Ken read all the comments on my post Election Reflections and noticed quite a few Democrats had left comments about various topics but the main issue Democrats seem to have with Republicans is Republicans lack of care for the poor. The following is his answer to their complaint ~
The fact is that the Republican of today is very much the Democrat of 50 years ago. Both groups have shifted significantly, especially on moral issues and a Democrat of even 30 years ago would have fit nicely into today's Republican Party. Does anyone remember a Democratic Christian President Jimmy Carter?
What has happened is that Hollywood and the liberal influence has massively dominated the Democratic Party ... Nancy Pelosi... Harry Reid ... Feinstein... Boxer ... people out of touch with anything close to the Democratic party of 30-50 years ago. A seismic shift has taken place in America and what scares conservatives is that many of us perceive there is no end to this slippery slope into liberalism and into a block of voters taking from the hard work of many to give to those who will not work, or work hard enough to meet their own needs. No, I am not referring to all poor people, just those who take advantage of the system, and this block will grow at the same or greater pace as socialism grows in the U.S. Just look at socialism in Europe as the example.
Just a few years ago Democrats, like some of my own relatives today, were in large part religious individuals who were fiscally responsible, socially responsible, and morally upright. The South was especially filled with such Democrats, and still many exist today across the county.
Republicans have been portrayed by their detractors as uncaring for the poor and the rights of women. That it is all fat cats on Wall Street who make millions of dollars and only want to protect their wallets and wealth with lower taxes. Although this makes up a small % of the Republican Party, the vast majority of Republicans are not only unopposed to helping the poor, we actually do help the poor not only with our taxes but with our giving and serving. The question is not do we help the poor and those who find themselves in need of a safety net, but how do we do so, how long must we do so, and what is the best way to accomplish this?
I too am disappointed with a Republican Party that cannot seem to balance the need for social spending with military spending AND reducing the deficit. Republicans blame Democrats for all of the spending issues when the reality is that both parties are to blame and both parties must solve the problem together. Raising tax revenues is an inevitable reality, but such increases should be combined with two and three times as much savings by cutting of government spending. I will be happy to pay more in taxes if I know that for every extra $1 in taxes it will go to a good cause of reducing the debt by $3 or more. You cannot get to debt reduction by tax increases alone as every tax increase has a negative effect of reducing the incentive to make money and create jobs.
It is not a surprise many ideologues and rich democrats support welfare, social services and the poor, and want to do more social redistribution of wealth. For many of them, they truly feel a deep need to share the wealth of America with those in need. Where we fundamentally disagree is how we get this done. Conservatives have watched the consistent track record of government and its ineptitude in managing any program, especially fiscal management, with the post office and education being the prime examples. Neither are close to the effectiveness and profitability of similar enterprises in the private sector as both bleed more and more dollars each year while private businesses doing the same things turn a healthy profit.
Here is one of the main problems I have with Democrat ideologues… and I call them ideologues because their words and actions do not match who they are. Let’s take their leader Barack Obama. From 2004 – 2008 even after using the poor and his socialistic ideologies to propel himself into the Senate, he gave a measly 1% of his and Michele’s earnings to charity. Yes, only $10,000 out of $1,200,000 was given to charity, and much of that may not have been to the poor. Even as he ran for president in 2008 he ran a hypocritical race wanting more government aid to the poor, yet unwilling to give as much as $1 of $100 to the poor out of his own pocket. In his defense, although I have a hard time believing it is not self-serving, he now gives much more at 5.9%, while I and many other Republicans give 10% and more. {Source}
Do any research on Joe Biden’s giving and Al Gore’s and you will find the poster boys for righting societies inequities giving a meager $390 a year average for Biden 1998 -2007 and Al Gore a paltry 0.2% of his family income in 2000. Can you smell some hypocrites? This is shameful for those who are advocating higher taxes to help the poor, but unable to give much of anything of their own millions to charity. I hope that those who are posting their comments here in defense of helping the poor can pass the smell test themselves and are putting their money and time to match their ideology.
One should do their own research on the subject, and it is true that religious liberals tend to give as much as religious conservatives, but they are a small part of the equation. Secular liberals give next to nothing, yet vote as a block along with poor for more social benefits, and handouts. Don’t take my word for it, take an Independent’s research on the subject by Arthur C. Brooks, Professor at Syracuse University, Who Really Cares.
At some point one must conclude that the privilege to vote does not give the majority, no matter how large or how thin it may be, the right to steal from hard working Americans. We agree that government has certain social responsibilities, along with military, transportation and other responsibilities. But when my tax rates start reaching 50% of what I make on my top dollar I have little or no incentive to leave my family with travel and work 55 hour weeks. I am willing to give more than 50% to taxes + charity if I can control where my money is spent, and not watch it go to killing the unborn, cell phones, liquor, cigarettes, big screen tv’s, etc. Yes, we need a safety net for the poor, but when our poor live better than kings and queens of old, please do not ask me to work harder so that they can share in my hard earned income, unless of course I choose to share it with them.
I am pleased we can have different perspectives, and each of our perspectives is formed by our experiences and values. This is just the perspective of a missionary kid who grew up with poverty all around him. The difference between the poverty I saw and the poverty of much of the U.S. is not a poverty of finances, but a poverty of moral fiber and values that the Democrats of the 50’s and 60’s world throw up at the thought of enabling in any way. They were hard working, practical, conscientious people whose ethics very much match the values of today’s conservatives. The only reason Obama won the election is that these conservative Democrats are becoming extinct, and a new group of unrealistic young people and single women have developed ideologies mainly from their university professors instead of from the scriptures. The scriptures are quite clear on the subject, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” If he/she cannot work, we must take care of them.
This is my issue in a nutshell. How do we separate out those who are truly needy so as not to enable a whole new generation who feel someone owes them something for nothing, just because others have more than they do. If many of America's poor live better than kings of old, how much more do we owe them if they are not willing to help themselves? A mass socialistic program of handouts is doomed to the failure that Europe is now facing because their experiment of handouts and socialism is destroying their economies along with the desire of those who want to reap the benefits of hard work.
Big Family Friday
One should do their own research on the subject, and it is true that religious liberals tend to give as much as religious conservatives, but they are a small part of the equation. Secular liberals give next to nothing, yet vote as a block along with poor for more social benefits, and handouts. Don’t take my word for it, take an Independent’s research on the subject by Arthur C. Brooks, Professor at Syracuse University, Who Really Cares.
At some point one must conclude that the privilege to vote does not give the majority, no matter how large or how thin it may be, the right to steal from hard working Americans. We agree that government has certain social responsibilities, along with military, transportation and other responsibilities. But when my tax rates start reaching 50% of what I make on my top dollar I have little or no incentive to leave my family with travel and work 55 hour weeks. I am willing to give more than 50% to taxes + charity if I can control where my money is spent, and not watch it go to killing the unborn, cell phones, liquor, cigarettes, big screen tv’s, etc. Yes, we need a safety net for the poor, but when our poor live better than kings and queens of old, please do not ask me to work harder so that they can share in my hard earned income, unless of course I choose to share it with them.
I am pleased we can have different perspectives, and each of our perspectives is formed by our experiences and values. This is just the perspective of a missionary kid who grew up with poverty all around him. The difference between the poverty I saw and the poverty of much of the U.S. is not a poverty of finances, but a poverty of moral fiber and values that the Democrats of the 50’s and 60’s world throw up at the thought of enabling in any way. They were hard working, practical, conscientious people whose ethics very much match the values of today’s conservatives. The only reason Obama won the election is that these conservative Democrats are becoming extinct, and a new group of unrealistic young people and single women have developed ideologies mainly from their university professors instead of from the scriptures. The scriptures are quite clear on the subject, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” If he/she cannot work, we must take care of them.
This is my issue in a nutshell. How do we separate out those who are truly needy so as not to enable a whole new generation who feel someone owes them something for nothing, just because others have more than they do. If many of America's poor live better than kings of old, how much more do we owe them if they are not willing to help themselves? A mass socialistic program of handouts is doomed to the failure that Europe is now facing because their experiment of handouts and socialism is destroying their economies along with the desire of those who want to reap the benefits of hard work.
Big Family Friday
0 comments:
Post a Comment