Go back
California pays more to illegals than US homeless

California pays more to illegals than US homeless

Debates

1 edit

@vivify said
Yes. That difference is hypocrisy,
The difference is benevolence can only be a 'should' because when it becomes a 'must' it's not benevolence anymore. You see why the word 'should' is so important now.


@wajoma said
The difference is benevolence can only be a 'should' because when it becomes a 'must' it's not benevolence anymore. You see why the word 'should' is so important now.
But when it comes to Christianity, that religion commands that it's followers look after the interests of others:

Matthew 25:42-46 New Living Translation (NLT)
42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’


Jesus was clearly a socialist.


@vivify said
Jesus was clearly a socialist.
Maybe, but at that time he hadn't seen the practical outcomes of socialist governments. It's um, not a great track record of success, to put it lightly.

3 edits

@averagejoe1 said
I think probably so. This was an extreme analogy to make a point. We prob need a law that says she has to hand it over. But I don’t think there is. But , still, my point is that debates such as this should respect that a person, within his/her rights, should not have to consider aspersions of being ‘not very Christian ‘ or amoral or lacking emotion, whatever. Indeed, they, or me, may have personal reasons to stick with the facts. Common sense and logic helps too.
I would not be surprised to see that existing US federal law (and other nations’ law) allows the government to mandate and direct the supply of drugs to treat affected people in the event of a (declared) national medical emergency, even to include the use of drugs still under development. FEMA might muck up the process in the US, but there ya go.


@wildgrass said
Maybe, but at that time he hadn't seen the practical outcomes of socialist governments. It's um, not a great track record of success, to put it lightly.
Who’s on your list of socialist governments?


@vivify said
Jesus was clearly a socialist.
I am sure your Jesus is a politician.


@wildgrass said
Maybe, but at that time he hadn't seen the practical outcomes of socialist governments. It's um, not a great track record of success, to put it lightly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model


@wildgrass said
Maybe, but at that time he hadn't seen the practical outcomes of socialist governments. It's um, not a great track record of success, to put it lightly.
Thread 181284


@vivify said
Jesus was clearly a socialist.
vivify, I just gave you a lesson on the difference between 'should' and 'must'.

Socialism depends on 'must' in the form of state initiated force and threats of force. There's nothing caring and sharing about socialism, it's just humans reduced to dumb animals responding to having a stick waved at them.

What I am replying to here is the word 'socialism' in your post because the god bothering doodoo belongs over at spirituality, IMO state worship should go there too.


@wajoma said
vivify, I just gave you a lesson on the difference between 'should' and 'must'.

Socialism depends on 'must' in the form of state initiated force and threats of force. There's nothing caring and sharing about socialism, it's just humans reduced to dumb animals responding to having a stick waved at them.

What I am replying to here is the word 'socialism' in your post because the god bothering doodoo belongs over at spirituality, IMO state worship should go there too.
Is your point that socialism is bad because he have to help each other instead of choosing to?

If we could depend on the kindness of the public to solve our issues, there wouldn't be a need for socialist policies. Unfortunately, the altruism of the public isn't reliable.


@whodey said
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/map-illegal-immigration-costs-california-most-23b-all-states-89b

California pays about $23 billion for illegal alien welfare

But not even near that for it's own homeless citizens.

https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/

Is this the way it should be?
The source article for this information does not exist.

https://howmuch.net/articles/state-by-state-costs-of-illegal-inmigration

2 edits

@athousandyoung said
The source article for this information does not exist.

https://howmuch.net/articles/state-by-state-costs-of-illegal-inmigration
Why spend time searching for a source? I have it on good authority that they spent $5 on those invaders yesterday. So, start there and let’s debate the $5. I’ll start. Who paid the $5? Did that same person also pay, thru fed taxes, part of the $257,379,159.00 that we sent to Guatemala last year. Aw man, so he paid TWICE???

I think we need to thresh this out. Is $5 too much?

1 edit

@vivify said
Is your point that socialism is bad because he have to help each other instead of choosing to?

If we could depend on the kindness of the public to solve our issues, there wouldn't be a need for socialist policies. Unfortunately, the altruism of the public isn't reliable.
My point is that socialist/welfare political system is the opposite of a caring sharing society, the more the state takes on the role of 'helping each other' the less people are inclined to the virtue of benevolence, not only are they less inclined but their ability to be benevolent is inhibited.

Then you get into a circle, one can't depend on the kindness of society so one depends on society to force society (through the democratic state) to be 'kind' (as pointed out before, they're not being kind, they're just avoiding the force of the state).

So on the one hand you can't depend on society, but on the other you must depend on society. Typical screwy lefty logic 🙄

What it boils down to is your control freak fantasies that people can't decide what, when and who they chose to help and care for. The unintended (one would hope it is not your intention) consequence is the destruction of genuine community minded benevolence that rewards the donor with feelings of well being and the beneficiary with feelings of gratitude for help willingly given.

This is replaced with mean spirited reluctance and demand.


@vivify said
But when it comes to Christianity, that religion commands that it's followers look after the interests of others:

Matthew 25:42-46 New Living Translation (NLT)
42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was s ...[text shortened]... u refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
take it to spirituality noddy