- Distrust works both ways (02/03/16)
- Newspaper endorsements of candidates losing influence (01/27/16)
- Missouri voters likely to approve voter ID measure (01/20/16)
- Mentally spending $1.3 billion (01/13/16)
- A perfect political storm (01/06/16)
- A look back at top U.S. stories (12/30/15)
- Fossil fuels: Obama's enemy No. 1 (12/16/15)
Compassion vs. government-forced charity
The word "compassion" seems to be a staple in this year's presidential campaign. But more often than not, the word is used as a sword against any and all Republicans -- as in those soulless, compassionless, fat-cat Republicans who have no empathy toward the downtrodden and oppressed.
But how is generational dependency compassionate?
Grandmothers, mothers, daughters and now grandchildren -- who know nothing but dependency on the government to provide their every need. To provide for their needs is indeed charitable. But is it really compassionate?
Now I'm not going to invoke religion into this debate, but what are we to learn from the biblical lesson of teaching a man to fish?
We've found it easier to simply hand out fish than it is to teach the lessons of self-sufficiency.
In our quest to lift the masses out of poverty, we burden those who go to work each day and rely on a paycheck they earn by hard work. And the result is we lift few out of poverty but instead pave the road for more to enter into the poverty category.
Isn't that much abundantly obvious?
We give lip service to the great middle class. We talk of the 1 percenters because success today is cast only in the spotlight of greed. Where we once respected, admired and even envied those who achieved great success, today we heap the achievers solely in the category of greed. And it goes without saying, this class has become the target for the Democrats' compassionless attacks.
Why is it fair for those who work to worry about paying a utility bill while those who depend on government to worry little?
It's pure folly to break this nation down to the 1 percenters vs. the 99 percenters. But it's a reflection of the shallow nature of society, that people would buy into this class warfare rhetoric. It may make for good campaign fodder. But it certainly does not advance the true nature of society.
There is indeed an economic struggle underway. But the warriors on the front line of this battle are those who answer the alarm clock each morning and prepare for work.
There is nothing as phony as the liberal argument that this great nation is divided between the ultra rich and the rest of us. That shallow picture of this great nation is driven by greed, envy and class warfare that has doomed civilizations since the beginning of time.
When a politician of any stripe starts tossing around the word compassion, they need to offer a definition. If the definition involves taking even more from the hardworking producers to give to those who do not produce, is that compassion or government-forced charity?