Republican AND Christian? How does THAT work?

What right wing propaganda? I witness it first hand. Dont care if you believe me. I believe you have no argument. Thats why you threw the tattered right wing propaganda card.

 

I understand things very well, since I grew up in a catholic household, and went to church every week until I was probably 25. I also participated in a Christian youth group.

I assure you, though, that the many actual Christians I have met would not let the poor starve on the street just so they can avoid paying taxes. Because as I explained above, the voluntary donation system won't be enough to help the poor in an anonymous modern society like ours.

 

Then you understand my statement is correct.

 

Again, this has to do with the duty to pay taxes.

The churches are not addressing these needs adequately.
I agree that there should be limits but those limits need to reflect the state of the economy. So, for example - when the economy is strong the stress should be on training and job placement. When the economy is weak, the stress should be on keeping people afloat until the business cycle comes back up. Right now we are still recovering from the crash of '09. People still need basic support, jobs that pay a decent wage sufficient to support a family are still scarce. I believe that skilled labor visas should be choked down to nothing until our labor participation rate comes back up to a decent level, it's still far to low.

This is one area where I am conservative. I don't agree with abortion on demand at any point of the pregnancy. The first trimester gives the mother plenty of time to make up her mind. So I would actually draw the line at 12 weeks. The only exception to this should be serious health complications, like kidneys failing or something similar. That being said, I'm not a single issue voter. I look at the full spectrum of what a candidate is proposing and vote for the candidate that comes closest to my position on a majority of issues. For me, the main thing I look for is a candidate that is looking to do the most good for the most people.

 

I was addressing various arguments I see form the Republican camp.
If you look at the response I am getting from the conservatives on this board, you will see that many of them DO oppose social assistance. Yes, this is a broad brush.
My objection to the position of the Republicans in congress regarding researching why we have such a high infant mortality rate is a secondary objection I have.
So far as abortion is concerned I am addressing single issue voters who vote strictly on the issue of abortion without considering the rest of the platform. Yes, over regulation, as promoted by many Republicans, of abortion has been shown to increase the rate of DIY abortions. This is a tertiary objection I have. There is a happy middle where abortion is appropriately regulated.

 

Quote Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
I didnt read it because you never posted a link. Second..a forum thread doesnt represent the right. When I say no one I meant of significance. I still have not read anyone say directly that "poor" are lazy. Can you please link me to those quotes?
So, I gave you links showing this attitude in people of significance and you don't like the sources. These are not "leftist blogs" just because they are reporting on this attitude.
Here is an idea, show me Republicans praising the poor for their efforts and hard work?

 

Maybe what's needed are price controls for education. If public institutions were primarily funded through taxes, there would be grounds for proper control of costs. I don't see why we can't do both.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true in California also.

 

There are two basic ways to read the Bible. 1) Take it in its entirety as literal. 2) Cherry pick the verses that one likes and disregard the rest as allegory or representing a time in which it was written but not to be taken as literal in this day age. I think most Christians fall into category two. The problem with category 2 is that it makes God in our own image as one gets to pick and choose what to follow. No matter what political label one wears one will justify their actions by the Bible as the verses are open to interpretation and interpretation is relative to the individual thus subjective.

 

The point I am trying to make is that if I am informed in my vote by Christian principle, the charity is of my own free will. If I object to charity that is not a Christian attitude.

 

I have no where in any of my posts argued for "fairness" or "equality", I have argued for charity. Different animal. Taxes are not theft, they are the means by which we have a functioning society. I objected to the Wall Street bailout, does that make my taxes theft? No, I understand that the majority of people voted for Representatives that believed that this was the best solution. The same is true when I vote according to Christian principle. I vote for those that are committed to a society that is not Darwinian in it's economic model.

 

Our government is designed to reflect the values of it's people through Representative Democracy. We cannot divorce our individual principles from how we vote.

 

The welfare state is not Christian charity; forcing people to contribute to the welfare state is not Christian charity.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

"Indeed, the 2013 budget documents submitted to Congress by the Agriculture Department, which manages SNAP, shows that less than 6 percent of the program is spent on administrative costs. Only 166 people manage the $82 billion food-stamp program — many outside Washington — and the budget document says that staff salaries amount to one-third of 1 percent of USDA’s budget for food and nutrition programs. " http://www.obpa.usda.gov/30fns2013notes.pdf

 

the "price controls" used to be students wouldn't be able to pay the tuition... we removed that problem by offering guaranteed government loans... guess what, thats when the cost of higher education EXPLODED well beyond what even lower levels of education did... notice how we guarantee the money, and they go to any means to gobble all that money up? its not a matter of setting an artificial government control, its about them going back to their core goal of education, instead of prestige chasing... the longer they have chased prestige the more an education has started to cost... giving them more tax dollars won't reverse this, just change who pays for it... critical point...

do you know what a 4 year university degree cost me at my states premiere school back in my day... under $10,000 for 4 years... know what it costs today? over $100,000 if you're an in-state student, well in excess of $170,000 for out-state students... thats not for master or doctoral levels... and I'm NOT that old... this dramatic price increase started after loans were guaranteed and more and more students began to flood universities, and then more and more competition for dollars started... then public universities started offering more and more amenities which they passed costs along to the students for, all to attract those out-state dollars that pay more...

THATS when the problem began and has continued...

to change this you have to compel them to fundamentally change everything they have become... you have to tear away all the prestige chasing that costs the average student an unnecessary increase in costs, education should be their expense, not a new indoor heated swimming pool for winter... and thats separate from the exercise pool, and separate from the competition pool, and separate from their practice pool... why they need a practice pool is beyond me when the competition pool is the same... except it has grandstands all around it... after we get rid of those expenses that provide no education, then we can begin to tackle the salary of ALL staff...

you don't even want to get me started on compensation for some of these professors who are non-research professors and don't teach any classes because no students signup for them, yet they are kept on and paid in full... and many non-research professors teaching only 1 class... its just a complete sham they offer all these useless classes who have professors who quite often have a graduate student teaching most of them instead of the professor assigned to do it... and for some reason they still manage to have pre-req classes that first year students can't get into because they are full, so they take an entire year of these wasteful filler classes for that price... all so they get priority placement as second year students... you want to do something that will lower costs today, require every university to have pre-reqs first year or no money...

some students could graduate in 3 years alone if they could get all their pre-reqs the first year... imagine that I just shaved off $25,000-$45,000 of each students bill...

(smacks head)

P.S. to summarize, go back to unsecured loans so students can file bankruptcy, see less students get loans, see more universities cut prestige and staff that serve no purpose other than filler courses to soak up an entire years worth of guaranteed money... refocus on private-public relationships with industry in your state, use those smaller state schools like they were always intended, training high tech workers for companies within a certain geographic range, not to soak up 4 years of guaranteed loans... if kids want to go to a prestige school, fine, let the private schools serve that role, I want my kids educated not partying... public schools are for public good, not to subsidize a prestige lifestyle on the public dime... they were created to educate, they started getting away from that back in the 1980s...

here is a simple visual below showing when the problem started and how it ended... those prices are per year... imagine how much worse public tuition would be if it wasn't heavily subsidized... yeah roughly about the same as the private universities... so you can see, simply giving them more money, is a terrible idea... they'll spend EVERY penny they get without thought of trying to control costs, thats what government does, it doesn't say "well we didn't have to spend this money so we'll give it back" it instead says "we better spend every penny we get or else they won't give us more next year"... thats how government works...

 

"Contrary to narratives featuring price gouging higher education institutions, much of the high price of higher education is a simple matter of supply and artificially inflated demand. The availability of student loans, and the expectation — ever more prevalent over the last half century — that most kids have a chance of attending college have provided colleges with a glut of applications. In earlier years, government aid after WWII helped colleges to adjust to increasing demand, building new buildings, creating programs, recruiting talent. In recent decades, however, demand has continued to rise without as much government aid to help with college growth."http://www.bestvalueschools.com/understanding-the-rising-costs-of-higher-education/
I see no way to bring the costs back down. More people need a higher education to get a decent job. It's simple supply and demand.

 

Where do you think the government's version of charity comes from? I know that Obama has convinced most liberals that the Federal Government has a book of blank checks, and a continuously running printing press. But reality is that the money he has borrowed has to be paid back. Soon this governmental free ride is going to have to be reined in. Conservatives and liberals alike are going to have to agree to things they don't like. Taxes are going to have to be raised, and entitlements cut. So, as you can see, it is about taxes.

You're right churches are not doing enough to address the issues. They have forgotten what tithing is for. But if you think that the government is any better, then you need to wake-up and face reality. In the city where I live, they have contracted a third party to handle their food bank. I have taken a neighbor there several months in a row. Each time I was surprised how little they received. A family can come to the food bank once a month, but they only received 1 paper grocery bag of food. There was no meat, or fresh vegetables. All they got was six cans of vegetables, two cans of tomato sauce, a half gallon of grapefruit juice, and a box of cereal. Now, I know that there are three food grocery store warehouses in the area, and at four food manufactures in area. I happen to know that each donate equally to all the surrounding food banks. I also know what each food bank is handing out. So, it really surprised me how little this particular food bank was handing out. Last week, I took my neighbor to a food pantry being run by a local church. This one allowed a person to come one a week, and gave then three days of meet, several packages of fresh fruit and vegetables. In all, the food pantry hands out more then twice the amount of food per family, services more then seven times the families per month, and allows the families to return once a week. So, it is easy to see that the church is far more efficient then the government program. At least in this area.

The problem with your last statement is how you define "the most good for the most people." I have spent a lot of time in management. Over 30 years in fact. One lesson that I learned early is that sometimes to make everyone happy, you have to (*)(*)(*)(*) everyone off equally. As I said earlier in this post, government spending has to be reined in. This will require raising taxes, and cutting entitlements. No one is going to be thrilled by that tactic, but it will do "the most good for the most people." What I am looking for in a candidate is one that will actually work with the opposition party on a compromise solution.

 

I don't know how it works. And if you find out, please let us know. In the meantime, we'll just call them hypocrites and call it a night.

 

While I agree, what you are basically saying, is that it's a book of conveniences, whereby one picks a convenient interpretation runs with it and corrupts the Bible. Sounds so Republican doesn't it?

 

I would say that many Republicans and Liberals cherry pick the verses that espouse or appeal to their values as neither group holds a monopoly upon Christianity.

 

Possibly! Though I have not personally known of any Liberals in my circles who have made the attempt to hijack the Bible, to fit their own agenda. You just don't come across that kind of thing around the people I know..

 

last time asking..link to a news article showing someone on the right said the poor are lazy moochers. Sorry as I told you I need facts not leftist blog opinion polls.

 

Nowhere does it say "Under the threat of imprisonment or at the point of a spear." It's proven time and again that conservatives are far more generous with their OWN money than are liberals.

 

During the feeding of the multitude, did Jesus command his disciples to go among the followers, find out which of them had the most, which had the least, and to equitably distribute food to those that needed it? Nope, he did not. The parable tells us that Jesus told his disciples to take their own remaining 5 loaves and 2 fishes and distribute them among the multitude. They were to give of themselves.

Now people look at this parable in different ways. Some think that God magically produces more fishes and more loaves as the baskets passed around. Others think that the followers naturally shared the food that they carried with them when presented with the charitable example of Christ. But neither way exemplifies a forced redistribution from those that have to those that need. One is trust in God. The other is trust in humanity.

Christ's example to you is that God doesn't judge you by the society you live in. He judges you by your action. It's your behavior that is either charitable or stingy, and not how the society you live in redistributes the wealth of others.

So if taxes are not theft, can I refuse to pay them?

 

you're being pulled into the claptrap

where are the friends
where are the parents
where are the aunts
where are the uncles
where are the sisters
where are the brothers
where is the daddy

what happened to "charity begins at home" ?

Nobody EVER said that raising children was easy but becoming pregnant is a CHOICE and results in a lifetime of responsibility

it is not the role of the govt to supplant the role of family and friends yet that is what liberals try and call "compassion"

It is not the role of govt to abdicate people of their personal accountability and again, that is what liberals push

 

if it was simply supply and demand, all the other issues I raised could be completely proven to have zero impact... but they can't, we can actually go through university budgets and see the breakdown per student that is paid to all the issues I bring up in order to sustain those amenities and waste on campus... we can also see the waiting lists of students to get pre-req courses, while the university spends money to add all these other filler courses that have no merit for the degrees the students are seeking... so its everything I've said and not a simple "supply and demand" problem... its a problem of the university NOT responding to the demand for the courses NEEDED and instead adding courses they WANTED to chase the prestige I was discussing earlier... this is far more than a basic economic supply and demand issue... its a self-created problem as a result of their prestige chasing instead of getting back to their core goals, educating students, rather than giving students prestige...

P.S. if you think universities are struggling from a lack of new building, you'll often find universities are one of the leading builders in the communities they exist within, even large cities the universities float to the top of new buildings... so everything you're citing can be factually debunked as political ideology to deflect the true issues which I can rip their budgets apart and show you directly what each students pays as a result of failing to address their needs versus wants... education is not a want, its a need like you said, so maybe our leaders should stop chasing the wrong goals and start putting the needs first... but they don't... they want the prestige more...

P.S.S. and to further drive home this point, my school with 4 full sized pools now could have instead built 3 buildings that offer CLASSES that students on the pre-req waiting lists could then attend, rather than waste an entire year on filler classes that have no impact on getting their degrees... instead they have 4 pools... gee I wonder which building would get a student a degree faster... clearly not a lack of money for buildings, a lack of thought for putting students education first, rather than prestige...