Kasz216 said:
It's often brought up to try and combat that fact that on average the less likely you are to be for various welfare things, the more likely you are to donate money to charity, and the more likely that said amount of money will be a substantial amount of your earnings. Same with volenteered work and blood.
This is purely as future policy changes by the way. It's not, people in the US give more to charity then people in sweedon or something. It's people in the same neighberhoods looking at the same realities. Some wanting to help out, and others wanting the government to fix it. |
Seemed like, when asked directly, no one admits that the government doing it is compassion. However, if you argue politically for there NOT to be more government spending in an area to help the poor, or to cut back, the person arguing this is said to lack compassion. The argument only seems to come up when used to bash someone's character, rather than how the poor really get helped. Any discussions about helping the poor should be on the poor, not on those doing the giving or having the call for giving be called back. I do believe it is fair game to ask someone who says there should be less done by the government to help the poor, exactly what they propose be done. If there is no answer, or if you get someone replying about my situation that I should go kill myself, so he didn't need to pay tax dollars, then you can question compassion on the part of that person.
