Feeding poor kids gives them "A full stomach and an empty soul&#34 (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

So sayeth Paul Ryan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aHPsPwVLBg#t

You are a shining example of people who would attend a CPAC.

And here is our man J.C. on the subject...

‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[joffer]

Fictitious things that CPAC stands for. Go.

 

[sublimeone]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

DSP threads are better than this.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKPac

 

[Dr Oadi]

The left just doesn't understand.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

BST ~ Terrible fisherman since 2006

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Paul Ryan ~ Terrible human since his inception

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

Seems to me that your side are the ones that don't want God mentioned anywhere.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

Seems to me that your side are the ones that don't want God mentioned anywhere.

You only use it as a weapon to oppress.

We want religious freedoms for everyone. With or without.

 

[fatness]

So sayeth Paul Ryan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aHPsPwVLBg#t=18

You are a shining example of people who would attend a CPAC.

Paul Ryan’s ‘brown bag’ CPAC story stolen from a book about a homeless child

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

Seems to me that your side are the ones that don't want God mentioned anywhere.

 

[Rove!]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Yep. That's the one. Started by the usual commies.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

Seems to me that your side are the ones that don't want God mentioned anywhere.

You only use it as a weapon to oppress.

We want religious freedoms for everyone. With or without.

Sure you do. You're a statist. You're side stands for everything BUT freedom.

 

[joffer]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

 

[joffer]

Mitch McConnell came out on stage to Bon Jovi holding a musket

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

Yes, please add in the proper context.

Sounds like Rove wants to spin spin spin.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What is the point of a thread like this? It's like the headline that gets you to click but the content is a big letdown. Thanks for wasting 55 seconds of my life.

To keep the spotlight on these people who are anti-christians who like to talk about people, souls and Christianity.

Would we catch you at cpac, or supporting those at cpac?

Seems to me that your side are the ones that don't want God mentioned anywhere.

You only use it as a weapon to oppress.

We want religious freedoms for everyone. With or without.

Sure you do. You're a statist. You're side stands for everything BUT freedom.

Your freedom to make grammatical errors shall not be curtailed.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Mitch McConnell came out on stage to Bon Jovi holding a musket

Saw the video clip of this. Just a weird, weird event.

 

[freakinback]

Is there one of those threads were if you can't win on ideas you mud sling? Pro tip BST, you are not helping.

 

[jon_mx]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

 

[jon_mx]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

How many studies do you want? One study showed 24 of the 25 top charitable states were Republican voting. Syracuse University did a study and showed people who do not advocate for government handouts gave significantly more than people who do.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So he did not mean what he said. He was being far more cryptic.

Gotcha.

Meanwhile.... Rep. Paul Ryan calls for cuts in anti-poverty programs that work, which he later admits to.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s new budget plan would get at least 66 percent of its $5 trillion in non-defense budget cuts over ten years (relative to a continuation of current policies) from programs that serve people of limited means, standing a core principle of the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission on its head.

The plan that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson issued in late 2010, as well as the revised plan they issued a few weeks ago, established as a basic principle that deficit reduction should not increase poverty or widen inequality. The Ryan plan charts a radically different course, imposing its most severe cuts on people on the lower rungs of the income ladder.

Including cutting school lunches for poor kids.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

How many studies do you want? One study showed 24 of the 25 top charitable states were Republican voting. Syracuse University did a study and showed people who do not advocate for government handouts gave significantly more than people who do.

Does the study discriminate between those who have money to give and those who don't? It's impossible to prove... I'm sure many left leaning states are going to be filled with lower/working class, who don't have the money to give...

 

[jon_mx]

So he did not mean what he said. He was being far more cryptic.

Gotcha.

Meanwhile.... Rep. Paul Ryan calls for cuts in anti-poverty programs that work, which he later admits to.

you understanding of English is worse than your charitable giving.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So he did not mean what he said. He was being far more cryptic.

Gotcha.

Meanwhile.... Rep. Paul Ryan calls for cuts in anti-poverty programs that work, which he later admits to.

you understanding of English is worse than your charitable giving.

Your spin is astounding. So there.

 

[jon_mx]

So he did not mean what he said. He was being far more cryptic.

Gotcha.

Meanwhile.... Rep. Paul Ryan calls for cuts in anti-poverty programs that work, which he later admits to.

you understanding of English is worse than your charitable giving.

Your spin is astounding. So there.

 

[bigbottom]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

How many studies do you want? One study showed 24 of the 25 top charitable states were Republican voting. Syracuse University did a study and showed people who do not advocate for government handouts gave significantly more than people who do.

Does the study discriminate between those who have money to give and those who don't? It's impossible to prove... I'm sure many left leaning states are going to be filled with lower/working class, who don't have the money to give...

I'd actually like to see the study adjusted for religious tithing. Not that churches aren't charitable organizations and not that they don't do good in the community, but helping the poor is not their central mission.

For example, I'd be curious to see the political breakdown of donors to, say, Habitat for Humanity, or the local food bank, or the local homeless shelter.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'd actually like to see the study adjusted for religious tithing. Not that churches aren't charitable organizations and not that they don't do good in the community, but helping the poor is not their central mission.

For example, I'd be curious to see the political breakdown of donors to, say, Habitat for Humanity, or the local food bank, or the local homeless shelter.

There isnt any doubt bigbottom. But dont expect those who eschew critical thinking to dig into it for you. They have some headline they saw and they run with it.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.

However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable. It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes. But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.

The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:

They also noted:When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."

 

[jon_mx]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

How many studies do you want? One study showed 24 of the 25 top charitable states were Republican voting. Syracuse University did a study and showed people who do not advocate for government handouts gave significantly more than people who do.

Does the study discriminate between those who have money to give and those who don't? It's impossible to prove... I'm sure many left leaning states are going to be filled with lower/working class, who don't have the money to give...

I'd actually like to see the study adjusted for religious tithing. Not that churches aren't charitable organizations and not that they don't do good in the community, but helping the poor is not their central mission.

For example, I'd be curious to see the political breakdown of donors to, say, Habitat for Humanity, or the local food bank, or the local homeless shelter.

I'd like to see issues presented in a fair manner. This is obviously not the thread for it. BST is 100 percent pure shill. So maybe in some other thread we can have an honest discussion instead of one that starts out with the premise that Republicans want to starve children. I am not wasting my time here though.

 

[bigbottom]

Is this where the Kooks take a quote completely out of context and spend two weeks and 32 pages calling each other names?

Feel free to add the context back in

The point was about government handouts being soulless, not about feeding vs. not feeding. That is the context that is completely missing. There is a difference between taking other people's money and feeding kids, versus someone who actually cares enough to spend the time to love and care for the kid. Surveys and studies show the left is not so compassionate when it comes to spending their own time and money on caring for people.

I think we could all do more, but I'm sure there is no difference between the left and right as far as who is willing to give from their own time and money directly. It's obvious which one is more interested in giving other peoples money..

How many studies do you want? One study showed 24 of the 25 top charitable states were Republican voting. Syracuse University did a study and showed people who do not advocate for government handouts gave significantly more than people who do.

Does the study discriminate between those who have money to give and those who don't? It's impossible to prove... I'm sure many left leaning states are going to be filled with lower/working class, who don't have the money to give...

I'd actually like to see the study adjusted for religious tithing. Not that churches aren't charitable organizations and not that they don't do good in the community, but helping the poor is not their central mission.For example, I'd be curious to see the political breakdown of donors to, say, Habitat for Humanity, or the local food bank, or the local homeless shelter.

I'd like to see issues presented in a fair manner. This is obviously not the thread for it. BST is 100 percent pure shill. So maybe in some other thread we can have an honest discussion instead of one that starts out with the premise that Republicans want to starve children. I am not wasting my time here though.

Fair enough. But you were the one who brought up the issue of charitable giving and the related studies. I was simply responding to the topic you initiated.

 

[Sand]

Woops. Fed president slipping a bit and talks about why the wealth gap is growing. He should know better - hold the line on talking points and keep pumping the easy money for the super rich to capture more.

 

[Slapdash]

Woops. Fed president slipping a bit and talks about why the wealth gap is growing. He should know better - hold the line on talking points and keep pumping the easy money for the super rich to capture more.

Slipping? Fisher has been a constant voice against Fed policy based on the false assumption that it was going to create high inflation. This guy spent most of his career on Wall St. and has continuously argued for the higher rates that banks crave while fighting attempts to more strongly regulate them. So this is really par for the course.

Still, it would be more interesting if the intellectually honest folks at ZeroHedge could print more than: FISHER SAYS QE WAS A MASSIVE GIFT INTENDED TO BOOST WEALTH because that isn't saying what you're claiming it is. I'm sure they just left out the really damning stuff though.