You guys think that the 5 or 10 people you help a month or a week puts an end to poverty. You have got to be kidding me. Maybe if you give them a job or job training you may begin to make a dent, but paying a heating bill or purchasing groceries really has no impact on systemic poverty.

 

If every church in this country would help 10 families and support them in down times while at the same time those families WORKING to get themselves out of poverty through education, training or simply looking for work, it would erase a great deal of poverty.

 

In my county of 13,000, I think I heard once there were 30 churches. That would be 300 families out of 13,000 PEOPLE being helped.

 

Those churches could even sponsor families in the inner city if our area did not have 300 families that needed help.

 

I would counter also, the government sending them a check every month with no incentive to be weaned from the check does nothing to solve systemic poverty either.

You guys think that the 5 or 10 people you help a month or a week puts an end to poverty. You have got to be kidding me. Maybe if you give them a job or job training you may begin to make a dent, but paying a heating bill or purchasing groceries really has no impact on systemic poverty.

 

Apparantly government programs aren't getting the job done either as we still seem to have a large number of people living in poverty.

You guys think that the 5 or 10 people you help a month or a week puts an end to poverty. You have got to be kidding me. Maybe if you give them a job or job training you may begin to make a dent, but paying a heating bill or purchasing groceries really has no impact on systemic poverty.

 

We help on average 50 families a month . At one time it was a 100 families a month. This is to be only a temporary fix as people get on their feet. As for people who are disabled, that is another situation. I also agree with what LBBC stated.

 

After all the feds have not eliminated poverty with all the trillions they have spent, as they clamor for more.

You guys think that the 5 or 10 people you help a month or a week puts an end to poverty. You have got to be kidding me. Maybe if you give them a job or job training you may begin to make a dent, but paying a heating bill or purchasing groceries really has no impact on systemic poverty.

 

Listen, we are a small congregation (25 people) we do very well with helping those in need and maintaining our other ministries. If every church did what they could --- it would make a dent. The government created a system in a time of crisis but it has become a monster and very few want to get rid of it.

So there should not be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or the state shouldn't require that women get ultrasounds before an abortion. I agree with you whole heartedly.

 

And for the record, banning gay marriage (protecting the family institution) and providing ultrasounds before an abortion (perhaps saving a life and protecting the unborn) are areas where the government needs to be involved. (Our protection) They do not need to be involved in entitlement programs which spend our tax money on dead end programs. They need to require work for welfare----not just give a hand out to those who would rather sit on the couch and get a paycheck for nothing. Give time limits for assistance ---- let them clean up the streets for the check, something. This would deplete the welfare rolls in a hurry in my opinion.

And for the record, banning gay marriage (protecting the family institution) and providing ultrasounds before an abortion (perhaps saving a life and protecting the unborn) are areas where the government needs to be involved. (Our protection) They do not need to be involved in entitlement programs which spend our tax money on dead end programs. They need to require work for welfare----not just give a hand out to those who would rather sit on the couch and get a paycheck for nothing. Give time limits for assistance ---- let them clean up the streets for the check, something. This would deplete the welfare rolls in a hurry in my opinion.

 

I agree with most of what you have said, except for the gay marriage thing. I don't think we need government protection from it. On the abortion issue, I can see where it can be debated either way.

 

Also, I would be careful with the work for welfare topic. Often times this leads to more government jobs and in turn a larger government with more people dependant on it than ever. A slippery slope toward socialism in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you have said, except for the gay marriage thing. I don't think we need government protection from it. On the abortion issue, I can see where it can be debated either way.

It would adversely affect families, so in a sense we do need protection. They are asking for special rights and equating themselves with the civil rights movement if they get their way here they will continue until it becomes mandatory to affirm their lifestyle. That would be an affront to my liberty.

 

Also, I would be careful with the work for welfare topic. Often times this leads to more government jobs and in turn a larger government with more people dependant on it than ever. A slippery slope toward socialism in my opinion.

 

You could be right there, however, I don't think we need to keep giving handouts to able bodied people . . . they need to fix it or get rid of it.