Put it out of it’s misery. You can spend billions, trillions, on poor children all you want. Nothing is going to replace the traditional family as the best springboard for socio-economic mobility. Even then, the poor will always be with us.
Leave the tax dollars with the states. Local is better.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Put it out of it’s misery. You can spend billions, trillions, on poor children all you want. Nothing is going to replace the traditional family as the best springboard for socio-economic mobility. Even then, the poor will always be with us.
Leave the tax dollars with the states. Local is better.[/quote]
RACIST!!!
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
That clearly establishes a national religion. Some citizen might choose to use the help offered by a religious organization. Next day, theocracy. Obviously the only way to prevent such a thing is to block religious organizations from participating WITH ALL THE OTHER FRIGGEN ORGANIZATIONS.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
That clearly establishes a national religion. Some citizen might choose to use the help offered by a religious organization. Next day, theocracy. Obviously the only way to prevent such a thing is to block religious organizations from participating WITH ALL THE OTHER FRIGGEN ORGANIZATIONS. [/quote]
excelllent use of sarcasm. Win.
I hear what you are saying Sloth. This has been one of the things that I’ve NEVER been able to understand, even coming from atheists. An effective program is an effective program. They are hard to create/administer, so best to support them whenever/wherever you find them.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I hear what you are saying Sloth. This has been one of the things that I’ve NEVER been able to understand, even coming from atheists. An effective program is an effective program. They are hard to create/administer, so best to support them whenever/wherever you find them. [/quote]
Right. I think we can all agree helping the poor and homeless is a good thing regardless of religiom or non-religion. If you’re really concerned with helping, shouldnt you be able to at least temporarily cease fire with the opposite side? At least on one item anyway.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
I’d imagine from the same place it’s always been collected for such programs.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
By eliminating those that dont work?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
By eliminating those that dont work?
[/quote]
I had a friend suggest that a law be created which would require everyone to spent at least 60% of their total income per month.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
By eliminating those that dont work?
[/quote]
I had a friend suggest that a law be created which would require everyone to spent at least 60% of their total income per month. [/quote]
Over 99% already spend over 99% of their incomes already.
Your friend suggests that less saving is the answer to having more money to spend?
You do not follow his advice, right?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
By eliminating those that dont work?
[/quote]
I had a friend suggest that a law be created which would require everyone to spent at least 60% of their total income per month. [/quote]
Over 99% already spend over 99% of their incomes already.
Your friend suggests that less saving is the answer to having more money to spend?
You do not follow his advice, right?[/quote]
Imagine, you giving financial advice.
Ha…thanks for the chuckle.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How about government funding of programs that work regardless of if they are religiously based? [/quote]
Alright, now where would we get the money for that?
CS[/quote]
By eliminating those that dont work?
[/quote]
I had a friend suggest that a law be created which would require everyone to spent at least 60% of their total income per month. [/quote]
Tell your friend to look up the actual savings rate in the US vs, say, China.
And to wear a nice hat.
A head is a terrible thing to waste, might as well put it to some good use.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Imagine, you giving financial advice.
Ha…thanks for the chuckle.[/quote]
Imagine you being arrogant enough to think I give anyone financial advice.