Here is an article I read today...it is totally biased...but would love any responses on it. My response on it...I can't believe that we as a society praise men for doing whatever needs to be done in order to gain wealth...it doesn't add up to me. Probably why I could never be in business! But more so...this brought on the question of how programs for the poor or the elderly are being seen as hand outs...or making people dependent on the government. Included in this group of self-entitled individuals...according to Romney and his supporters are those with mentally or physically handicapped children...these families are often the recipients of government assistance bc of the overly exhaustive costs of care. Really...these are self-entitled individuals...people not taking responsibility for themselves? And yet we praise those who do what they can bc they can to make millions. It just makes me so emotional. This leads me to the recent video released which was a fund raiser opp. where Romney revealed how he feels about men and women who live on social security, or these families with loved ones unable to take care of themselves or the working class...even the very poor.
Here is the only place I found the video--I didn't read the article...just watch the video. Oh I need a break!
Be nice, Emily...Be nice..
.(so hard)....he is not a bad person...just not the right man for presidency...
Ok I feel better. :)
This article was informative about Romney's job at Bain Capital based on a Rolling Stone article....it helps in understanding Romney's view of Americans...and the recent video.
What the video says:
He doesn't care about the vote from the 47% who "don't take responsibility for themselves" and who "think of themselves as victims." Mind boggling! Horrible campaigning...I feel bad for Romney...he is just so obviously
unfit for the job. Poor guy. He is such a nice guy--aside from politics...:/ awkward...he wants to be the next PRESIDENT...awkward....so awkward.
Speaking of awkward...did anyone see the video of Romney with the veteran who asked him about gay rights? AWKWARD!
He has so many awkward moments...it is so sad. I really do... putting sarcasm aside...feel bad for the guy and the people who staunchly support him. He just doesn't have good campaigning sense...or a good campaign team. I know I have said that before...but it is true. I will be UTTERLY baffled if he even gets close to being elected.
Obama's people put this out:
Boy this post leaves me with so much to comment on. Gotta run to an appointment - but would pose this question as an initial response:
ReplyDeleteWith approximately 47% of American's that don't pay a dime of income taxes, those American voices are not attracted to a President who, as part of his campaign, talks of lower the income tax burden on Americans...agreed? Its like selling ice to Eskimos. No pain - no need for the message. Many of the 47% will likely never have an interest in supporting Romney.
Couldn't the same be said of the the 47% that are generally GOP voters regarding support of Obama? Isn't this campaign really about the middle 6-8% of the population that calls themselves independents? Isn't that who these candidates are spending millions of dollars trying to talk to and advertise to?
So, I am in business. I look at where to invest my money all the time. I want to invest my monetary and vocal capital where I will influence the 6-8% (in this case) to accomplish what I want.
If I were Obama - I wouldn't spend my time campaigning to those who are paying taxes right now - that isn't your market, Mr. Obama. Your market are those who are not paying taxes are who, as a family, pay relatively low marginal taxes - so much to the point that you can't quite cut their tax burden any more than you already have. Hence he campaigns on diversity, gay rights, raising taxes, expanding entitlement programs, funding programs without regard to the funds to pay for them.
Given the above, hence Romney campaigns to the audience that are paying taxes, that would prefer to see some government programs cut, would prefer to see entitlement reform, etc.
Honestly, not too sure what was so shocking about his remarks.
I know you would say that you didn't know what was so shocking! hahaha. The comparison of Obama and Romney...is why I think it is inappropriate what he said...but I don't think he is heartless...I just think he does not use his heart when it comes to politics. And I want a president who is not all business all the time...who doesn't think of corporations as people and people as a heavy weight on society. I think you, Brian and Romney have very similar minds...very good with personal money and with business...but the difference between you and Romney in my eyes...is that I can see your compassion and I can see your kindness...it was a political campaign NO-NO to say what he said bc it not only turns off the 47%...he referred to...but other people with hearts who would disagree! That is why it is awkward and shocking. I do understand his backpedaling and what he says he meant by what was said...but just not a good way to win votes. Not to mention I disagree with him! haha. BC many of those people are like I pointed out the elderly/retired on Social Security, and families with disabled relatives to support.
Delete*Knew you would say that.
DeleteRomney knows he is not talking to you - hence he isn't catering his message to you. You are part of the 47% that will vote Obama regardless of what Romney has to say - further, you will give Obama a lot more latitude in his remarks versus Romney. I am part of the 47% that will vote Romney (GOP) regardless of what Obama has to say and will give Romney a lot of latitude on his misspoken word. Hence millions are spent on the middle 6%. What a fluid bunch of people that 6% is - because if you watch Congress and the White House, those branches of government shift between GOP and Democrat control rather frequently over time.
ReplyDeleteWe are a two party system which naturally means both parties must present notably different agendas and plans to represent two very different voting blocks. I know you are always so surprised as things GOP people say - trust me, we know you don't get it! You are very Blue compared to the current agenda of the Red. So naturally, you will differ in opinions and understandings of those Red people. No surprise - but keep on posting your confusions...it gives us Red people something to entertain us!
Here is the $64,000 question I'd love for you to answer for me. As a general rule, you have labeled the Red team as selfish people. Further you have eluded then that those on the Blue team are charitably minded. You know what I am about to say just as much as I know it and I know you won't deny it - the vast majority of the Blue votes (I know this is not you at all though) pay no federal income tax and/or are recipients of some type of government assistance via food stamps, unemployment, SS, medicare, the proposed free health care, earned income tax credit, child tax credits, disability, student aid, etc. Agreed? Of course you do. I know its not everyone - but certainly a lot of the 47% fall into this category.
Further, I would also argue that a large majority of the Red votes pay substantial income taxes and are not recipients of any or relatively little government assistance. I would note that your lion share of Schedule A charitable contributions come from people that vote GOP - no surprise there because they have more resources with which to give.
So here is the question - aren't both political polar opposites selfish then? Don't many of the Obama voters vote with him because he will ensure those that aren't paying federal income taxes can continue with no tax burden? Further, don't many of those voting for Obama do so because they receive assistance as noted above and Obama has promised to continue doing so? Does that large contingency of Democrat voters really have a compassion or appreciation for the tax burden that is then placed on the other half of the country? I would argue they are more concerned about maintaining their financial assistance. So are they, as a general rule, really charitable?
But I find it interesting that you then label the red team as money horders and selfish people. Which one is the pot and which is the kettle?
And I have searched long and hard and I can't find any prophetic counsel or Book of Mormon reference that advocates big government taxing so the government can do sooooooooo much for everyone - which you and I know leads to waste, fraud, $500 billion guarantees on an energy company, etc. It's not the politicians personal money and I don't think they spend it like it is. I find quite the opposite approach from the Brethren - President Bensen, given his political background, was not shy at all about teaching the role of government - which is not to care for every whim of every person's need.
OK first the "selfish" issue. It is a natural tendency...I was referring mostly to elected officials in the past. I have said before that I would be fine with paying more taxes...but people are struggling!! Is this news to Republicans?! I don't get it! "It is time for people to be responsible." Was Bush responsible when he landed us in this mess and caused for so many people to lose homes, jobs, and therefore need a little help? It is so frustrating to me!
DeleteFurthermore...you are aware that our church is neutral, right? They do not support a party or candidate...ever! Furthermore, neither party fits perfectly with our beliefs! To argue that Republicans are what Heavenly Father wants us to be makes me want to puke...and I am sure the other way for you. Each person needs to weigh what is important to him/her. Furthermore, I do not believe that charity is only a certain part of my life as a member of the church...just not when it comes to politics, policy or government...do you hear how insane that sounds? Obviously not...I get it...we think differently. Just like with Romney...I don't think he is evil...but I don't get how he justifies himself with his statements of people being "victims" and people needing to man-up and "take personal responsibility." Who is this guy to judge others and say that 47% of the country is just needy lazy beggars...really that is what I heard. Have you heard the video?
I understand the aftermath approach to his comments...I get what they try to say he was saying. But they stand by what he said.
All I can say on how I justify being a Mormon Democrat...I have peace...I have tried to entertain some Republican policies...even this weekend I tried one out...and I felt so guilty and awful...it is hard to describe. I don't fit with the current Republican party.
Both parties have significant flaws...I have argued many times that we need to elect moderate representatives in office in order to get America to work together again. But in my opinion...the Republican party was the one that changed over the past decade. Ask your new spokesman :) Clint Eastwood who used to be Republican but claims Libertarian. It has changed.
As far as scripture for why I am at peace with my party :). Well, other than the fact that many apostles and thereby our prophets are Democrats...I can't open the BOM and not read about corruption without thinking about the Republican elects. You know the pride cycle...Wealth and Prosperity leads to greed of money and power which leads to destruction which leads to humility. I always look for leaders who place greed of wealth before King Benjamin's speech of how "ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked" and numerous other scriptures about being charitable. Again...just bc one is charitable in one aspect of his life, does not mean he can say, "I got that one covered. Charity. Check!" In my opinion, one must not only do...but live those principles. I am not saying...let us have the entire country stop working and become dependent. RARE cases in this nation are those that are constant "moochers" on the government...who feel entitled. Instead, people hit hard times and luckily we have a compassionate government. A government built to work for the people and by the people. A government to help the people. We are failing our people and the founding fathers if we allow for the government to be used to ensure the wealthy keep their money...but not used to help educating our kids--our public education ensures only 1 in 3 children make it to college...and that might be a generous number in favor of the how many make it to college. Everyone pays into the system...sales tax...but the wealthy hire a whole staff of accountants to find loop holes. Loop holes which keep them from paying back into the system that feeds them...that probably educated them. UGH. We have had this conversation...so on to the next.
You say "who is this guy to judge..." when the comical part is that you don't realize your very statement is judgmental! Hilarious!
DeleteOther funny comment to me all the time is the one where you say something like, "why do these wealthy people think they should be able to keep their money?" Priceless! Keep in mind, the wealthy pay a large chunk of change - they aren't keeping it. Don't forget Romney paid over $4 million in income taxes last year. So just to be clear, they don't think they should be able to keep all of their money...just some of it!
I don't say why do they get to keep there money! I say that I have seen the numbers:
DeleteThere are over 100,000 people who are noted as paying $0 in income taxes last year and they made $211,000-over 2.2 million! That is what is crazy! Who KNOWS what Romney paid in previous years...but he sure made sure to pay something so that those records wouldn't look as bad as we can assume the other years did.
Of course I can judge! I am not running to be the President of the free world! I am not trying to represent the people I am bashing!
I have to add also...that Republicans seem to think they are above Democrats bc they claim to be the "religious party"---but in my view elected republicans emulate what we are taught over and over to avoid! Preistcrafts and using some truth mingled with lies in order to get elected. They also use fear and use what you said yourself, that they are the way our Father would rule. Well, even if that is true (which I do not believe it is)...we are not HEAVENLY FATHER! We should not pretend to be Him...and rule and judge like he would! We are taught the commandments...love the savior and love our fellow men...the fact that people choose to say that one party is more aligned with the gospel than the other goes against my core beliefs. You can justify either party...but none are more important than our religion...some people just do not have the gospel...and so I believe in a separate church and state...but I align better with Democrats bc of the ideals that party expresses: equality for all, prosperity for all, education for all and most of all compassion for all our fellow Americans. Ah, man...I think I replied to the wrong comment! TOO many comments! haha.
DeletePart 2....
ReplyDeleteHence, I will always support small government, less regulation, more freedoms. It feels more consistent with the type of a government Father would have. Teach the people correct principles, including caring for the needy, and leave it to them. Hence I have never had a Deacon come to my door to collect fast offerings and give me a reaction like, "Is that really all you are going to do?" or "Wow, that is a huge check! Way to go!"
And I know your response - I am just a naive and most of the country doesn't have the knowledge of or benefit of the welfare system. Bensen never said that is a blank check then for the running deficits and expanding entitlement programs.
I look forward to your answer on "selfish Democrats." Just want to make sure if Republicans are going to get an ignorant label that we are fair to all and pass it on the Democrat voters - because on your own definition, they should be no different in your eyes then a GOP person - realizing there are unique people in each party - like you and I that are not stereotypical.
Kinda already replied to that in previous comment. . . so I will leave it at that.
DeleteWell Ok...here is one a fellow Democrat brought up recently.... :) King Benjamin in the BOM:
Delete14 And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the devil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness.
15 But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.
21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.
22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.
23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.
Delete24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
My favorite part is to the poor: "If I have I would give"---people cannot give...they cannot think outside the day to day until the basic life sources are provided...and though I think the church does an awesome job around the world...who better to help our people than their own government...not to make them dependent...but to give them a hand up...gotta be clear. But this scripture is why I support government programs...I don't want their lives on my hands when I die. Donate to charities..of course...but provide a compassionate government and we will all be blessed. (DO not twist my words to say dependency or lack of fiscal responsibility---we have talked about all that already and my previous opinions stand).
To be clear - never had said, never will say the democrat platform is Satan's platform or that those believers aren't worthy of a temple recommend. You have suggested my comments make you feel that way - very sorry, not the intent, not the words at all.
DeleteQuick summary of what I was trying to saw - GOP plan of accountability, temporary help, recipient to contribute where you can are all consistent themes in the Church Welfare Program as administered by the Brethren. Unlimited help with no accountability of how the assistance is used and no expectation of the recipient providing work in return is not the Church Welfare program at all. GOP plan for helping the needy is more aligned with the program of the Church. No GOP person I will vote for will deny temporary relief - food on the table and a warm house for a family. Never have, never will. But no GOP person I will vote for will ever propose a government funded welfare counterpart to the Church's welfare system that is so opposite of those three basic principles intertwined in the welfare system of the Church.
Does that make more sense? I feel like you have thought I suggest Dems can't go to the temple - no way at all, not what I said and not what I believe. Just making a comparison of the programs of the Church vs. Government. GOP is a closer comparison to the Church welfare program. Let me guess - you disagree!? :)
I was kidding about the temple thing on fb...but Ash didn't pick that up over fb. But the thing is people do act so crazy in UT when you aren't Republican. It is funny and amusing!
DeleteThe GOP discriminates rights given to gay people...rights even the church stood up for in 2009 (housing discrimination). Basic rights.
To your point...Bush lowered the amount of Pell Grants offered...but lowering the amount of income to require for them. This is taking education off the table...It is common...as far as food off the table...how do you know anything about Romney's strategy! He doesn't tell anyone! We have NO idea what he intends to do...he is getting rid of Medicare by letting it wither up even before the voucher program is scheduled to come in...that is taking money out of the hands and food off the table...I could go on and on about the indirect ways...no he will not steal food stamps from people...but you are crazy if you think times won't be tougher for individuals who may need this assistance if Romney was ever to take office. He never sees blood on his own hands from his actions...bc it is indirect...well...follow the bread crumbs...or trace back the spiderweb of threads and he will be the man at the end...just like Bush was at the end of the string the economy was barely hanging from.
I have just been ignoring the "bush" economy jabs. I have worked in the banking industry before, during, and after the housing crisis hit. The housing crisis is the result of laws and executive orders placed into law in the mid to late 1990's under Clinton when Dems wanted Freddie and Fannie's function to make home buying easier to help the middle class (stated income mortgages became acceptable for government guarantees...getting a mortgage without verifying income, sound familiar?) and 2005 under a democrat controlled house/senate when republicans put a law before them to slow the liquid market of Fannie and Freddie securities but Dems felt the GOP was just trying to hurt the middle class because the action would have made it more difficult for unqualified people to get mortgages - but would have eliminated the mortgage backed securities that blew up in 2008.
DeleteGlad we got that straight. Go ahead, I challenge you on that one. What exactly (site facts please) did Bush personally do to cause the mess that you so frequently place at his feet in nearly every post? I have a binder of research and articles I used when defending my career to every person out there who thought banks were evil back in 2008. Never would have happened without Clinton and a Dem controlled house/senate in 2005.
I am salivating at your response to that one!
OK "under a Democrate controlled house/senate"---that BUSH supported as well! I am sure there is video in cyber space to prove it. In addition, do you recall that we have been in WAR for years? Does that not affect the economy?????!!! That is the "jab" I give to Bush...a war WE DID NOT NEED TO HAVE AND WERE NOT READY FOR AND THAT WAS JUSTIFIED AND BLATANTLY LIED ABOUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! That and his own lack of fiscal responsibility that Republicans like to blame our current President for. I personally find it overwhelming...I am not an elected official...I just expect more from them...and I intend to vote for local representatives who can get more work done...not that it matters in such a state as ours...but still I am hopeful for a better group of people in the house and senate to move Obama's deficit plans along.
DeleteAs far as what happened to banks under Clinton...we were in a much better economy immediately following those actions...but it is important to note that things like that...which free up banks to lend to more people...can only be used temporarily...Bush dropped the ball when he did not take action after our economy showed signs of weakening. So obviously we even disagree on that.
Great summary from Romney in SLC on Tuesday of the GOP belief:
ReplyDelete"We all believe that when people are in distress, and when they need help, we give them temporary help and pull them back up. But we don't believe in redistribution."
vs. the quote from Obama:
"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all," Obama says. "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Emily, I think you and I believe in the same principles but just differ in how to execute on that plan. I, like Romney, believe in temporary aid. I have not heard anything from Obama that suggests he agrees aid should be temporary...hence his and your love of entitlement programs. People are motivated by money - no matter how small it is. Many are not properly motivated to change behavior and do all in their power to improve their circumstances with their "government help" if any such improvement would be "punished" by reducing or eliminating government assistance (i.e. be temporary help).
See, per Romney, we are charitable! We want give people a few fishes and then have people be accountable and learn to fish instead of having the government give him a fish every day for the rest of his/her life. In the same tone you say it to us...that does make sense to you right? If not...I don't get what kind of a fantasy and dependant world you want this nation to be.
We definitely are different, Brian and see a different path of getting to the end goal.
DeleteOK. Obama says ALL THE TIME...that we do not want a dependent nation...relying on the government. That is a fear tactic and ploy used by the Republicans and Republican networks...that station in which I like to watch So You Think You Can Dance. Tonight on Letterman was the latest. He just thinks that the responsibility is not solely on the people who were basically the effects of an economy that spiraled out of control before Obama took office...he thinks that we should not let these people suffer it out. That is the difference...bc Romney offers no other plan than pulling government programs in order to decrease the deficit. Obama wants to only give a hand up until they are on their feet...he has always said that. I think Romney is trying to use his words to win votes after his plunder...but I hope he does feel that way, also.
But as far as this election and campaign...It is 2 very different ideas of how to move forward...(just like Obama said tonight on Letterman). We have agreed that some programs need better regulation...and better ways to help people to cope on their own once their benefits from the government run out...which they should at some point...but there are many different facets of government help...and just like the wealthy finding tax loop holes....so do the poor try to find ways to get themselves more financial help. All parties have people who are uncharitable and selfish. But there are a lot of people who are not victims and don't feel entitled...and they are just needing a bit of help on student loans...or whatever.
Another thing Obama said, "I feel responsible for everything." He was not saying that at the question of something positive that has happened...but instead he said that at the Q: "Do you feel responsible for the slow progress of job growth in the country?" He also says even the people he has not won their vote...he still is their President as well..and he does listen to them.
Republicans and Fox News want you to think that he takes no responsibility for the progress that has been slow to be made...he does...and I feel he is a compassionate President. Can you picture Romney reading letters from 10 Americans each night? I do not see Romney having any connection with the vast difference our country is great and built on. We are a diverse people...we also have a dwindling middle class...and Romney does not care about that. On a side note: Can you see Romney doing the "schmoozing" that the Republicans in congress say is Obama's problem in moving issues forward? I think that is funny..and that is how the 2 are alike! They are both family men. And Romney is probably worse than Obama at schmoozing. :) But I don't see that as a negative.
On the other hand...Romney's statement shows he cannot bring the country together...he does not want to be EVERY one's President...he wants to be president for "x" reason....which in my opinion seems to be greed and wanting to fulfill his ego...I only say that bc by his "fruits." He has changed his platform in order to be elected for Presidential candidate...he has molded himself to be what the Right wing wants....instead of being himself. I was open to him in the beginning. But then he spoke. Getting off topic...
Look at the map and see how many people and how many states he referred to as irresponsible and people who felt entitled or victimized. A part of me keeps thinking...he is just putting on this show to get the right wing to vote for him and give him money...he doesn't really think this way...but your comments proved I need to stop being naive. He is exactly what the candid video shows.
"Obama doesn't want a nation dependent upon government." You say GOP fear tactic is to suggest the opposite. Show me his limitations of government aid to aid recipients? No limits fosters dependency, correct? Note I didn't say, "no limits creates a dependency." There are many who receive help temporaily to regain footing and they move on. Can't we agree that if Obama doesn't want a nation dependent upon the government that he would need to propose limits. For example - if you income is below a certain point, you are welcome to an $8,000 tax credit to help you provide for the needs of your family for up to 3 years. After three years, the tax credit goes away - so plan accordingly recipient. The current plan allows for that tax credit to be received forever - as long as income is below certain levels. Doesn't that foster dependency. When I have tax clients who count on that tax refund year after year - that's a dependent person, right? To me, quotes like you eluded to from Obama that he doesn't want a dependent nation is lip service - prove it with policy, Mr. Obama. In you honest opinion, why does he not suggest limits to aid then if he really believes what you suggest? If he doesn't suggest limits, can you and I honestly look at each other and say we believe him when he says, "I don't want a dependent nation?" Help me with that.
DeleteI can't speak for Obama...but we have talked about how we both agree in the tightening up on some programs. But I believe that MOST people who use government help from time to time...Republican, Democrat or Independent or someone else...use it temporarily as it is meant to be used.
DeleteOk as far as redistribution. Look up the definition!
Deletere·dis·tri·bu·tion (rds-tr-byshn)
n.
1. The act or process of redistributing.
2. An economic theory or policy that advocates reducing inequalities in the distribution of wealth.
In another definition it includes taxation as a way to redistribute. And Obama has said he wants to tax the wealthy and then those taxes would then pay for government programs. Redistribution.
And that quote from Obama...from 1998. He does still believe in this definition of it...not what Romney's definition of redistribution is. Significant difference. And that is another reason I support him.
Tightening up a program, as we have agreed in the past, is not a limit. Agreed? 3 years, as an example, is a LIMIT!
DeleteNo limit invites dependancy. Again, not saying everyone will be dependent, but many will. What is the harm in saying, "you get this for X number of years/months, plan accordingly."
And you totally ignored my Church Welfare vs. Government Welfare comparison! Man, I thought I had a victory on that one! But if it is just ignored, I can't keep an accurate score! :)
Which program are you referring to? Unemployment has a limit...are you talking about food stamps, or which program? They all vary. But I don't think limits will do much with some of the programs bc every case or person in need is different...I am not saying I would not agree with limits under proper, thoughtful and compassionate regulation...but many times limits don't help people change their circumstance. And limits imply that just by providing food that will some how magically elevate them to being in the middle class. There are so many flaws with many programs. I agree with that. But I don't think that limits over all programs offers much of a progressive solution. It just limits spending. I can't justify that as being a reason to say, "We will feed your kids for a few weeks, good luck after that! I think that is enough to improve you situation, though. Work harder!" However, I do agree that there are programs that might work very well with limits...so it is a case by case.
DeleteQuestion: I know very little about the church welfare system...are there limits? You imply there are. But there was this man and his dog and they were basically homeless, but he was a nomad and would go from ward to ward getting food and such. Somehow he had heard about the church and he was not a member. We even had him over for Thanksgiving. I think that man, though, enjoyed being homeless...it sounds heartless...but he really did. He would tell all these stories about traveling and he was proud of it in a way. Now don't get me wrong....I think he had something wrong...something happened to him in his life and he was sick mentally bc he couldn't see what he was doing was wrong...but that isn't for me to say that we should deny him our charity bc to us he might seem undeserving. That is why I am not upset the church kept giving him food...but it still is unfortunate bc there are others who try...who work hard, but have bad things happen...who are laid off from work, or who have illnesses and bills they cannot afford...and when you compare the 2 (this man who travels with his dog and other people)...it is hard not to favor the others over this man in wanting to help them. That is why it is a complicated thing in government...how do you determine through paper work who is deserving of food? It is a complicated matter...not just a matter of math. And though limits might work with some programs and government assistance...I don't think you should suffer the many who use it as a step stool to improve their lives just bc there are people like this man and his dog...who take advantage.
...and just because there was so much in your post to comment on, so little time in the day. You say he is clearly "unfit" to be president. And you "feel bad for the buy and those that staunchly support him." Seems how you and I are seemingly the only people that read and post on this site - you can just say my name. :) And don't feel bad for me at all! I can take care of myself - I don't need pity. As for the "unfit" comment - again, you are among the 47% staunch supporters of Obama - he isn't talking to you...so obviously you and your liberal friends will all think he is unfit. Good heavens - Obama is "unfit" in my eyes. But no surprise there or where my loyalties fall.
ReplyDeleteI am so upset...my comment was deleted! UGH.
DeleteShort version:
Romney's comments were supposed to be directed at Democrats...in actuality that 47% includes many Republicans. Do you honestly think that only Democrats use government programs?! Those are the great neutralizer in this country! The poor are hungry...and bc of that they take the help...period! It has nothing to do with politics to them! But now it might...after that insulting video.
Also I need to say my posts are for me. I don't expect anyone to gain anything from them. They are my political journey. I like the discussions we have...but I have said before that I do it, so that I don't offend people who become stunned that a Mormon could be a Democrat! And I have had people question my religious faithfulness...it is just crazy. So to keep myself sane and "breathe" as it states under the title of the blog...I do it here. My political safe place. Nothing is directed at you...but I appreciate and enjoy our conversation.
No, I don't think that only Democrats use government programs. My only point was that the pool of voters that vote for Democrat leaders contains a very large contingency of people do use government programs. Their vote is one of selfish motive. They won't vote for a President who says, "I want to cut taxes" because they already pay $0 in income taxes. So what is their motivation to vote Romney? None. Theirs is to keep a president in place who vows to keep those benefits rolling in. Right?
DeleteI disagree. :) But we will just go back and forth on this one...it comes down to how we view things. I can see you are aligned with Romney...no matter how insulting his comments are...and that is fine. I am not. I think people don't vote as selfishly as you think. I don't and I know many who don't. I am not voting on taxes...people use taxes as a bad word...but taxes provide for schools and roads and they are necessary. But I do agree that now is not the time to "hit them while their down" and tax all people including those in middle class struggling to stay in the middle class...like we talked about before. We just differ here...so I don't see any point in rehashing it more.
DeleteRedistribution: I know what it is. Just don't know why I have to be forced to participate in it. I get the sense that 47% of the rest of the country agrees with me. Just gotta swing a few independents over to my side. You interested?
ReplyDeleteMy goal in life with my Masters Degree in Tax and my CPA license is to get myself out of paying every dime of taxes I can legally get out of and thanks to all the special interest groups that flood politicians with their dirty money, it is highly unlikely my favorite tax loopholes will ever go away! My next goal - to take on as many wealthy clients as I can to show them the way to financial freedom via legal tax loopholes so that they have more resources to redistribute their own wealth according to their personal desires and spiritual motivations. Now isn't that a worthy goal? I think so - my hope is many people who need food on the table will be blessed accordingly from the generosity of my clients and fewer $500 billion loans to failed energy companies will be made. But I will have a smile on my face when I (and my clients) can get out of paying taxes in a legal way.
Do you want me to do your taxes next year? I'm pretty good! :) I know, I am just showing my "true colors and you are disappointed and have lost so much respect for me." Don't worry, I will still sleep well tonight - I replaced my down feathers from my pillow with extra cash I didn't want to redistribute yet.