Being Poor is NOT a virtue!

I have to ask: If you believe in personal responsibility, as this post obviously suggests, why do you describe yourself as "... further left than the average American liberal"?

 

No - Christians believe in what Jesus said, you know, which is as socialist as it was possible to be back then. You clearly are not a Christian, as your last sentence demonstrates. Why must you play these silly games? Go worship Mammon honestly, as your nature intended. I don't judge you, but I do know the difference between my arse and my elbow and between Christians and Pharisees too.

 

The above statement sums up the reasons most people I know resent governments attempts to redistribute wealth in the name of compassion.

 

Only those who have utter contempt for Christ could possible pervert his words to make him out to be a socialist.

And there you go again. Only the most extreme fundamentalist Christians take your stance, deciding who is and who isn't Christian based on fleeting outward appearances.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). As you judge, so shall you be judged.

Pharisees had their own sense of self righteousness by which they could look down on others as not being as holy as they. You are very redolant of them. I won't return evil for evil by saying you aren't a Christian, but I will say you are a very judgemental, fundamentalist Christian and a poor examle of one.

 

Your posts really confuse me. You continue to claim that you are liberal, yet your beliefs and values seem to imply otherwise. I hope we can discuss this seemingly contradictory position in a civil manner. I'm game if you are.

Just for the record - I've never know a conservative or a libertarian who envied a liberal. I would think that many true liberals would envy your success.

 

You're the one who claimed that Jesus was a Socialist - yet you have provided no evidence of that ridiculous assertion.

Charity is not socialism - it requires a Government...and (as you probably know), Jesus wasn't a big fan of Government, ceding to it only that which was required.

But I'm all ears to hear your argument.

 

Some people have a conscience about making other people poor while they get rich. Others do not have that conscience and get through the day by begrudging.

And, btw, conservatives DO NOT spend more of their own time and effort on charity than liberals do. Conservatives are out looking for tax deductions.

 

EXCUSES, the singular area where liberals excel!

FACT: Conservatives contribute MORE of their own money to charity, than the BS laden liberals do. Does the RARE liberal that actually does put his money where his mouth is, NOT deduct his charitable contributions? No, liberal or conservative, they both deduct. Why do conservatives contribute more on their own? They know it will be better utilized by the organization that receives it, than the govt will do. At least in my case, that's what happens. Anything legal that I can do to keep money out of the hands of an incredible wasteful and inefficient govt, I do.

 

Conservatives do give more than liberals because conservatives do not look past themselves to seat the obligation to help their fellow man. And I've got to say your statement about tax deductions shows you such at math, economics, or both. Just because somebody isn't taxed on the mony they give to charity doesn't mean they aren't at a loss for doing so. Nobody gets rich from tax deductions because they are still paying out the principle amount. I'll pretend you're in 3rd grade because that's what you sound like. If you give $100 to charity that you aren't taxed on, that $100 isn't taxed, which saves you $20 on your taxes. But you're still at an $80 loss. Being greedy would be not giving the $100 and paying only the $20 in tax. If you can't understand that, I can try to dumb it down even further.

 

That is what taxes are for. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Hence FOR OTHERS.

And everyone benefits from safety net etc.

Anyone can attempt to get such housing. They only reason they dont is because enough isnt available - like police, who may not always get there in time.

That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Not everyone is saved by police. Not everyone wants the army. The fact remains they are all collective programs. Taxes are for the collective. You are totally lost in your thinking.

 

Yes they do. You for example chastise the poor, a very cruel thing to do. Of course poverty is a virtue - Jesus was a bum after all.

 

Actually its easy to figure out who is a Christian and who isnt. A christian is one who follows Christ. The term Christian comes from 'christ-like'. Hence, since Jesus poverty was a GOOD thing, being poor (in the service of others) is not only a virtue, its also very Christian.

 

I guess the first thing I would ask you is .... do you actually know any liberals?

most people I associate with are educated, relatively well to do, and have worked hard all their lives. these are the people I have similar values to.

In my circle of friends, (mostly aged 40's - 70's) virtually ALL are what americans define as liberal - or possibly even further to the left.

In general, the differences between myself (and my friends) and conservatives is more related to our attitudes such as equity of access to resources (education, health, welfare, immigration - asylum seekers here, etc); respect for diversity of people from various backgrounds; environmental issues; foreign policy; government/community responsibility for ensuring a better quality of life for all. In my age group, many of us take a dim view of drug use and excessive consumption of alcohol and irresponsible behaviour generally, however "liberals" such as myself also tend to appreciate that sometimes those with issues such as these may not be 100% responsible for their actions. we are more inclined to look at rehabilition and education, rather than punishment.

in terms of personal lifestyle choices - not so much is different between people like myself and a conservative in the same age group. both sides of politics in this age may be more conservative in their attitudes to money - I know from previous experience as a financial counsellor that political orientation doesn't make one group more responsible in how they use their money, but I do find fiscal irresponsibility is more common among younger people in general. they are a product of a different age.

I find it offensive that people make negative assumptions about my personal habits just because of my political views, because not only is it inaccurate for me, it is inaccurate for the vast majority of people.

WRT conservatives being envious ... I have found that sometimes conservatives ARE envious of people who are successful. So are liberals sometimes.

 

I don't agree that paying taxes is the same as being robbed.

I guess if you think the government is "stealing" when they use your taxes to help others - I would be quite justified in saying the government is "stealing" if it gives subsidies to industry, or pays for a military to look after interests that I do not share.

 

because the two are only contradictory in the minds of american conservatives, and as I am not an american conservative, I see no contradiction.

 

"...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."--Jesus

The problem in American isn't poor being considered a virtue, the problem in America is wealth being considered a virtue. I have met many with money who are horrible with money. Many who are scared of hard work. Many who a 6 year old would find dumb. To be honest, the greatest thing that could happen in America is for the poor and the rich to learn the good things of each other. Those who are poor need to care about themselves as much as others, while learning to think about the future and less about now. The rich simply need to hang out in the same locations. So what they have might rub off when they have a real handshake, a real hug, and a good time with people who value others based upon who they are, not what they have.

 

You see no contradiction in someone claiming to be further left than your average liberal and yet is somehow personally responsible? Wow, this looks like liberals refuse to see themselves as how everyone else sees them. The only way your statement could possibly make sense is that perhaps you are indeed personally responsible for your own life, but still have this mindset that the poor or the minorities could never be personally responsible for their own lives, so you insist, condone and even fight for their right to have government intervene on their behalf. So long as all those people stay mired in destitution at the behest of the government while having no personal responsiblity whatsoever, you can continue to claim that YOU yourself are indeed personally responsible. Okay, I get it now.

 

This is a tough discussion. In your earlier post you asked if I knew any liberals. Good question. I know a few but admit that I don't hang out with them. We don't really have much in common. I support most of the same social positions as liberals but for different reasons. I believe in freedom, not "special rights" for minorities, gays, ugly people (that is the most ridiculous one so far, and certainly not a minority) etc. On fiscal issues I tend to agree with conservatives, but they lose me when it comes to religion, abortion and most other social issues. Neither liberals nor conservatives believe in freedom, they just want to control different aspects of the lives of others.

Thanks for being civil in your response. It is hard to find that on a forum these days.

 

hmm. well I don't see equity as different from freedom. and I don't see equity as "special rights" . I see it as having the same rights.

I have never seen that anyone else having the same rights as me impinges on my freedom. I see a fairer and more equal society as enhancing my own freedom.

on fiscal issues, I believe in sound economic management, but having been in business I also recognise that sometimes business decisions may involve using borrowed funds to invest in resources that can improve productivity. I see sound economic management of government investing in "value adding" to society as a good investment.

I also believe in encouraging people to be self reliant, however recognise that sometimes people need assistance to improve their skills base, and this may come through my hard earned tax dollars. I guess I have seen plenty of cases where people do develop skills and turn their lives around, although I have seen plenty of "hopeless cases" as well. But I don't know that I am in a position to judge these people, and I don't resent my tax dollars going to them. I am critical of government decisions to subsidise big business (often through tax breaks). In my country, the mining industry is doing very well, and most of the profits are not staying here. Their success has contributed to a two speed economy which has started to impact negatively on some sectors of our economy (eg other exporters). I believe our government should have had more guts in ensuring that higher taxes were reaped from this sector in order to improve quality of life for all of us.

WRT freedom and the conservative/liberal position - I think what the individual perceives as "freedom" may vary. I find a lot of conservatives seem to want to control people's lives (as you mention) .... I guess I might be seen as someone who also wants to control peoples lives because I do think regulation of certain things is important - because society has changed, and money is too often made out of people's inability to exercise sound judgement on some issues.

PS. - thank YOU for being civil. you are right - it can be rare on these forums.

 

The best thing I have read all day. +rep

 

I'll say there's truth to your statement except that I don't think that most wealth is acquired through cunning and networking. Crony capitalism is supplanting the real thing and puts a bad impression on real capitalism that plays by the rules and works ethically. There's nothing new about those who have succeeded at capitalism then setting about the task of protecting themselves from it by unholy liasions with politicians and unethical practices to shut down competition. What's new is the degree to which they're succeeding especially with this administration that promised to battle the special interests. Now Warren Buffet and Jeffry Imelt have an inside, incestuous relationship with the White House and are profiting massively from it. It's important to understand that this isn't capitalism and should not reflect on those who work hard, are fair with their employees and business collegues, and play by the rules.

 

Not really. Rich stands above the rest as significantly well off - perhaps too well off. Rich denotes excess and luxury, something neither poor in the US or other places have.

According to Jesus being rich is a sin yes, unless you are so in such a way as to be rich entirely for the benefit of those around you, which could not leave you rich.

I agree, but from the approach of Jesus, it is by NO MEANS enough.

Why? Why the sudden change of heart?

Quite true, but we are discussing poverty and virtue, not federal government.