It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brother's keeper eh ?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





I'll have to find the article Neo.... but one came out a few days back discussing that something like 5-10% of food stamp recipients are active duty military. So, yes... Soldiers.


That would most likely be enlisted personnel or equivalent who is UNDERPAID.

Anyone thinks the military pays well ?

THEY DON'T unlike other government positions.




The list you've compiled strikes me as baiting. If you can find me a CEO or banker who is so far down on their luck that they no longer have any savings, offshore accounts, or obvious or hidden objects of great wealth? I'd not just support them receiving benefits... heck, I'll even offer to ride to DFACS with them and help them fill out the paperwork.


So we are not our brothers keepers then that's nice picking and choosing 'winners'.

Of all people Heff thought you would have seen the point of the op, and the following comments.




However if you approach me with a person who happens to have a net worth of a few hundred million and is just waiting for their golden parachute to deploy - and seeking to make a political statement about "fairness"? Nope.


So just outsource it to government pat on the back and call themselves their brothers keepers.

Well those people who claim to be their brother's keepers are not.

Government is their keeper, and the people are just their bankroll.
edit on 21-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Why is it when a business takes advantage of every tax break possible its called smart, but when someone who needs assistance and qualifies for a government benefits, its lazy mooching.

/thread

edit on 21-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


THEY DON'T unlike other government positions.

So we are not our brothers keepers then that's nice picking and choosing 'winners'.

Of all people Heff thought you would have seen the point of the op, and the following comments.



Are you inferring that the severely impoverished are "winners" simply because they might qualify for a pittance of social aid?



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by neo96
 


Why is it when a business takes advantage of every tax break possible its called smart, but when someone who needs assistance and qualifies for a government benefits, its lazy mooching.

/thread

edit on 21-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Is there a point here ?

Other than the vilification of business?

The less fortunate get tax breaks and tax credits too

Nice total misrepresentation there really.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Seriously ?

I expect better

Don't call:

Social Security at 1.1 trillion dollars in current federal spending to be a pittance.

Nor

Medicare/,Medicaid at another 1.1 trillion dollars in current federal spending to be a pittance.

Nor do I find the promises made to pay for all those liabilities that are unfunded to the tune of $125 trillion dollars to be a pitttance.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Are you your brother's keeper or not ?

Just going to let government do everything ?

edit on 21-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Back to tax credits :


46 Percent of Americans Exempt From Federal Income Tax in 2011


Some 76 million tax filers, or 46.4 percent of the total, will be exempt from federal income tax in 2011.


Tell me another story by all means please tell me another story.

And the specific point of this link is the illustration of 46% of this country not paying INCOME tax.

That income tax introduces new wealth to replace the wealth that is currrently being spent on Government playing brother's keeper.

Here is the kicker:


At the end of 2011 there were just over 5.1 million millionaires in the United States -- 165,360 fewer than in 2007..


Who wants to be a millionaire


The United States had the most billionaires with 442


Who wants to be a billionaire

Clearly mob might makes right since the mob outnumbers their benefactors.

But this isn't what the topic was about.

edit on 21-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Am I my Brothers Keeper?

Only if I choose to be.

Which is the opposite of Forced Under Penalty Of Law to Do So.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have three friends who are worse off than I ever thought of being. I help them as much as I can, taking them to the doctors, making sure they have what they need.
BTW, I am disabled, my back is shot, without injections and the medicines, I couldn't get out of bed in the morning. My friends are more important to me than anything I have going on. This is the way I was raised and I probably will be this way when I die.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   


Funny how my 'brother's keeper' just doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in the political spectrum or political controversies.
reply to post by neo96
 



It is not funny that is how politics work... are you new to politics?? or just ranting



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
We are called to be our brothers keeper, no doubt about that. But what I find fake is liberals who want the gov't to take it at gunpoint through taxes, and redistribute it to the "less" needy, who often take advantage of the system.

Here's the problem. I am called by God to take care of my neighbor, and I consider all people my neighbor. But charity is about the act of giving, not the act of receiving, or taking. If gov't takes the money from me, then I am not performing an act of charity. All these so called "needy" people should look to other places to receive their helping hand, and less on gov't for the helping handout. Giving should be an willful act, giving to ones neighbor selflessly, and with joy. We should be glad to help our neighbors.

But when the gov't gets involved, then it's just a big bureaucracy, and waste, and graft, and corruption, and the act of charity is completely lost because you have no choice but to pay taxes.

If we all took care of our neighbors, we wouldn't need the gov't to do it for us. Put down your dang cell phones, get off the computer, and get out and help each other. Then you'll receive the joy of charity, a gift greater than any handout from the gov't.

P.S. Yes, I'm as big a hypocrite as anyone. I should listen to my own advice a lot more. God bless.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



Why is it when a business takes advantage of every tax break possible its called smart, but when someone who needs assistance and qualifies for a government benefits, its lazy mooching.

your statement is a bit loaded and oversimplified.

the government takes in plenty of money to run everything, but that money is spent foolishly.

there is a difference between a small business using existing tax law, and a large corporation paying lobbyists to create tax loopholes that expensive lawyers can exploit. big difference.

not everyone on government assistance actually needs it. in my experience i have met many who stayed on the government benefits for much longer than necessary because food stamps+unemployment is easier than working. these people are lazy moochers. (there is also a spectrum here, extremely lazy people who work to exploit the system at one end to people who casually overstay their welcome at the other.)

there are some people (i'd argue a minority, but by how much would be difficult to prove) who use government assistance responsibly and continue to look for jobs, then end the benefits once they have steady income. this is a justified use of welfare programs, but it doesn't happen often.

your question is loaded because you took a complex issue and oversimplified it so that the only reasonable answer would support your premise.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
if you want the true key to solving the world's problems, it is loving everyone else more than yourself.

articulably simple, but rather difficult to do, however the result is profound.

who would steal from themselves? no. people steal FOR themselves. isn't it better to make sacrifices for the enjoyment and well-being of others than to steal their enjoyment and well-being for yourself?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I would never argue that there aren't people who are lying and stealing from these programs. Just as I would say there is a lot of questionable accounting that allows businesses to cheat the government out of money they owe. The question I asked is entirely relevant to what is being thrown around and perfectly, not over, simplifies the question to bring it into the correct context.

We should work to improve the system.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


When i think about this. I think about the difference between; political truth and actual truth.

With political truth we say what People like to hear, so that they wont get up set.
If you tell People the acual truth, there might be a negative reaction.

We imply that we have good intensions to get Things done. Its better to ask for forgivnes than pemission.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
See the rhetoric falls apart when dissected and the knee-jerk terminology is fully in play.

I've paid taxes every single year of my life, from 15 years old forward... Never once did I do so at "gunpoint".

More to the point... We've seen, just in this thread, the hole in the "charity should be private - charity begins at home" position. The words "tough love" were already used here. Do not mistake for a second the double speak involved here. "Tough love" is code for "Not doing a damn thing and letting natural selection play out".

While "tough love" has some minor benefits in very specific situations ( a drug intervention is one example ) - the range of situations that can benefit from "tough love" are very narrow. Generally speaking tough love is more destructive and damaging than helpful.


"Tough love" boot camps for teenagers have been described as child abuse, and the National Institutes of Health noted that "get tough treatments do not work and there is some evidence that they may make the problem worse".

There is evidence to suggest that what the British call tough love can be beneficial in the development of preferred character traits in children up to five years old. However, the British definition used by these researchers is more similar to the concept of "authoritative" parenting, whereas American ideas about tough love are closer to the notion of "authoritarian" parenting, which has been linked with negative outcomes in other research.

Source

Common sense dictates that if a person is drowning, sitting in a boat, a few yards away, and goading them to learn to swim NOW!!! really doesn't help them at all. Sadly many people these days praise the notion of tough love and would say that the person who drowned was at fault because they didn't want to live bad enough to overcome their own inability to swim.

The whole faux philosophy is nothing more than a moral escape clause for people who prefer to feel superior to others rather than deigning to help.

Now if we want to table the concept of enabling.... a much more valid and complicated subject that does have merit.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Hey Heff,

I would consider "tough love" as a relatively broad, encompassing and open ended statement to include, but not limited to, the concept of enabling.

With a variety of possible interpretation of "tough love", I suggest that this concept could apply to enabling, in that sometimes the path of assisting someone or enabling them on a path to their goal can be equally tough, but done out of love?

Of course, this is all predicated on the definition you assign to "tough love" and "enabling", which you have already mentioned can be quite an in depth concept.



ETA: Though, as I reread my post in relation to the last few, I am start to think this post is somewhat superfluous, as I think my line of reasoning would devolve into nit picking over terminology/semantics..

edit on 22-8-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Why must we pick and choose who we help? Are one group more important than the other?

Homeless man on side of road needs money, food, water, drugs, etc. I give him a 20.

Man (presumably from middle class) broken down on side of road, I assist him in any way.

Known multi-millionaire CEO is being mugged on the street, I chase the mugger away.

I don't care who you are or what your situation is (unless criminal in some cases) I am going to help you because you are a human being and deserve it.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


"Tough love" and the other rhetoric you are talking about is a way for many people to reconcile to opposing ideologies. They want to be "good" guys either because they are Christians or because they like the image yet, on the other hand, they still want to hold on to everything they got and have "moral" justifications for not lifting a finger to help their fellow humans.

Less and less people are buying it. It's almost like a wink-wink-nudge-nudge type of inside joke now days. I don't think anybody really believes it.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





See the rhetoric falls apart when dissected and the knee-jerk terminology is fully in play.


I agree the rhetoric of brother's keeper does fall apart when it is dissected and the tear jerking emotional 'argument's' have been exposed for what they truly are.
edit on 22-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





So just outsource it to government pat on the back and call themselves their brothers keepers?


Yes, Neo.

We plan to help everyone we can with the resources we can acquire in the context of our moral limits. If you don't want to help us educate and help others who you think don't deserve it, then too bad! You will be forced one way or another.

Although i suspect its not the method of delivery that your really opposed too, but its the driver. If i were to suggest a hypothetical that Jesus, Gandhi, and judge Judy would be in charge of our socialist redistribution and rehabilitation centers how much of a problem would you still have?

I can agree that there are improvements that need to be made, but this is a inevitable and necessary course of action



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join