Have I committed a mortal sin? On pro-abortion politicians

[jrgiancola]

I work with elderly patients who have only Medicare for their health insurance. Medicare is not flawed. These people would literally die without the medical attention that Medicare pays for.

I don’t know about other states, but in Florida where I live, Medicaid helps families who are truly in need, who would be out on the street and have no food to eat and have NO medical care for the parents OR the young children without Medicaid. I’m sure the program could be improved, but it also is not flawed.

What is the alternative? Charities? There’s not nearly enough charities around to provide for the millions, and I do mean MILLIONS, of needy and elderly people, on a regular basis. A charity can pay your rent perhaps one time, but not indefinitely; a charity can pay for a senior to see a doctor, but not indefinitely. A charity can give you a few cans and boxes of food once in a while, but it cannot provide a nutritious meal for a family indefinitely.

As for Medicare, there simply is no other alternative except for universal health care for all in America. President Obama has made a step in that direction, but Republicans would not go the distance with it.

As for needy younger families, most are NOT lazy people; most want to work but cannot find work. Most are NOT drug addicts; most are NOT members of minority groups (not that it matters but just to dispel a myth). Without public assistance, these families would be living in the streets. I don’t call allowing that to happen “pro-life.”

Again, if you are only against abortion, but also against aid to our poor and our seniors, then you are not “pro-life,” just “anti-abortion.”

 

[Orogeny]

Still, whether it is legal or banned, women will continue to have abortions. They will just do as they always did prior to Roe v. Wade.

Did Prohibition stop the production of alcohol?

Worst argument ever for abortion. Murdering a baby is not the same as buying a beer.

Abortion will stop when people in this country really come to the understanding that all human life is sacred and precious. I don’t know how to achieve that goal; perhaps it’s just a matter of every one of us behaving towards everyone else as Jesus taught us.

There will always be sin. Murder will happen from now until the second coming. Should we make it legal?

I love the line from Godfather III:

Well, if you like ANYTHING from Godfather III…

What kind of Christians are we if we cannot love one another without reservation or qualification? What kind of Christian example do we set for others if we cannot show compassion, love, and mercy to the very least of our brothers and sisters?

Even the innocent unborn?

It’s easy to love those who agree with us, but hard to truly love those who do not. A perfect example is the hatred shown to homosexuals. Read some of the horrible things that posters on this website have written about gay people.

How do you feel about Tea Partiers?

As I said before, you have my sympathies regarding your grandchild. However, you are using that tragedy to allow women to murder their children because they don’t want another baby girl or the dad was someone other than the husband or it isn’t convenient. That is a tragedy.

Peace

Tim

 

[jrgiancola]

You obviously ignored my first comment. I would support a total ban on abortion that included an exception for the life of the mother, so long as the physician had sole control over determining when that situation is present. No law or congressman should have authority to question or countermand (in effect, coerce), the judgment of a competent physician in a matter such as this.

This does not mean that every other religion would agree to such a ban and First Amendment issues might be raised.

But I would support it. I supported the ban on partial-birth abortion, which to me was not really abortion at all but rather infanticide. Terminating a 9 month old “fetus” during delivery should never have been called “abortion” in the first place. A fully grown fetus is an infant, not a fetus.

The comment from Godfather III is relevant: Christianity has been around for 2000 years and Christ has still not penetrated it. The source is irrelevant; the comment is true. I’ve met very few Christians in my life who live as Christ lived and taught us to live. What went wrong? What have we done to a perfect message from the Son of God over the last 2000 years?

Babies are not beer. Did you miss my point or are you just in a joking mood? No law will stop abortion completely; that was my point. Human beings tend to get what they want, legally or illegally.

Abolish laws against murder and molestation? Not hardly. We need good, fair laws that protect people, including the unborn. But a total ban on abortion is a death sentence for a woman in my daughter’s situation. That is not a good or fair law, and no one will ever make me believe that God wants it to be that way.

 

[jrgiancola]

Tea partiers?

From what I’ve seen, they are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to get their way. They don’t seem to care that their actions in the debt crisis debate just might have paved the way for another global recession. I call that stupidity and childish selfishness. In a democracy, nobody gets their way all the time; only a dictator gets his way all the time. I consider them directly responsible for whatever economic ills befall the world in the next few months. I wonder how they sleep at night.

 

[Nate13]

Here is why the abortion issue trumps all:

Imagine if everyday the candidate you voted was part or did not work to stop legislation that allowed for 4000 innocent people to be killed everyday. That candidate would obviously not be worthy of office. It doesn’t matter if that person doesn’t see them as people, you and I both know they are people that are being killed. Now I can’t run through any hoops to make this alright and I doubt you can. The fact that these aren’t men and women being killed in the street but instead behind closed doors privately doesn’t really matter does it? If anything it makes it worse considering they are completely unable to defend themselves. I usually vote Republican so this is easy for me to swallow, but I have hard time seeing what “issues” trump this. No other issue involves saving the lives of this many innocent people that have no other way of defending themselves.

 

[Nate13]

Tea partiers?

From what I’ve seen, they are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to get their way. They don’t seem to care that their actions in the debt crisis debate just might have paved the way for another global recession. I call that stupidity and childish selfishness. In a democracy, nobody gets their way all the time; only a dictator gets his way all the time. I consider them directly responsible for whatever economic ills befall the world in the next few months. I wonder how they sleep at night.

This is crazy. If the left had gotten their way it would have been pure tax hikes to “solve the problem”. The whole line of “the only way to imitate Christ is to be a Democrat” is pure baloney. I don’t seem to recall where it says we have to use a middleman “the government” to give money to the poor, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry. I rather think it demeans the act of all its value for the person doing it, doesn’t promote any personal responsibility, and is incredibly ineffective at reaching all those in need. For you to insinuate that we are being unchristian if we don’t believe the government should be the middleman is appalling. Private institutions as well as individual acts of charity are way more effective and work just as well. A required act of charity, is not an act of charity at all in my opinion.

 

[jrgiancola]

I really do not see abortion as the primary issue facing this country. I respect that you do. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I would support a total ban on abortion with an exception for sparing the life of the mother. But I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who, while being against abortion, will vote to abandon our poor and needy, and our elderly. Is this really a true pro-life stance? Pro-life should mean the protection of all human life.

Would you really be happy voting for someone who succeeded in obtaining a total ban on abortion but who was instrumental in cutting off medical care for our elderly, and housing, food and medical care for poor families with children? Would you feel satisfied to see our poor, needy and elderly living in the streets? What about that newborn baby whose parents cannot afford to buy the formula it needs to live? Not all babies can tolerate breast milk; my little grandson could not and had to have formula that cost $200 a month.

Give me a candidate who supports Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security AND who wants a ban on abortion with an exception to spare the life of the mother. To me, that is a true “pro-life” candidate. All the rest are just manipulating the abortion issue to gain power for themselves.

 

[jrgiancola]

Nate, no charity can provide for the needs of all the poor, needy and elderly. Only government can do it. Most Americans DO give to private charities; I do. We are one of the most charitable countries in the world. But no charity can provide health care, homes and food for the millions who would be without these if not for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If you really are not aware of the truth of this statement, then I suggest you do some real research on the matter. Only government can provide these needed services. I’d much rather my tax money were spent on the poor and elderly, than on foreign wars, subsidies to corporations, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Don’t forget, my tax money pays for these too.

And as for the debt crisis, it did not involve any tax hikes. The battle was not for more money to spend more, it was to pay bills already approved by Congress and the President. There was no request for more money to spend; the money was to pay the bills we already owed.

 

[jrgiancola]

Nate, by the way, President Reagan asked for and received 14 increases to the debt limit during his term. And GWB spent trillions on wars and tax cuts which were NOT funded and increased the deficit. Did you complain about that when Bush did it? We’ll be paying for the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts for decades to come. And 99% of the tax cuts went to the wealthy; the rest of us got a few scraps that fell from their tables. And, after the rich and the corporations got their tax cuts, they did NOT create any jobs. Millions of jobs were lost under the Bush administration. Did you complain about that when it occurred? I think not.

 

[Nate13]

Nate, by the way, President Reagan asked for and received 14 increases to the debt limit during his term. And GWB spent trillions on wars and tax cuts which were NOT funded and increased the deficit. Did you complain about that when Bush did it? We’ll be paying for the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts for decades to come. And 99% of the tax cuts went to the wealthy; the rest of us got a few scraps that fell from their tables. And, after the rich and the corporations got their tax cuts, they did NOT create any jobs. Millions of jobs were lost under the Bush administration. Did you complain about that when it occurred? I think not.

Yes, but Bush wanted to revamp the tax code, and find solutions to social security and medicaid. You and I both know those solutions would have resulted in cutting government spending. I would also add that yes I was worried about the debt then. I started worrying about the debt in 9th grade when my social studies teacher was talking about it. I learned then that the only real solution people were throwing around was to hope the GDP would eventually increase enough to outpace the debt increasing and eventually make our debt pale in comparison to the GDP. Obviously today we see that the GDP has just been surpassed by our debt and that hasn’t been viable for quite awhile. You are right that past republicans failed to solve the problem, but that had a lot to do with left wing guys blocking every attempt to make changes to social programs that we cannot uphold at the level we currently are. Maybe you can explain to me why we haven’t increased the age social security kicks in even though the average lifespan of American’s has increased by at least 15 years since it was enacted? In 1937, the average life span of Americans was about 59. Today its 75.

 

[jrgiancola]

We had a booming economy under President Clinton and no deficit. I suggest we do what President Clinton did. It worked then, and it will work again. The Clinton tax hike in 1993 spurred this economy to the greatest non-wartime period of prosperity in history.

Only government can end a recession or depression. We saw that proved true under FDR and Clinton. Private industry does not have the resources to end a recession or depression, or create a government surplus. You know it, and I know it.

If you want a smaller government, then vote for one. I don’t mind a big government if it creates jobs and helps the needy. Private charities do not have the resources to help everyone in need, especially our poor and elderly. And I suspect you know this. At times, only the government has the power to do this.

But if you want government out of the picture, then let’s have a government that stays out of our personal lives also.

Republicans are against big government, but there is a caveat: they want big government to ban gay marriage, prohibit abortion, and get involved in foreign wars that are not our concern. They want big government to end social security, the very lifeline of most of our elderly. They want big government to protect corporations and the wealthy. Republicans are FOR big government, when it serves their own agenda. But God forbid government should feed a hungry child whose parents are unemployed.

I suspect you are a wealthy or semi-wealthy man, or you would not have the views you espouse. Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” The wealthy are called by Christ to do much more for their fellow man than the average struggling person. Many wealthy Americans are our greatest philanthropists; most, however, are more concerned about themselves than they are about the poor, needy and elderly. I hope you are the former and not the latter.

 

[Nate13]

We had a booming economy under President Clinton and no deficit. I suggest we do what President Clinton did. It worked then, and it will work again. The Clinton tax hike in 1993 spurred this economy to the greatest non-wartime period of prosperity in history.

Only government can end a recession or depression. We saw that proved true under FDR and Clinton. Private industry does not have the resources to end a recession or depression, or create a government surplus. You know it, and I know it.

If you want a smaller government, then vote for one. I don’t mind a big government if it creates jobs and helps the needy. Private charities do not have the resources to help everyone in need, especially our poor and elderly. And I suspect you know this. At times, only the government has the power to do this.

But if you want government out of the picture, then let’s have a government that stays out of our personal lives also.

Republicans are against big government, but there is a caveat: they want big government to ban gay marriage, prohibit abortion, and get involved in foreign wars that are not our concern. They want big government to end social security, the very lifeline of most of our elderly. They want big government to protect corporations and the wealthy. Republicans are FOR big government, when it serves their own agenda. But God forbid government should feed a hungry child whose parents are unemployed.

I suspect you are a wealthy or semi-wealthy man, or you would not have the views you espouse. Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” The wealthy are called by Christ to do much more for their fellow man than the average struggling person. Many wealthy Americans are our greatest philanthropists; most, however, are more concerned about themselves than they are about the poor, needy and elderly. I hope you are the former and not the latter.

Haha! I’m a poor, 22 year old recent Aerospace Engineering graduate who is currently still looking for a job. I currently have about $400 to my name and possessions that could all fit in a car. The car I have is worth under a thousand dollars and is under my parents name. So now that you know where I’m coming from…

First off in relation to Clinton. Sure the economy was fine, but during this time the mortgage crisis was developing thanks to democratic policies that determined everyone should get loans for houses regardless of whether they could afford them. Medicare and Social Security were also well on their way to driving themselves into a hole. He balanced the budget which I applaud, but did so only in the short term. He did nothing to fix the long term problems.

In terms of private charities not being able to handle it. Don’t you think if people didn’t have to give so much of their money to the government more might make it to the private charities? It also would then allow for me to put my money (however little) towards causes I completely approve of instead of the government using it to fund abortions and free contraception. Wouldn’t that be the “fair” way to do it if we are all allowed to put our money towards the charities of our choice?

In terms of helping the elderly. Whatever happened to the kids of parents being responsible for taking care of their them? Instead we now have lost respect for our elders and see them as a hassle. No wonder we are hearing more and more about euthanasia.

In respect to the idea of big government. Big government is why this country exists today. The colonies were over taxed and over regulated and fought against it. I see very few virtuous political leaders on either side and anything that can be done privately, should be done privately imo. We seem to have a trend recently where we make up new “rights” so the government can gain more control. A right to health-care, a right to not have to see anything religious during public events, and recently I saw a push for a right to a cell phone? These rights are drawn up from thin error to try and solve problems, and if they don’t work we all feel good anyways because we “tried” even though our total effort consisted solely of showing up to vote and paying our taxes.

 

[Nate13]

Many wealthy Americans are our greatest philanthropists; most, however, are more concerned about themselves than they are about the poor, needy and elderly. I hope you are the former and not the latter.

I think meant the latter rather than the former or at least I hope you did

 

[Orogeny]

Tea partiers?

From what I’ve seen, they are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to get their way. They don’t seem to care that their actions in the debt crisis debate just might have paved the way for another global recession. I call that stupidity and childish selfishness. In a democracy, nobody gets their way all the time; only a dictator gets his way all the time. I consider them directly responsible for whatever economic ills befall the world in the next few months. I wonder how they sleep at night.

So, do you love them as Christ calls us to love each other?

I strongly disagree with your accusations of Tea Partiers. The current administration, along with a Democrat congress, spent almost a trillion dollars on “shovel ready” projects that they now admit weren’t “shovel ready”, payouts to unions and other allies. How did they pay for it?

Remember the healthcare bill? Remember the Speaker of the House’s comments? “We have to pass the bill so that you can see what is in it.”? Or Rep. Conyers from Michigan who admitted that he didn’t read the bill and, in fact, ridiculed those who called for the bill to be read before voting? That bill, the one that couldn’t be read first, is what is now allowing this administration to force all private health insurance to provide the “morning after” pill, a pill that will abort a baby, free of charge.

That resulted in the Tea Party. When you mention that in a democracy no one gets their way all the time, you forget that the American people agree and ended the near monopoly the Democrats had on our government.

The Tea Party isn’t the one who promised that if the nearly trillion borrowed dollars weren’t borrowed and spent recklessly, unemployment would rise to 8%? When we now have 9+% unemployment almost consistently since the official end of the recession in June 2009, before the November 2010 elections and while we still had a near Democrat monopoly on the federal government, why is it the Tea Party’s fault?

Peace

Tim

 

[jrgiancola]

Orogeny: Obamacare actually will save money in the long run. There are websites that discuss this but I don’t have one handy, sorry. My anger with the Tea Party is over the debt crisis issue. The matter concerned debt already passed by Congress and signed by the President; it was already owed. The issue was not “let’s get more money to spend on more programs.” The simple question was: Are we going to pay the debt or default.

Instead, the Tea Partiers held the government ransom, demanding tax cuts be included in the bill. This was not the time to revamp the tax code, debate new ways to increase revenue, cut or increase spending. These issues obviously have to be, and will be, dealt with. In so doing, they created a crisis that may have global impact even though a deal was reached. The mere possibility of the US defaulting sent shock waves through every market in the entire world. We will know in the next few months if we’re heading into another recession, perhaps a global one. Their actions did damage to the fragile recovery we are in. They represent a minority of voters, but took it upon themselves to set us all up for another recession. I find that reprehensible. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. This was not the time to hold the nation and the world hostage for the sake of their agenda.

Nate: There simply are not enough charities to replace Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Honestly, there are not. I don’t want to see “tent cities” again like there was in 1929. People must have these programs to live; without them, they will die. Period. I don’t know why young people do not want to take care of their parents anymore. That is a fundamental duty where I come from. I took care of my wife before she passed, I will take care of my mother when she needs me, and my children will take care of me when I need them. It’s just a part of our culture (Italian and Sicilian) I guess.

But even if a child just wants to put his mother into a nursing home and let it be, even that costs money. If the child won’t pay it, it’s up to Medicare / Medicaid and Social Security to pay it. That’s why these programs are simply indispensible. Can they be made more cost-efficient? Yes. Can improvements be made? Sure. But to eliminate them completely will result in the death of millions of our seniors, and put millions of families on the streets. Somehow you just have to get a grip on this.

 

[jrgiancola]

On the abortion issue, as I said I would support a total ban that has an exception to save the life of the mother. But I also stated there might be First Amendment issues since not all religions agree with this. Just for information, I’ve provided the following:

As feminists or health professionals, Jews have been among those most active on reproductive rights in the U.S. Generally, Jews have been less involved with the pro-life movement.

In Israel, abortion is allowed at the request of a termination committee in the cases of if the woman is unmarried, age (if the woman is under the age of 17 - the legal marriage age in Israel - or over the age 40), the pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous relationship, birth defects, risk of health to the mother, and life of the mother. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics report from 2004, in 2003 most abortion requests were granted, with 19,500 legal abortions performed and 200 requests for abortion denied. Reasons for termination went as follows: the woman was unmarried (42%), because of illegal circumstances (11%), health risks to the woman (about 20%), age of the woman (11%) and fetal birth defects (about 17%).

In the case of Islam, Seyed al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words: "Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter. As regards the matter of abortion before this period elapses, it is considered allowed if necessary.

On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the woman is considered the “original source of life,” while the fetus is only “potential” life. Muslim jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that “the greater evil [the woman’s death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion].” In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.

The Grand Mufti of Palestine gave a ruling that Muslim women raped by Serb men during the Kosovo War could take abortifacient medicine, because otherwise the children born to those women might one day fight for the Serbs against the Muslims.

Some Muslim scholars also argue that abortion is permitted if the newborn might be sick in some way that would make its care exceptionally difficult for the parents (eg. deformities, mental retardation, etc).

A law banning abortion completely would certainly trigger suits involving the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

 

[Nate13]

On the abortion issue, as I said I would support a total ban that has an exception to save the life of the mother. But I also stated there might be First Amendment issues since not all religions agree with this. Just for information, I’ve provided the following:

As feminists or health professionals, Jews have been among those most active on reproductive rights in the U.S. Generally, Jews have been less involved with the pro-life movement.

In Israel, abortion is allowed at the request of a termination committee in the cases of if the woman is unmarried, age (if the woman is under the age of 17 - the legal marriage age in Israel - or over the age 40), the pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous relationship, birth defects, risk of health to the mother, and life of the mother. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics report from 2004, in 2003 most abortion requests were granted, with 19,500 legal abortions performed and 200 requests for abortion denied. Reasons for termination went as follows: the woman was unmarried (42%), because of illegal circumstances (11%), health risks to the woman (about 20%), age of the woman (11%) and fetal birth defects (about 17%).

In the case of Islam, Seyed al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words: "Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter. As regards the matter of abortion before this period elapses, it is considered allowed if necessary.

On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the woman is considered the “original source of life,” while the fetus is only “potential” life. Muslim jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that “the greater evil [the woman’s death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion].” In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.

The Grand Mufti of Palestine gave a ruling that Muslim women raped by Serb men during the Kosovo War could take abortifacient medicine, because otherwise the children born to those women might one day fight for the Serbs against the Muslims.

Some Muslim scholars also argue that abortion is permitted if the newborn might be sick in some way that would make its care exceptionally difficult for the parents (eg. deformities, mental retardation, etc).

A law banning abortion completely would certainly trigger suits involving the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

This is not a religious issue…its about establishing when life begins. You don’t need religion to know life begins when a sperm hits an egg.

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny: Obamacare actually will save money in the long run. There are websites that discuss this but I don’t have one handy, sorry.

And there are plenty that disagree and show that it will cost all of us more. Medicare is being cut more drastically than anything that Republicans called for.

My anger with the Tea Party is over the debt crisis issue. The matter concerned debt already passed by Congress and signed by the President; it was already owed. The issue was not “let’s get more money to spend on more programs.” The simple question was: Are we going to pay the debt or default.

The debt (as in the money we owe our debtors) would have been paid. Plenty of revenue coming into the government to do that. We don’t have a debt to fund NPR (which I listen to and support financially), Planned Parenthood or many other “obligations” we have. Any lack of payment to entitlement programs would have been at the discretion of the President (who, by the way, slammed President Bush for asking for the debt limit to be raised). And, as to your claim that it wasn’t “let’s get more money to spend on more programs.”, what makes you think that? When was the last time Democrats, who controlled both chambers of Congress from January 2007 until this last January, cut spending?

Instead, the Tea Partiers held the government ransom, demanding tax cuts be included in the bill.

That is just false. Cut, cap and balance was what passed the House. There were no tax cuts in that bill.

This was not the time to revamp the tax code, debate new ways to increase revenue, cut or increase spending. These issues obviously have to be, and will be, dealt with.

When? The President was asking to borrow more money but had not proposed any cuts or even limits to the rate of growth to entitlement payments. Since the GOP only controls one half of Congress, it is limited in what it can do, especially when the Democrat leading the Senate won’t even allow votes on House bills that he doesn’t like.

In so doing, they created a crisis that may have global impact even though a deal was reached. The mere possibility of the US defaulting sent shock waves through every market in the entire world. We will know in the next few months if we’re heading into another recession, perhaps a global one. Their actions did damage to the fragile recovery we are in. They represent a minority of voters, but took it upon themselves to set us all up for another recession. I find that reprehensible. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. This was not the time to hold the nation and the world hostage for the sake of their agenda.

The crisis isn’t that we couldn’t borrow money or default on our payments. The crisis is our debt. I believe we are already in another recession and this one is squarely the fault of the President and Democrats.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

A law banning abortion completely would certainly trigger suits involving the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

How many cases were brought on First Amendment grounds prior to 1973?

Peace

Tim

 

[Nate13]

Nate: There simply are not enough charities to replace Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Honestly, there are not. I don’t want to see “tent cities” again like there was in 1929. People must have these programs to live; without them, they will die. Period. I don’t know why young people do not want to take care of their parents anymore. That is a fundamental duty where I come from. I took care of my wife before she passed, I will take care of my mother when she needs me, and my children will take care of me when I need them. It’s just a part of our culture (Italian and Sicilian) I guess.

But even if a child just wants to put his mother into a nursing home and let it be, even that costs money. If the child won’t pay it, it’s up to Medicare / Medicaid and Social Security to pay it. That’s why these programs are simply indispensible. Can they be made more cost-efficient? Yes. Can improvements be made? Sure. But to eliminate them completely will result in the death of millions of our seniors, and put millions of families on the streets. Somehow you just have to get a grip on this.

There are not enough private charities because there is not enough money to go around to the government and them. The system of government we currently has basically works on the assumption that most people are stupid and unable to appropriate/save their money correctly. This does not promote responsibility and makes people dependent on the state. We also pay out so much money to people on welfare that it is no longer worth it for these people to get jobs. There is no incentive. You disappoint me in how little faith you have in the people of America, and how much faith you have in our elected officials. I’m not saying we don’t need organizations that take care of the old, sick, and poor but rather that our government is not the way to do it. Can you really truthfully say to me that the government had do more to take care of a poor person in a small town than the other occupants of that town could?