4 ms·

> You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything. The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate

> You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything. The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate support for the poor. > it is interesting that Republicans give to charity at a vastly higher rates than Democrats This is because churches are are automatically considered 501c3 charities in the US. Another way to look at the issue is that Democrats generally support a systematic approach to social welfare - i.e. a sufficient government-run social safety net - rather than an uncoordinated collection of religious groups to administer benefits. > I’m sorry for people who have bad luck, but where is their family? Their church? Their local community? Not everyone has family. Not everyone attends church. You realize that impoverished communities are a thing, right? Have you never been to the rural South? To an inner city neighborhood? > How is someone outside of my community or family circle my problem? Wow. I don't think I can make an argument that will give you a basic sense of human decency. For someone who mentions churches several times, you seem to have missed one of the core lessons about caring for thy neighbor.

refurb 7y ago
The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate support for the poor. Huh? The chart at the bottom says US safety net spending is higher than Australia and Canada.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  And it still does not work for all the expense. The money does not reach the poor and special needs or the service prices are way too high. Either problem is a policy problem which poor cannot solve.
theandrewbailey 7y ago
> This is because churches are are automatically considered 501c3 charities in the US. False. While donations to churches are tax deductible, they aren't automatically 501c3 orgs. Source: my church applied to be one, in the event that church donations aren't automatically tax deductible. > For someone who mentions churches several times, you seem to have missed one of the core lessons about caring for thy neighbor. You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'.
- mr_overalls 7y ago
  > You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'. See the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus' own interpretation of commandment to "Love thy neighbor" is that _all_ people are one's neighbor, not just one's set of geographically near persons. It's a lesson in empathy, which you seem to have missed as well.

refurb 7y ago

The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate support for the poor. Huh? The chart at the bottom says US safety net spending is higher than Australia and Canada.

AstralStorm 7y ago
And it still does not work for all the expense. The money does not reach the poor and special needs or the service prices are way too high. Either problem is a policy problem which poor cannot solve.

theandrewbailey 7y ago

> This is because churches are are automatically considered 501c3 charities in the US. False. While donations to churches are tax deductible, they aren't automatically 501c3 orgs. Source: my church applied to be one, in the event that church donations aren't automatically tax deductible. > For someone who mentions churches several times, you seem to have missed one of the core lessons about caring for thy neighbor. You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'.

mr_overalls 7y ago
> You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'. See the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus' own interpretation of commandment to "Love thy neighbor" is that _all_ people are one's neighbor, not just one's set of geographically near persons. It's a lesson in empathy, which you seem to have missed as well.