Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Conservatives who disagree with social programs should not work in community action.

Do you think?

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Replies (31-40):
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Churches do offer a lot of charity. I think that church charities serve a more limited base than PA. There are people who need assistance who do not belong to a church or do not feel comfortable reaching out to a religion they do not believe for help. This leaves many without help if we rely on churches alone.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?


New World Peace

meriana
by Platinum Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

 

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?

In areas of high poverty, it's quite possible that even though church attendance is high, many of those attending cannot afford to donate to the church or donate only a small amount based on what they can afford to give and still care for their famlies basic needs to the degree possible without assistance. Also in high poverty areas, I'd imagine that a lot of those people attending church are receiving assistance of some kind which would have an impact on whether or not they donate to the church. One has to remember too, that churchs are non-profit so they don't pay business taxes but they still have to pay for upkeep of the building, the grounds, heat, lighting and probably pay the minister or whatever, a wage. I'm not sure but they may also have property taxes to pay. There are a number of things that must be paid out of whatever amount the church takes in. I imagine there are times when there is very little left to donate to assistance programs.

garnet83
by Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM

My intention is not to be argumentative, but something to consider. I live in the south, am conservative, and church-going. Churches, generally, choose what causes they want to give to and there are usually a few different ones. Typically, they send funds to missionaries as well as community causes. With that said, churches cannot offer help to those who do not make their need known. Churches can donate to the local loaves & fishes, soup kitchens, etc.... However, we have those individuals who are collecting government benefits and not seeking any assistance from churches or other charitable organizations who may have something to offer them. So, herein lies the issues Conservatives have with open-end government programs and/or programs that are easily manipulated and (in our opinion) need reform. It would be relief to the tax payers if, indeed, churches and other charitable organizations could do more to assist people. But there is little incentive for people to turn to these organizations as long as they are collecting, so easily, from the government.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?


katy_kay08
by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM


Quoting survivorinohio:


Quoting katy_kay08:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "community action"  overall I disagree with the statement. If the end goal is to get community involvement in a cause they conservatives have just as much right to work towards that goal as liberals.  

In our area the Community action agency has a food outreach, a clothing outreach and also takes care of several government programs including utility assistance or HEAP as it is called here.


And your thinking is that conservatives are against donation programs that target those in need?  I've found that to be the exact opposite and often people confuse not wanting government programs with not wanting any of these programs.  

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

So needs can not be met by "donations" alone?

The difference between a donation and a tax is the mandate.

I wonder if we could meet all needs without the mandate?

If so, wouldn't we be doing so already, based on the fact that so many (at least claim) to be so dedicated to giving and actively doing so?

Quoting furbabymum:

 The usual standard for church giving is 10%. 10% of poverty level wages isn't going to make that much of a difference. This might explain why church attendance hasn't suddenly brought everyone out of poverty.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?

 


Separation of church and state is for the protection of BOTH church and state.
Leading with hate and intolerance only leads to MORE hate and intolerance.
Lizard_Lina
by Silver Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Accepting donations?


Quoting radioheid:

 Why not?


There's a difference between open-ended welfare programs and programs that require responsibility.


I've long said that if a miracle happens and I come into a couple hundred-million, I'd love to open a program that offers job training, transportation and on-site housing to young people between 21 and 40 who are interested in a permanent solution to poverty. However, those people would be thoroughly screened to determine who would be a good investment, and who is likely to fail. Those who have been severely disadvantaged but show potential would receive the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma and driver's license (if necessary), certification training or an associate's degree from an accredited institution, very low-cost housing, daycare services and preventative medical care while they are in the program, and transportation to and from school and appointments in exchange for janitorial, maintenance/groundskeeping or secretarial work for the foundation while they are enrolled in the program.


Of course, I'm not considered a "true" conservative because I'm a Libertarian.


 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Lizard_Lina
by Silver Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Oh man I just had to repeat this.


Quoting Sisteract:

So needs can not be met by "donations" alone?

The difference between a donation and a tax is the mandate.

I wonder if we could meet all needs without the mandate?

If so, wouldn't we be doing so already, based on the fact that so many (at least claim) to be so dedicated to giving and actively doing so?

Quoting furbabymum:

 The usual standard for church giving is 10%. 10% of poverty level wages isn't going to make that much of a difference. This might explain why church attendance hasn't suddenly brought everyone out of poverty.


Quoting Sisteract:


I disagree.


Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.


Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?


 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Lizard_Lina
by Silver Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Ok while I Totaly agree with what you are saying, those that would choose homelessness and starvation over stepping out of their comfort level to ask a church for help deserve to be homeless and hungry. Pride should not trump priority.


Quoting NWP:

Churches do offer a lot of charity. I think that church charities serve a more limited base than PA. There are people who need assistance who do not belong to a church or do not feel comfortable reaching out to a religion they do not believe for help. This leaves many without help if we rely on churches alone.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Interesting. Maybe things have changed or region affects behaviors? From 2000-2008 I was very involved in community outreach in our county. The churches (yes, multiple denominations of differing faiths) provided meals, places to sleep in the winter and limited transportation. We were inundated with folks and families in need.

I agree there needs to be reform.

I disagree that the majority are freeloading scammers looking for the easy road for life...because a life on government is something to aspire to.

Quoting garnet83:

My intention is not to be argumentative, but something to consider. I live in the south, am conservative, and church-going. Churches, generally, choose what causes they want to give to and there are usually a few different ones. Typically, they send funds to missionaries as well as community causes. With that said, churches cannot offer help to those who do not make their need known. Churches can donate to the local loaves & fishes, soup kitchens, etc.... However, we have those individuals who are collecting government benefits and not seeking any assistance from churches or other charitable organizations who may have something to offer them. So, herein lies the issues Conservatives have with open-end government programs and/or programs that are easily manipulated and (in our opinion) need reform. It would be relief to the tax payers if, indeed, churches and other charitable organizations could do more to assist people. But there is little incentive for people to turn to these organizations as long as they are collecting, so easily, from the government.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?



Separation of church and state is for the protection of BOTH church and state.
Leading with hate and intolerance only leads to MORE hate and intolerance.
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I believe there should be a secular alternative to religious charity.

They both have their place.

Quoting Lizard_Lina:

Ok while I Totaly agree with what you are saying, those that would choose homelessness and starvation over stepping out of their comfort level to ask a church for help deserve to be homeless and hungry. Pride should not trump priority.


Quoting NWP:

Churches do offer a lot of charity. I think that church charities serve a more limited base than PA. There are people who need assistance who do not belong to a church or do not feel comfortable reaching out to a religion they do not believe for help. This leaves many without help if we rely on churches alone.

Quoting Sisteract:

I disagree.

Many disagree with government sponsored social programs, but not in helping on an individual level. Most will state that they believe in focusing on churches- and they personally donate time, talent and treasure via this avenue.

Although, that poverty map that has been circulating in the last month seems to indicate something different. It shows that the south is riddled with poverty and has the highest rates of government assistance. Church involvement and attendance is also quite high in this same region. Something is not adding up. Obviously, church donations {time, talent, treasure} are not meeting needs. I wonder if people do not donate as much as they profess?




New World Peace

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)