Republican AND Christian...? How?

Republican and Christian?


IMPOSSIBLE!

 

It sounds like you're saying that anyone with money/power/influence should not attempt to address issues of poverty because they aren't poor themselves - despite the fact that poor people are not given a platform from which to address issues...
As a straight, middle-class, white heterosexual veteran; would you suggest I can only point out injustice when it directly affects me?

You raise one anecdotal example of a poor person who managed to "make it", and believe that proves something? What about the millions who didn't? Are you suggesting none of them tried?

That depends... Once he was a rich man, did he screw people over in order to line his own pockets further?

 

I am saying that just as education starts in the parents home, so does gaining wealth. Take Bill Gates for another example. He never started out super rich. And he came by wealth honestly. A lot can be told of his honesty by how he conducts his life today. He gives enormous sums of cash trying to better the earth.

Did he learn this at school? Not very likely. Did he learn it from his parents. Most definitely.

Can this be taught in schools? i believe it can. But will Democrats allow it? I don't see any signs they would.

They in general control most schools near big populations. We ought to see signs there that they teach this to children.

Take Oprah Winfrey. She had to learn it too. She came up the hard way. She is super rich. Does she give as Gates gives? Not sure but I doubt it very much. See, she votes Democratic all the time.

 

I'm not sure why you keep naming famous democrats who give to charity and alleging that this somehow supports republican policies.

FYI, regarding Oprah Winfrey's philanthropy:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...tro-20110520_1_philanthropy-harpo-janice-peck​

 

I think Oprah knows she deserves only a fraction of her immense wealth.
Once you get very rich the government has created systems making it easy to get obscenely rich.
If you know you only deserve to be very rich but find yourself obscenely rich naturally you give away massive amounts of money, possibly not stopping until you drop back to very rich.
Naturally you join the party which agrees that no one should be obscenely rich because if you are deliberately retreating back to obscenely rich you want all the greedy obscenely rich people to recede with you.
Warren Buffett has had lots of fun rising from wealthy to obscenely rich. He wants the obscenely rich people to get taxed back to very rich because unlike them he is smart enough to become the most obscenely rich person alive and he can't get there because those lazy greedy bums were obscenely rich when they started.
Giving to charity, including churches is tax deductible, so rich and obscenely rich people lose little by being generous.
The ones that count are the ones who are only solvent, or even poor, but still tithe to their church, give toys to the Salvation Army or hand change to local beggars, never even putting it on their tax returns.
No one else counts.

 

There are a number of "obscenely rich" folks who would disprove that hasty generalization.

There are a number of "obscenely rich" folks who would disprove that hasty generalization.

Not sure what this proves, if anything.

I don't believe donating to a megachurch (so they can spend millions of dollars building a 200' tall cross rather than doing something Christ would have approved of) is charitable.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10913

Like I said, I'm not sure why it was brought up.

 

It is insane to claim republicans fight against the teachings of Christ.

 

It is a tax benefit for the uber rich to donate to charities.

I believe you question why the uber rich deserve their wealth?

It is not as if the pool of funds is limited. When the public runs short of cash, the supply is replenished. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

When Romney gave millions to charity, was he given credit for it by Democrats?

Nope.

 

Explain those systems to me since I want to use them. Winfrey came from poverty so perhaps she still thinks she does not deserve her wealth, but She does not steal her income thus it is my view she deserves all of it.

By the way, she gives away a very tiny part of her wealth. Compare her charity to her earnings for many many years.

She makes so much it is hard for her to give much of it away.

 

So long as you have an anti wealth mindset, it is hard to expect you to catch on.

There have been many that rose from poverty to wealth. i also cited Oprah Winfrey. She is a Democrat. But she is immune from the barbs by Democrats. Naturally i wonder why that is.

 

I got it from the dictionary definition of right and left wing. Also being a Republican or Democrat doesn't automatically make you left or right wing. You also have too consider the fact right vs. Left is internationally recognized for almost every legitamate political system. Excpet for maybe north Korea or Somalia.

 

Let me give you an idea of my thinking.

This is a very good representation of it.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324219-1/ronald-reagan-presidential-campaign-announcement

- - - Updated - - -

The term left and right wing originates in France when there was a monarchy.

The USA has a president who thinks of himself as one, but do you believe he really is one?

As George Will says, never has he seen a president more narcissist than Obama.

 

When you don't actually make a point, it is hard to expect anyone to catch on.

Possibly because of her philanthropic behavior, combined with the fact that she isn't pushing for tax breaks to further line her own pockets at the expense of everyone else. Just sayin'.

 

I don't know what a 24 minute speech by reagan has to do with the laws of political science. And no I don't believe Obama is a monarch or that George will is a serious person

I also believe that you have to be a hard core right winger fox news brainwashed person to believe he is one, or that he thinks he is one

I'm guessing your talking vetoes or executive orders two things fox propaganda loves too drill into idiots skulls without bringing up the fact that he's done both of these less than almost every single president is USA history including bush and Reagan. But you don't consider them "kings" do you

Turn off the FOX its bad for ya

 

Do you believe the tax benefit is equal to the amount they donate?

That depends on the individual. When people become "uber rich" by taking advantage of others and then villifying them (eg: the Walton family), I absolutely question why they deserve their wealth.

And what are the ramifications of the government simply "printing more cash" because a small percentage of the population hoards a disproportionate amount?

So when an "uber rich" democrat gives millions to charity, it's for the tax break - but when a republican gives millions away he needs "credit"? Interesting.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-charitable-donations-2012-7

 

That's an unfounded assertion.

Please demonstrate, for example, how Christ taught his followers to take money from the less fortunate and then villify them for their poverty (a staple of politicians supported by republican voters).

 

1. I think you forgot to put a ' not' in your first clause of your first question.

2. I think you tend to stereotype republicans .
3. I think it is fair to delineate between trying to legislate the religious belief itself, and trying to legislate based on an interpretation of a religious belief, or legislate based on an ideology drawn from an interpretation of a religious belief.

 

Name a republican who took your money from you.

Take Reagan for instance. He slashed taxes for all of the population. So did GW. Bush. Who raised taxes in the past 6 years? Obama of course.

 

Good catch. It should read:
"If it is not acceptable for government to impose religious belief, why support the political party that consistently attempts to legislate religious belief?"

I believe I referenced the political party, rather than individual republicans. That being said, would you assert the stereotype is invalid?

On what basis does that make a difference, considering that religious ideology has no place in a democratic government that is founded (in part) on religious freedom?

Further to this, I don't see any reason to believe that furthering policies that produce income disparity support any interpretation of Christian teachings.

 

In order of your comments.

No.

I need proof about the Waltons. Your say so does not do it for me, if you don't mind that is.

I shop very little at WalMart but find that in general, you get fair value for what you purchase. I understand there are myths as to poor treatment of their workers yet find no proof.

The reason the Government prints more cash has little relationship to the earnings by the uber rich. Do you believe Oprah Winfrey's earnings cut down your fair amount of cash?

Can you give me an instance when you went someplace and they said due to the uber rich, sorry I can't give you back your change?

Democrats sure have strange thinking processes.

I know though. I used to be one.

I make no particular distinction between the earnings of say Winfrey vs Romney or Waltons. It costs me nothing for their wealth. Fact is, they all pay so much more in taxes I think of them as good people.

Suckers, but good at heart. I don't see the rich as evil. This is what Democrats teach all the time.

I grew up thinking that very thing.

Tell you how to get rich.

Establish a worthy goal. Make concrete plans. Work on that plan daily. When you make it, you too will be rich.

BTW let me give you a good link on taxes.

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

 

I believe if you check, you will find the Romans tax rate was 10 percent and it applied equally for all.

I believe Christ approved that.

Our modern Government would also be fair to do as the Romans did and tax each 10 percent, no more or less.

That is what Jesus taught.

 

The Walton family used about $6.2 billion in taxpayer funds to supplement worker wages... Of course, they could just spend an extra $6.2 billion on wages, but they choose not to... This means that - whether you shop at Walmart or not - you pay the Waltons.

Wanna know which political party they support? Hint: It's the one that voted not to overturn Citizen's United... the politicians who protected the "right" of the "uber wealthy" to pay for reelection campaigns of their lackeys.

Whereas it is accurate to say the overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency, you shouldn't ignore the fact that he broadened the tax base and increased taxes 5 times. Besides, Reagan’s efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end.

Oh, remind me how the economy looked when he got it from Clinton and what condition he left it in...?

Remind me how the economy looked when he got it from Dubya and what condition it's in now...?

 

You provided 13 lines of response to my 4, indicating these were "in order" of my comments...
This laziness makes deciphering your response far more effort than it's worth.

 

So sorry you are lazy.

 

At the time I thought you were referencing social issues as opposed to economic justice issues. while republicans diverge on social issues, especially in the North east, I'd be hard pressed to find any 'progressive' republicans anywhere.

I don't know what you mean by a 'religious ideology'. Most 'ideologies' can have either a secular or religious foundation or framework even if we associate some more with a religious group. You can reach the same ideological destination without using a bible or religious teachings

for the most part religions have given up trying to legislate religious belief itself. There are not a lot of bills offered in Congress or state legislatures requiring folks to hold or express Christian beliefs. themselves. They tend to be more subtle than that. There are tons of efforts to pass bills based on an 'interpretation' of certain scriptures and or codifying the agendas of religious dominations. sects. It would be irrational to think democratic government should reflect the values of everyone except people of faith, so of course they have every right to seek redress, and representation. That means ideologies that people of faith embrace, will properly be expressed in government in some measure. Normally, I don't want them to win battles if my ideology has to suffer losses. I am liberal, but I don't normally need to badmouth religion or even conservative religion too often for their efforts to get their political voice heard. No, I get mad at folks for being to damn lazy and apathetic to do the same!

On your last question. I don't support furthering policies that produce income disparity, but I sure as hell am not going to get into the business of telling Christians how to interpret their teachings. I am led to understand that Christians come in both progressive and conservative colors. I let them quote scripture at each other, while concern myself with secular arguments.