http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/beck.boycott/index.html?hpt=C1

Could be interesting.

Thoughts?

Even WITH all of the programs offered by the government to help the poor and disadvantaged, there are still plenty of homeless and poverty stricken people in this country. Sadly, a fair number of them are veterans, and a good portion of those are mentally ill.

While it would be nice if we could count exclusively on individuals to help those in need, does anyone really think that things would get better for the poor if we ended government assistance and counted on private, individual charity to help them?

What Rev. Fallwell Jr. says has merit hypothetically, but in reality it is not attainable, IMO.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:While it would be nice if we could count exclusively on individuals to help those in need, does anyone really think that things would get better for the poor if we ended government assistance and counted on private, individual charity to help them?

What Rev. Fallwell Jr. says has merit hypothetically, but in reality it is not attainable, IMO.

We are now so entrenched in the mindset that government should take care of us I find myself agreeing with you. Unfortunately we now have a welfare state mentality that has created bloated, inefficient, and often corrupt government bureaucracies to "deal with the problem."

I'm convinced that Jesus would tell us that we are indeed our brother's keeper, but "the keeper" isn't necessarily Caesar.

Jesus was speaking to individuals who when they see someone in need, to address it personally with the resources they have been blessed with, both physical and material. He never said when you see someone in need make a call to your congressman and demand he take your neighbor's resources and set up a program to address the need in both your names. That being said I do not have a problem with certain levels of government being involved in helping those in need.

Large central governments that set up massive bureaucracies to manage these resources become nothing more than inefficient abused behemoths out of touch with the needs of those it was created to meet. They become political power tools in the hands of savvy politicians seeking to maintain their political power structures as opposed to doing what is best for those in need.

Our federal government has long since moved past the limits our founders laid out in the constitution governing their involvement in these issues. It is easy to see why as these federal programs have become nothing more than political footballs leisurely tossed around while they continue to bury us in an ever more apparent insurmountable debt. A debt that not just threatens those currently in need but also threatens placing those currently self supporting individuals in need themselves.

A healthy combination of private, local, and when necessary state solutions would work better. Those closest to the problem are always the most caring and qualified to fix it. The farther you remove the giver from his money the greater chance the money will be abused. People always spend their own money more wisely than other people's money.

After what the federal government has done in spending SS funds that were supposed to be set aside and mismanaging Medicare, who in their right mind would trust them with anything else? That is like those who were ripped off by Bernie Madoff singing up for his latest investment opportunity.

Any church can bicker with Beck all they want, it doesn't matter to me because I don't pay attention to Beck anyway... other than what I mostly see on this forum.

So one con artist is mad at another con artist for advising people to stop being conned?

Only had to read as far as "a network of progressive churches"


FAIL!!

Shane Falco wrote: Only had to read as far as "a network of progressive churches"


FAIL!!

Why? Care to explain further? Honestly confused...

cbus4life wrote:Why? Care to explain further? Honestly confused...

Progressive=Liberal

believer wrote:

cbus4life wrote:Why? Care to explain further? Honestly confused...

Progressive=Liberal

Haha, gotcha.

believer wrote:

cbus4life wrote:Why? Care to explain further? Honestly confused...

Progressive=Liberal

^^^
This

Maybe all those Marxist churches should stop trying to help people. Because as everyone on this board knows, if you need help with money, food, or health problems then you're lazy and aren't even trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Maybe they should be taxed, like the business they are.

ManO'War wrote: Maybe they should be taxed, like the business they are.

They are taxed like businesses are. Assuming those businesses are also non-profits.

Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

ManO'War wrote: Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

They do not operate to provide income for their shareholders/owners.

Non profit organizations are allowed to make money.

It isn't directly related but it's about Glenn Beck:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-22-2010/rage-within-the-machine---progressivism

I can't believe anyone takes Glen Beck seriously. Some people think Beck is a genius, but he is just good at conning people.

dwccrew wrote: I can't believe anyone takes Glen Beck seriously. Some people think Beck is a genius, but he is just good at conning people.

I can't believe anyone takes any of the "news commentary" people seriously.

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

They do not operate to provide income for their shareholders/owners.

Non profit organizations are allowed to make money.

That loophole should be closed..that alone could pay for healthcare.

I Wear Pants wrote:

dwccrew wrote: I can't believe anyone takes Glen Beck seriously. Some people think Beck is a genius, but he is just good at conning people.

I can't believe anyone takes any of the "news commentary" people seriously.

Touche

ManO'War wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

They do not operate to provide income for their shareholders/owners.

Non profit organizations are allowed to make money.

That loophole should be closed..that alone could pay for healthcare.

That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a non profit doesn't mean they can continue operating in the long run while they're in the red.

It isn't that hard of a concept, even churches and charities have bills to pay.

Can't believe anybody takes Pres. Obama seriously! Some people think he is a genius, but he's just good at conning people!

He is not telling people to leave their churches if they ask them to help the poor, he is saying if your church is talking about redistribution of wealth and those things then you should find a new church. He is not telling people not to help out, but that the Govt. should not "force" them to help by taking theirs and giving it to them. Once these church leaders give up all there non-essential items and live in average size houses then they can go about telling others what to do, in otherwords, practice what you preach.

JU-ICE wrote: He is not telling people to leave their churches if they ask them to help the poor, he is saying if your church is talking about redistribution of wealth and those things then you should find a new church. He is not telling people not to help out, but that the Govt. should not "force" them to help by taking theirs and giving it to them. Once these church leaders give up all there non-essential items and live in average size houses then they can go about telling others what to do, in otherwords, practice what you preach.

No one is forcing churches to help anyone. Beck is telling people to leave churches if they have assistance programs.

I know that some churches around here can help out with heating bills if you need assistance, that's the type of thing that Glenn Beck is against.

Because if you need help you're obviously a lazy freeloader.

What a joke.