From: Jay Willingham (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 12:47:00 EDT
I agree with Don.
I am a conservative in some areas, liberal in others. Few people are
exclusively either. I hate the labels as they are a smokescreen over the
real way things are done in government.
I have also volunteered for 23 years as an attorney representing children
caught in the webs of the various government agencies set up to help them
and their parents..
The net effect of these programs in the main is insidious. They are
destructive of the very precious children they are there to protect. The
money is consumed by a bureaucracy that postures great things and delivers
little. Government schools are another example.
Government is the most inefficient and corrupt way to do anything. It
should be allowed to do those things only it can do, which is the basic
teaching of the US Constitution.
Jay Willingham, Esq.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett-VP GPA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "ASA Discussion" <email@example.com>; "Robert Schneider"
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:05 AM
Subject: RE: Traditional Xtianity teaches
> Helping others is not always the issue with some conservatives. It is
> to help. According to the GAO the government spends about 53% to
> the AFDC/TANF program. Similar programs ran by NPO, such as Red Cross,
> Salvation Army, Churches, etc spend an average of 12% to run their
> Is it cost beneficial to through money at the government in an attempt to
> help the poor? Sounds worse than MAFIA rates. The money wasted by the
> government on these programs is far too much. The dilemma is that the
> doesn't want to loose the government jobs/control and the "right" doesn't
> want to spend the money. If the amount of money spent were actually going
> the people perhaps the problem would be so great. Someone would need to go
> into detail to fix the governmental processes. The "right" doesn't care,
> they just want the money to go elsewhere, right. Well then perhaps the
> "left" should get up and make the organizational/structural changes needed
> to make the programs more effective. Then the "right" would not be able to
> cut programs that everyone knows "works". Why don't they? Because if they
> did, the number of government jobs(not poor by the way) would be decreased
> and therefore they would lose votes. Like biting off ones foot, huh? Point
> is: Neither party truly cares. The power they have is all that matters.
> Money and power. There are no race/religion/gender/etc problems. The
> conflict, as has always been the case, is rich vs poor. Those who have and
> those who want. And although no one should have to suffer in poverty and
> starvation, let's not forget "Thou shalt not covet". I am definitely in
> lower middle class(nearly poor, was as a child though) and yet I do not
> income tax(national sales tax would hurt me since I get EIC) nor do I want
> government help, though I qualify. I am me and that is all that counts.
> should I question the lot which GOD has given me?
> Don Perrett
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Robert Schneider
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:10 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Jan de Koning
> Subject: Re: Traditional Xtianity teaches
> When Jesus said to his disciples, "The poor you will always have with
> I think he meant, "so always take care of them and do whatever you can to
> allieviate their condition," and not, as so many have read it in order to
> justify their doing nothing or opposing government efforts to relieve
> poverty, "well, too bad." Matt. 25:31ff is my "intertextual take" on what
> Jesus meant.
> Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 16:12:00 EDT