Sorry. I'm right. Vast majority of church giving goes to pay the pastor's salary, pay the utilities and retire the debt on the building. Only a small portion would go to helping "the least among us." Having said that, I'm not sure that some secular charities are all that different ... which goes back to one of my original thoughts ... that Uncle Sam may be best equipped to administer some of these programs to help the poor.

You can't be serious?

You can't be serious?

He is, unfortunately!

You can't be serious?

Post offices. Roads and highways. Army. Navy. Navigable waterways. These were all "socialized" by the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry to explode the myth, but the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian capitalists.

 

The following is a nice little summary. Link at bottom.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

"History teaches us that the Framers were not averse to socialism. They authorized, and sometimes embraced, governmental programs that offered essential services to the masses at low or no cost. Communication, transportation, and defense were what the Founders deemed essential at the end of the eighteenth century. That was their time. They did not call it socialism. They called it good government."

 

JURIST - Forum: Our Socialist Founding Fathers

Post offices. Roads and highways. Army. Navy. Navigable waterways. These were all "socialized" by the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry to explode the myth, but the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian capitalists.

 

The following is a nice little summary. Link at bottom.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

"History teaches us that the Framers were not averse to socialism. They authorized, and sometimes embraced, governmental programs that offered essential services to the masses at low or no cost. Communication, transportation, and defense were what the Founders deemed essential at the end of the eighteenth century. That was their time. They did not call it socialism. They called it good government."

 

JURIST - Forum: Our Socialist Founding Fathers

Nobody on here has been begging to end those things. Dude, you are all over the place.

Nobody on here has been begging to end those things. Dude, you are all over the place.

Thanks for helping me make my point. Social Security, Medicare, the G.I. Bill, Medicaid, Bush's Rx plan, the ACA are simply 20th and 21st century additions to "socialism" that began with the Founding Fathers.

 

Why should health care be viewed in a different light than roads and bridges? It's all part of "good government."

Post offices. Roads and highways. Army. Navy. Navigable waterways. These were all "socialized" by the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry to explode the myth, but the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian capitalists.

 

The following is a nice little summary. Link at bottom.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

"History teaches us that the Framers were not averse to socialism. They authorized, and sometimes embraced, governmental programs that offered essential services to the masses at low or no cost. Communication, transportation, and defense were what the Founders deemed essential at the end of the eighteenth century. That was their time. They did not call it socialism. They called it good government."

 

JURIST - Forum: Our Socialist Founding Fathers

 

Except for post office your examples are infrastructure and defense. Exactly what we've all said was the feds job. As for the post office, how is that a good example of how the government is better equipped to handle social programs? It is a freaking mess.

Thanks for helping me make my point. Social Security, Medicare, the G.I. Bill, Medicaid, Bush's Rx plan, the ACA are simply 20th and 21st century additions to "socialism" that began with the Founding Fathers.

 

Why should health care be viewed in a different light than roads and bridges? It's all part of "good government."

 

Roads and bridges are part of infrastructure, health care isn't. Roads and bridges serves the majority, government health care serves the minority.

Thanks for helping me make my point. Social Security, Medicare, the G.I. Bill, Medicaid, Bush's Rx plan, the ACA are simply 20th and 21st century additions to "socialism" that began with the Founding Fathers.

 

Why should health care be viewed in a different light than roads and bridges? It's all part of "good government."

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking of socialism, you boys on the right should do something to change the name of the football stadium where UK plays. The "wealth" part is OK but the "common" part sounds communist.

Let me ask, do you donate everything that you don't "need" to survive to the less fortunate or do you selfishly hoard your wealth?

 

Do you take any deductions of your income tax? After all don't you feel Uncle Sam is a better steward of your money?

Post offices. Roads and highways. Army. Navy. Navigable waterways. These were all "socialized" by the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry to explode the myth, but the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian capitalists.

 

The following is a nice little summary. Link at bottom.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

"History teaches us that the Framers were not averse to socialism. They authorized, and sometimes embraced, governmental programs that offered essential services to the masses at low or no cost. Communication, transportation, and defense were what the Founders deemed essential at the end of the eighteenth century. That was their time. They did not call it socialism. They called it good government."

 

JURIST - Forum: Our Socialist Founding Fathers

 

By your definition it is not possible for any government anywhere to not be socialist. That is in fact not the case. Why are you being so disingenuous? Nobody can take your arguments seriously if you go over the top in every post.

By your definition it is not possible for any government anywhere to not be socialist. That is in fact not the case. Why are you being so disingenuous? Nobody can take your arguments seriously if you go over the top in every post.

Supply an example or two to support your second sentence.

By your definition it is not possible for any government anywhere to not be socialist. That is in fact not the case. Why are you being so disingenuous? Nobody can take your arguments seriously if you go over the top in every post.

I especially enjoy reading the comments of free-market conservatives who lament the lack of price controls in the health-care industry.

Roads and bridges are part of infrastructure, health care isn't. Roads and bridges serves the majority, government health care serves the minority.

 

Just making sure I follow your second point.

 

If a government initiative doesn't serve at least 50.0000001% of the population, it shouldn't be the government's business? Or am I reading this wrong?

Supply an example or two to support your second sentence.

 

Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here you go. Read and enjoy. Compliments of rational people all over the world.