me where Mr. Gilbert or, more importantly, Jesus, said to do that through the government?
You're kidding, right?Show me where it say's not to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?