Most of you have seen the commercial on TV seeking donations for the care and treatment of children fighting cancer. The haunting look in their eyes has brought me to tears every time I see it. I see my own kids in their faces as they’re shown going through their paces of chemo, radiation, and other procedures. It’s positively one of the most heart wrenching things I’ve ever seen or contemplated. And when I think about why anyone would have to come on TV to beg for money to keep these precious angels alive, I am filled with rage. Filled with rage at those Republicans who actually believe that its ok for our society to exist like this. The words GHW Bush uttered come to mind. Remember his “thousand points of light” speech. How it was important to support private charities because they could do a better job of assisting the poor and down trodden than the government could. What a croc.
Republicans claim to be the political champions of Christian morality. Yet they spend far more time figuring out how to keep more of the wealthy’s money in their pocket than worrying about the rest of us. And it’s not just the Republicans here in America. The attitude of privilege for the rich, and 
leaving the poor to fend for themselves is rampant all over our planet. Poverty is a plague on our planet that causes any other plague you could possibly mention to pale and wither in comparison. And the Republicans do nothing about it. In fact most Republicans have nothing but distain and contempt for the poor.
This amazes me because Republicans seem so impassioned when they talk about Christian virtues. But how can you claim to be a Christian and at the same time be so opposed to the ideals the Christian religion espouses? I identify myself as a Christian and the Bible I read put a lot of emphasis on being compassionate and treating our fellow man fairly. How can a person believe receiving several hundred times more than the people on whose backs that money was made is fair. Especially when the amount the workers receive leaves them alarmingly vulnerable to financial ruin at the slightest bump in the road of life.
In other words, how can Republicans fight so hard for things like tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, cutting the budgets of the very departments and programs the poor depend on. And then on the other hand preach the virtues of Christian living and the importance of charity. The hypocrisy is so blatant, I can almost hear the echo of Jesus’ words. Matt. 23 -27; "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28; In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
You can’t have it both ways. Like Jesus said, “Matt. 6:24" No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” But Republicans apparently think they can.
**************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every Tuesday and Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 124
As for the poor, a certain former Republican VP (whose surname is synonymous with "wealthy") commented, "I know a lot of poor people. Some of my best friends make less than $100,000 a year." To the Republicans, the rest of us are invisible and unworthy of consideration.
Hope you've got your armor on...I think you're gonna need it for this one.
Where is the charity, the love, the humanity in this nation's capitol, a place where the word of "god" (i.e. money) rules on high?
I haven't seen the ad but like Jeannie and Kate, I believe their god is the Dollar Bill!
Namaste, Wayne
1. Feed the hungry
2. Give drink to the thirsty
3. Clothe the naked
4. Shelter the homeless
5. Visit the sick
6. Visit the imprisoned
7. Bury the dead
The Idle Rich Class tends to do only those that do not impact their own wealth negatively, while leaving the rest of us to figure it out on our own.
Republicans believe in God only for their own benefit. They believe they can buy their way into heaven. They certainly do not practice what they preach.
Your comments are very thoughtful and makes writing these articles very satisfying.
Don,
Thanks buddy, and don't ever change. I like you just the way you are. As a stand up comedian, I actually get your sarcasm. My first mentor in comedy was a "Right" side stand up and he performed at the Republican convention in 2004 and for VP Cheney when he visited our city last year. My favorite joke went like this.
"John Kerry walks into a bar and the bartender say's "hi John, why the long face?"
Get it.
Republicans are a toxic poison on the face of the earth, sent by Satan to destroy.
The Magnificent Obsession has been sacrificed on the altars of economic positionings.
The best of the NeoChrist o' Cons might feel a twinge of compassion for the infirm, but unless they are close friends or relatives, that compassion lasts about thirty seconds.
Consider how we have changed the ways in which we help the hungry; Food pantries will provide you with some food as long as you can show them a utility bill that verifies that you have an address.
Consider how we help the poor; 'Emergency' Public Assistance takes thirty days (or longer) to "go through the process" and what you will receive is less than two hundred dollars.
Consider how we help the homeless; if they can hold a job for several months they might qualify to get on a list to receive special funding for housing that puts them firmly on the path of obligatory debt.
Similarly, we help the infirm by burdening them with catastrophic debt in exchange for the life saving miracles of medicine.
Modern day compassionate care is only available if you can afford it.
How Totally Christ Like.
The disciples should have charged admission to the crucifixion. You know. to defray the costs of the resurrection. We are like the Roman soldiers who divided up and gambled for Christ's clothes, for the sake of compensation.
Sad, very sad.
I do have to say one thing about you Bill, you have a delicious sense of irony.
Mr. Barber, I suggest you tear up your "Ann Coulter Correspondence School for Writing" certificate. Unless of course, you're just in it to be a hysterical ideologue and make money...in which case, you've got the hysterical ideologue part down...maybe the money will follow.
Kate - Passion about money IS a Christian thing. Jesus, Himself raised many a ruckus about money; what people do with it and how it effects others. Humans have killed, abused and enslaved each other (for money) for centuries. Similarly, humans have, and still do, also use their money to save lives, alleviate suffering and build up societies.
It is the role of "The Christ In Every Christian" to challenge what is done in His name, especially where money, human lives and suffering are concerned.
Not to mention, children.
I'm sure that was unintentional...
I guess I read it that way because I know that you are right; not all Christian Republicans are guilty of what Devon is ranting about.
Perhaps you have never heard of this program. See Medicaid. If you have never heard of Medicaid, let me be the first to tell you that it is a federal program administered by the states that provides the best medical care in the world to low-income people.
Frankly, I think that the social service system has been severely abused, and not by either party but rather by the people who make it a way of life. There are many, many very easy ways to reform it that would cost far less than allowing it to go as it is, but those are not what are being legislated. Instead, there are wholesale cuts that end up only hurting the people who truly need the services the worst.
Oh, and except as my role as a disability advocate I have no personal stake in that particular fight, because I am not a beneficiary of these programs.
--
Kate - "Jesus was not passionate about money."
Throwing the money changers out of the temple was certainly a passionate act.
Jesus had pity (compassion) for the rich man who could not consider selling all he owned and giving the money to the poor.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, once the Samaritan got the abused man to a town he paid out "sums of money" for the person's care.
Money is a possession, like a cloak or a coat, and Jesus was passionate about sharing our possessions.
But who was talking about TAKING money from anyone.
This discussion has been all about the GIVING trends, unless I missed something.
--
Greg - "Medicaid ... the best medical care in the world to low-income people."
OMG (I could laugh 'til I choke; but I won't) - You don't really know anyone that relies solely on Medicaid, do you. People suffer and die waiting and relying on Medicaid.
Besides, there are several other countries that have better health plans which cover ALL their citizens; regardless of individual socioeconomic status. I believe Sweden has cradle to grave care for all of its citizens, not to mention some of the best facilities in the world.
The fact is, those who make over $100,000 paid 82% of all taxes collected last year.
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day,
ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their
bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.
The first four men—the poorest—would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1,
the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and
the tenth man—the richest—would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the
owner threw them a curve (in tax language– a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about
the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and The sixth man would end
up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it
would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill
of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before.
And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing
to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man,
"I only saved a dollar too, It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "Why should he get $7 back when I got
only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!." "Wait a minute," yelled the first
four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the
poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't
show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it
came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very
important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities
anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
For Medicare, we paid $340 billion.
Add the two together and the taxpayers are footing 25% of all medical expenditures.
The sum total of all the assets of millionaires and billionaires in the United States is $6.2 Trillion. Most of that wealth is tied up in personal real-estate which is dropping in value and all of it is taxable.
The sum total of all the pension assets of government workers (civil servants) is $6.6 Trillion. Almost all of it is tied up in stocks and bonds (much of it off-shore) which is increasing in wealth at an astounding rate and none of it is taxable
Maybe if the left would donate some of their untaxable corporate profit to the poor?
I hear that after paying their outrageous taxes they are only left with six figures of income per year to live on.
Those poor souls.
Maybe we should take up doantions from the children in the cancer wards so we can donate it to the rich guy's BMW or vacation home payment.
Since when does caring for one's fellow man qualify one as a Communist? I think some here are missing the point. While I am confident that there are a multitude of wealthy generous politicos on both sides, the ones in current power have blatantly slapped the poor in the face with their disregard of the lower economic levels.
As for the statement "I know a lot of poor people. Some of my best friends make less than $100,000 a year." ...that was Rockefeller...in the mid '70s. He considered $100k "poor" 30 years ago...I guess that must mean, 1 million or less a year qualifies as poor in those circles these days.
I found it so amusing that the very few people who tried to stand up for the rich folk in this comment trail carefully left out how the super rich avoid paying all those huge taxes they think they're paying... they have their lawyers hold properties in trust or under the names of off-shore corporations set up specifically to avoid US taxes. Similiar to what Hallibuton is doing, they're taking their entire business out of the US (probably timed to coincide with Cheney leaving office) and headquartering off-shore to avoid US taxes. Cheney, of course, still has billions of investment dollars that are still his, they are only being held in a blind trust until he is out of office. And anyways, how blind could a trust be if the owner (Cheney) knows exactly how much moola has has in Halliburton shares and exactly how much he will own upon leaving office.
I can't wait till we have a pres how says what he means and does what he says. With this nutcase in office I'm now waiting for Gonzo to get a congressional medal of honor... that is Curious George's way, isn't it? To reward those who fcuk up?
Anyways, I can't wait till all Christians stand up for what they say they believe in... Ann above said it best:
1. Feed the hungry
2. Give drink to the thirsty
3. Clothe the naked
4. Shelter the homeless
5. Visit the sick
6. Visit the imprisoned
7. Bury the dead
and I'd like to add one...
8. Adopt all those kids who were born because their Mom's weren't allowed the right to choose what happens to her own body.
First off, you misquoted me. I did not specify "Republicans" in my comment.
Secondly, I am quite confident that I can guarantee you, that in my lifetime I have worked quite a bit harder than the majority of people who drive BMWs; not to mention having to overcome obstacles and barriers that they have never had to confront on their own.
The idea that everyone could get rich if only they would only work hard enough is a lie.
There are Tens of Millions of people who are living proof.
I did not take any offense at your comment. Your quotation selection just happened to include a specific metaphor that I introduced. I am always interested in making sure that my positions are clear (well, as clear as possible).
As far as those people you knew; I've always thought it was bad idea to get a BMW just because some credit company would let you.
"So, you may have worked harder... but you obviously didn't work smarter, or better."
You make a very important point; harder (nor longer) does not reward equally to smarter or better. Interestingly, many dangerous and precarious jobs also do not pay as well as non life threatening positions behind desks. It reflects some of the values of the society, does it not? The people who save our lives receive less compensation then those who manipulate our lives.
I don't know what country you live in, but the idea that everyone could get rich is NOT what my country (the U.S.A.) was founded on.
THIS country was founded on the idea that if a people were allowed to live freely in an environment of open discourse, unregulated religion, with self-elected and self-representative government, with the ability to exercise their individual freedoms and liberties to the utmost, that this would create the Greatest Nation ever seen in the history of the World.
Communism??
This article is about Christian Compassion, not communism or socialism.
"Most of you have seen the commercial on TV seeking DONATIONS for the care and treatment of children fighting cancer." "And when I think about why anyone would have to come on TV to BEG FOR MONEY to keep these precious angels alive, I AM FILLED WITH RAGE. (caps mine)
That (the opening statement on this thread & what follows) I assumed was to be the topic of conversation.
Why you would (seemingly) agree with Devin that asking people to give (or "donate") to "precious angles" is a cause for rage, is odd.
Jesus specifically, time after time, called on us to GIVE FREELY. Time & time he told us that GIVING is the path to knowing HIM. "GIVE UP ALL you have & follow ME..."
He was passionate about GIVING.
The way I understand it...
It's not the MONEY, not the OBJECTS, not the THINGS he wanted us to share. It was the ACT of being selfless He wanted us to share. CHOOSING to act Selflessly was the message.
Now, being asked to act selflessly might "enrage" some people. Sure doesn't
bother me.
But you need to look at the issue a little deeper, where would the Republicans get the money to give to these charities? Raise taxes? The federal government collected $2.4 TRILLION in taxes last year. That does not include State and local taxes.
But lets take taxpayers money out of the equation for the moment. This entire article is based on false pretenses and political propoganda, with the belief Republicans do not care about the poor or ill. Although absolutely no facts or statistics are used to back up the authors slanderous statements. So here is a FACT you will not like, conservatives donate more money to charities than liberals!
Read the book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur C. Brooks for proof. Here is a summary of his book from an editorial:
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
read the whole article here
I think you're misinterpreting Devin's words. My take was that he is enraged that they HAVE to ask, not THAT they ask.
I do not agree that health care should be free for all, affordable is all I ask, and I do not agree that there should be salary caps. I DO believe that those who recieve insane paychecks for even less work should help the unfortunate. No offense to anyone, but does anyone REALLY believe that Reese Witherspoon is worth $15 million for a few weeks work? Yes, I think she's sweet, too, but thats not the point. My point is, there are a multitute of occupations which pay an outrageous amount of money to figureheads, who do little to earn those numbers.
Regarding Macho ehe, Matthew 6:25...
That is verily true...
And the greatest truth is that no one in the world... would be serving money as their Master... though it is an essential...
It is only the means.... obtainign lots of money we cannot take it out of consideration that it is a great achievement....and for this achievement to be used accordingly for somebody's benefit or for a good cause is far something beyond unknown...
As I stated previously, my interpretation is that Devin was outraged because in such a prosperous country as this, there is a NEED to ask, not that asking is wrong in general.
Sue,
Are you wanting kudos for donating to St. Jude? If so, Kudos. It is a fantastic organization. Are you saying that if you had your choice, you would have withheld treatment to a Dem's child? I certainly hope not, as that is a truly imbicilic, prejudicial comment.
No, I am not one to look for kudos for my charitable donations, in fact, this is the first time I have ever been so incensed that I found it necessary to reveal my alms that I do in secret always! You can have your kudos and your cooties. I do not want, nor do I need them!
I appreciate humor as much as the next person so I enjoyed your little story. Of course the story had the major difference from real life in that when was the last time that the price of government went down? Sorry Charles, that's not the way it works at all! I'd vote for a president who had the guts to tell everyone up from "There are no free lunches, we have to raise taxes to pay for our wars and to keep the excessive costs from going to our grandchildren." That's not going to happen but to talk tax cuts in a war is idiocy! Or more like it, it's lying to the American people! I have the same concerns as everyone else about the spending of the money we collect but to imply we can get by on less is either ignorance of the facts or an attempt at disinformation!
Sue,
I'm sorry!! There's help out there for you if you will only accept it. You don't have to remain a Republican! It's tough but it can be corrected and I know you're a smart enough lady to accomplish it!
I get nearly nauseous when I hear the directed stereotypes from either side. No one has a monopoly on charity, hypocrisy or even wealth. Bottom line is keep government out of religions and religion out of the government! No one can expect private charities to accomplish taking care of all needs, partly because private charities, be they religious or secular, can not locate all of the needy. Second, it is unfair to pass of the burden which should be born by all fortunate citizens of the nation onto only those who will contribute for whatever reason. Finally, the resources of private charities are stretched too thin as it is.
/also, the question of who gives the most to charity, conservatives or liberals, is not germane to the discussion here in any way, shape or form but rather is a diversionary tactic rather like terrorist actions in a war!
Donna,
I think you're mistaken, he's not enraged that they have to ask, he's enraged that they have to beg!
Rich,
I would not be in favor of any "salary cap" as you put it but I cannot say that every salary is fair either. I've earned a salary that was unfair compared to those on the bottom of the scale. (Not that much though) It is well known that the harder you work, the lower your wages. What ditch digger make a CEO's salary?
This country was not founded on the principle that the harder you work the richer you'd be but rather that whatever you earned you would have the freedom to change what you did and try something else and in the process you'd live free! Since our freedoms seem to be eroding and many either don't care or don't realize it seems to be coming back to how much can I make?
And the last time we were really at war, WW II, there were price controls, wage controls, people frozen on jobs and other sacrifices for everyone! No golden parachutes for CEOs and screw everyone else. We all sacrificed to at least some extent. I'm sure you must realize that the discrepancies between the profiteers of this war and the common people lends its self to creating massive dissatisfaction among the proletariat!
"I appreciate humor as much as the next person... I'm sorry!! There's help out there for you if you will only accept it. You don't have to remain a Republican!"
Now that IS humorous, James! Thanks for the laughs!
Kathleen, you mean Donna, not Kate. Kate gets it.
Money making is like a Monopoly game. As a society we make up the rules and we frequently change the rules. Most people who are rich had quite a lot of money to start with. A amall percentage get rich by a combination of hard work and good luck. Most people struggle to get into the middle class and stay there. Why not make the rules of the game a little fairer, so that nobody goes broke unless he's absolute shiftless, and everyone has at least the basic necessities of life, including medical care?
In Response to Charles posting, I submit that Democrats and secular liberals prefer programs that make people stable independent earners, as opposed to dependent workers or dole receivers. They also seem to be big on stimulating the economy with incentives for small business, home business and entrepreneurship, whereas the current Republicans seem to favor large monopoly corporations.
I would like to point out that a winning strategy of the Reagan administration was the encouragement of small business and entrepreneurship. Much more effective then the current welfare to work programs which provide very little support and education for the proscribed transitioning period to whatever job might be available. Current programs suffer a high recidivism rate because they are to short sighted in their assistance and their commitment.
Additionally, as far as liberals go, Artists are often held up as the epitome of left wing nuts, yet that group maintains the highest profile for charity work; historically matched only by Priness Di, Mother Theresa, and a handful of major league athletes.
When it comes to the masses, things all tend to shake out. I'd bet that the right and the left, the conservatives and the liberals, give fairly equal amounts of their resources to the benefit of helping others.
First of all, you are wrong about reductions. Only the federal expenditures have been reduced, the spending has shifted down to the states, and from the states down to the country level --- where it should be.
**
Ever notice how the left always attempts to reduce the argument to how much money is taxed and spent rather than how well taxes are spent?
There is a very good reason for this --the left itself not the poor are the primary recipient of government largesse. For instance, in our metropolitan area there are 32 separate agencies that handle public housing; each with a well paid politically connected director and a large redundant staff. All of that operation could be consolidated into a single agency, but then that would not be political, now would it?
Take another example: one would think that the needs of the poor could taken care of by just the federal expenditures on Medicaid alone. There are approximately 30 million people living under the poverty level in the United States, we spend $200 million on medical care for them. That is an average of $26,666 per year per family of four. Why does it cost $8,000 to insure an average family of four, but $26,666 to insure the poor? We must ask ourselves, how many "Christian" liberals are pocketing the difference?
Look at another subject: education. In Minnesota we average $186,620 per class per year, yet the left will ONLY talk about spending MORE, not spending wisely. How can that kind of expenditure be rationalized?
In Minnesota, a Republican Governor (Arnie Carlson) helped push through an initiative to spend $500 million on raising the student achievement of minority students in the Minneapolis School District alone. Five years later, when the legislature asked what the money was spent on, the district reported that they "lost" it. Teacher's benefits were vastly increased during this era --- two plus two anyone?
Given these numbers, one can safely conclude that all this talk about charity is really a smoke-screen for plain old rotten greed. The left wants more, and they know how to get it
Bill, you have got to be kidding.
If one stands back and looks objectively, the Republican Party is made up mostly by small business people, they is the core of the party, just as civil service unions and lawyers are the core of the Democratic Party.
The greatest political seismic shift in the last half century has been from very large monopolies discovering that regulation is the means to limit their competition. There is a single word to explain this shift "Clinton".
The legacy of the Clintons has been to bring monopoly capitalism BACK into the Democratic Party. They started this in Arkansas by regulating 6,000 independent poultry farmers out of business on the behest of their benefactor Mr. Tyson of Tyson Foods.
The Clintons then moved on to show Mr. Tyson how to regulate his competition, Hudson Foods, out of business. They then showed the Walton's how to finance the growth of Wal-Mart using government TIF financing. Hillary Clinton spent eight years on the board at Wal-Mart, a company that has put more American businesses out of work than any other.
Today, the Clinton's are in bed with the Hedge Funds -- hang on to your socks -- when those people get in power, there will not be enough money in the world to satisfy their greed.
But the Clinton's are just one political family on the left that has it nose in the trough. The federal budget is now $2 Trillion, with nationalized healthcare the budget will double to $4 Trillion -- the lobbyists of the left are licking their chops over the prospect of that.
I must take issue with your "core" concepts! The core of the Democratic party is and has been the working class! The core of the Republican party is and has been the monopolies, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, clergymen and, since 1964, those who don't like black people! And I would agree that the Clintons were pretty pro business and have tried to include more into the Democratic party, with limited success.
The split in who the parties represent is completely understandable and reasonable. Each has it's natural constituency and I find nothing wrong with that! All your information about the Clintons is superfluous and not germane to the matter at hand.
I do find all this anti republican and anti democrat tiring and fruitless, at best. If we could just get the parties back to where they would work together somewhat the whole country would benefit from the diversity of thought provided by each!
That's not likely to happen until something is done about the cost of campaigns and the flood of money from lobbyists to corrupt the representatives we send to Washington to represent us. By necessity, those people must depend on these monies if they want to get elected, thereby establishing a pattern of representing the wrong people. Why should my senators in Idaho be getting money from the oil companies? Maybe we need to outlaw parties and make everyone run as an independent, while limiting campaigns to the two months preceding elections. (Don't worry, it won't happen!)
You could not be further from the truth.
First of all, when I say core of the party, I am speaking of the people who populate the PARTY and provide the finances, not vote for its candidates. The political power of the Demcratic Party is primarily unions (mostly civil service unions) and lawyers. You may toss in some people who make money off poverty programs and a few progressive activists, but that is about it.
The core of the Republican Party is primarily Chamber of Commerce types (small business) and some conservative religious activists.
Really?
Then please explain why blacks are migrating in very large numbers away from the liberal northwest and west toward the south and southeast. Could it be that the world has changed faster than liberal perceptions have changed?
Excuse me but you are the one speaking about monopolies, big business and politics. I would think that a major political trend toward monopolies shifting allegance to the Democratic Party would be the center of such concern.
"the question of who gives the most to charity, conservatives or liberals, is not germane to the discussion here in any way, shape or form but rather is a diversionary tactic rather like terrorist actions in a war!"
maybe I missed the 'question' then. I was under the impression the author of the article was implying that Republicans were hypocrites for stating they have Christian moral values, but they dont help sick children.
If that is not what the article is about, please correct me. If that IS what the article is about, then I think the FACT that religous conservatives donate more money to charities than liberals do is very important, because it rebuts the entire theory of this article!
I don't know where anyone got the idea that these programs are only for the poor: a lot of our clients work 40-hour-a-week jobs. That means that our tax dollars are going to support their employers' need to feed the bottom line at the expense of the labor pool.
Unless I misread this you are in error on what the article was about, and that is possible also! I thought he was not referring to who, individually, were most generous in their giving but rather who would vote against assistance to those who most needed and deserved it. Public policy as opposed to personal practice. Another factor to consider, in spite of all those who posted how generous they personally are, many of us believe in not tooting our own horns on generosity and following the teachings of Christ about doing alms, "go into your darkest closet." So I'll not condemn anyone because they didn't tell all about how much they personally give. That's their business and no one else's at all!
If this was a bragging of who gives the most then I want no part of the discussion and consider it to be inappropriate, cheap, and self aggrandizing!
I can't tell you about "liberal perceptions" and their changing because I'm definitely not a liberal. How many liberals do you know who espouse the elimination of the Department of Education? Would like to deport illegals? Abhors waste in government? Strongly supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms?
I'm clearly an independent and take each issue on it's merits. I might side with you (in fact, I have) on an issue and with someone else on the next issue. What makes sense to me may not to you each time! I might add, if I ever ran for political office in this state it would be as a Republican. I just don't support them when I think they are wrong!
There has never been a real question over the working people being more represented by the Democrats. Or the business people being better represented by the Republicans! I find no fault in this.
It is true that the Republicans pushed for Civil Rights for many years before the act was passed under Lyndon Johnson. Democrats had a much harsher attitude toward Black people. But when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he stated "I've just written off the south for the next thirty years" and he was right! After that, people who wanted to keep the black people in their place" ran from the Democratic party and joined the Republican party.
The irony is that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the act than democrats! Nevertheless, the man who could have refused to sign was a Democrat and that savaged the party for years to come!
Rich,
I can't tell you how wonderful and helpful it is for you to tell me what I want and what I think! I don't know how I managed to think for myself for the better part of seventy years without your assistance! What other tricks can you do in addition to reading minds? Can you ride a unicycle? I'd love to see that!
Actually, I'd like to take mind reading lessons from you! Then I could quit trying to explain what I think and just focus on what's going on in the minds of others! I guess I'm getting forgetful also as I failed to remember when I accused anyone of being "abhorrent" or "evil" in nature! I like most all people and even have some respect for certain rather narrow minded ideologues.
There are a number of good, conservative writers on this forum from whom I've learned a lot and I truly appreciate their dialog and debate regardless of whether we ever agree or not! They are entitled to disagree with me, you or anyone else. Greg Schiller is an example here and I know he has broadened my thinking on different issues by means of logic and good debate!
Jeannie,
One thing modern government has done is removed "affordable housing" from the market. Manufactured homes are now built to the bank's standards and the price has gone up accordingly. Time was when a man could buy a piece of land and when he got the money build a tar paper shack on it. Then, as money allowed, he could expand and improve until he had a nice home. That's illegal now! The bank didn't get a cut out of that. The trailer parks served as low cost housing for many people for many years but that's gone.
Truth is we'd rather see someone homeless than see them live in "substandard" housing! And I would class anyone who needed housing assistance as certainly not rich. I was there at one time and looking back, with honesty, I'd have to say I was poor. And yes, I worked full time all my life! And yes, I got out of that situation but some folks are not able to do the same for a variety of reasons. When one sees a "poor" person he should think "There, but for the grace of God, go I!" Working 40, 50 or more hours a week certainly does not close the door on poor. I've been there, done that and they weren't giving out T shirts!
Working people? Are you saying that Republicans do not "work"? This concept of "working people" is archaic, today our society is dominated by intellectural workers not grunts.
Beyond that, all of this is ancient history. Both parties have had more than their share of racists (Sen. Byrd?) and both parties have fought for and against the interests of ordinary people.
The industrial model is dead, the civil right struggle was won 40 years ago. The ground has shifted to the struggle over mitigating the ill-effects of the Liberal Consensus of the 1960's, namely the unchecked growth of bureaucratic power and privilege and the fall-out of the culture changes of that era.
When we take an objective at things like the decline of the middle-class, we find that downsizing, outsourcing and immigration have not adversely affected the middle-class. When we actually look at the numbers we find that it is the rise of single parent households and single households that is most responsible for the decline.
Having said that - which party is better suited to advance working-class interests, the party that championed single-parenthood and no-fault divorce or the one that is working to advance marriage as a social solution?
I will give you a practical example. In our state, the Republicans have been attempting to reform family law for a decade, the Democrats have fought it tooth and nail. Finally, the Republicans have been able to bring some gender equity into the process, Now which party is working for common people, in that case?
"Filled with rage at those Republicans who actually believe that its ok for our society to exist like this. " NOT A SENTENCE and "its" should be "it's."
"I identify myself as a Christian and the Bible I read put a lot of emphasis on being compassionate and treating our fellow man fairly." How about using PUTS here?
"How it was important to support private charities because they could do a better job of assisting the poor and down trodden than the government could." NOT A SENTENCE
" Republicans claim to be the political champions of Christian morality. Yet they spend far more time figuring out how to keep more of the wealthy's money in their pocket than worrying about the rest of us." Should be one compound sentence with a comma before yet.
"And it's not just the Republicans here in America." NOT A SENTENCE
"In other words, how can Republicans fight so hard for things like tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, cutting the budgets of the very departments and programs the poor depend on." This is an interrogatory sentence and should end in a question mark.
I could go on and on, but I'd have to rewrite the whole article in this space. Also, this is a FEATURED ARTICLE, not merely a comment! They're NEVER WRONG, Rich! Don't you know that by now?
Sue B.,
Apparently you are a literature expert... NOT!!! I don't know where you went to school, but you're so completely wrong about everything you claim was wrong with my article, it boggles the mind. Actually, I take it as a huge compliment. The things you were complaining about were nearly verbatim the exact same things that kept Mark Twain from being published by the publishing establishment of his day. Fortunately, like you they were wrong.
For the rest of you "Righties", I am not a propagandist. I write what I see as the truth. For those of you arguing about who gives more to charity. Take your charity and stuff it. What I'm saying is that these kids don't need charity, what they deserve is equitable compensation for their hard working parents. Even people who have health insurance who contract cancer are typically wiped out by non-covered expenses.
And I am not impuning all Republicans or wealthy people, just those who I described in the article. If you are a Republican or wealthy person who believes the welfare of human beings is more important than tax cuts, then I'm not talking about you. I can't for the life of me figure out why you are a Republican, but that's your call.
Where I went to school is not the question. The fact that you obviously did not is the answer.
Since my words about your writing are what jolted you into a response after some 80 or more comments, that speaks about as loudly and clearly as to where your priorities are as any statement you have made.
If you are as interested in the truth as you claim to be, (and that's as big an 'IF' as the largest font you can find), please note that any and all references to your poor grammar would never have been cited had not a conservative's error in a mere comment been made an issue.
Here is the reason for my comment on your writing from an above thread:
"I see they derided you on another article for your incorrect use of the pronoun "your" instead of the contraction, "you're." They make no references about the horrible grammar of their own ilk, however, when they make blatant grammatical blunders throughout their articles. Let me oblige."
What goes around comes around!
My belatedness on respnding to the thread was because I'm on the road doing comedy shows. Also, you have absolutely no idea of what you'e talking about. I was selected from among over two thousand applicants to be a correspondent here at Gather. I think I must be doing something right. As far as Rich being picked on. I don't think this is a place for anyone to be commenting on the writing skills. Many, like Rich and yourself are very passionate about what they want to say. My point was that I have no problem with disagreeing points of view, just nit pickers Like you and whoever picked on Rich Kaye.
Here we are in late May, a month before the fiscal year ends for most government agencies. This is the time of year that divisions go into a spending frenzy to consume every dollar in the budget. Does anyone really believe that the directors who urge their staffs to spend, spend, spend in order to maintain their budget levels, really give a shit about kids with cancer?
So the next time propagandists like Devin Barber howl about "kids" ask THEM why government spends the $Trillions we pay in taxes on things like diversity conferences in Florida during the winter -- rather than kids with cancer?
I did not respond to Gather's search for correspondents. Of those that did, I know there are far more talented writers in that pool than those chosen. I believe that Gather's criteria for whom they chose had to do very much with the demographics of the site and its readership. Obviously, you have a following here. The National Enquirer has its following as well.
One more time, I felt compelled to point out the errors in your writing only because there are some liberals that love to do that to conservatives. They do it repeatedly and often with malice and contempt. I realize that you have not been one of those, unfoturnately, guilt by association has incriminated you and your piece left me wide open to make my point. By the way, I have now read some other articles that you have written and they do not nearly as much exemplify the kind of writing you displayed in this particular essay. Maybe you were tired and maybe you had to meet a deadline that was too tight, I don't know.
I shall now leave you to write as you have been commissioned without further comment.
\\\\Working people? Are you saying that Republicans do not "work"? This concept of "working people" is archaic, today our society is dominated by intellectural workers not grunts.////
Greg, you are too intelligent to play dumb successfully! You know exactly what I mean by "working people" and it's not just ditch diggers. The "grunts" still comprise the overwhelming majority of our, or any, population. Sales clerks, mechanics, linemen, teamsters, plumbers, flagmen and many others are "grunts" if you wish to use the term.
And yes, they are generally, (note the not absolute wording) better served by democratic policies than Republican. That has been understood by most for longer than I've been alive. I will absolutely agree that both parties have worked to the detriment of the common person over the years.
One can always cite specific examples to advance an argument. For instance, the State of Idaho has lower wages than Washington or Oregon next door and Idaho is the most Republican state in the nation! So what? The general principles of the organization and the results over many years of time tell the story.
I'm not anti-Republican, just certain ones. And certain Democrats. The three best governors Idaho has had in my memory consist of two Republicans and one Democrat! One of the Republicans was successful in getting farm workers under the Workman's compensation program. That could not have been accomplished by any Democrat! By the same token Clinton signed the NAFTA which a Republican would never have accomplished. I'm not sure this was good at all but it was supported by all ex presidents regardless of party. Just trying to describe the things one might be successful at over the other. Nixon opened trade with China, couldn't have been done by a Democrat! Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which the Republicans had tried to get for years. Couldn't have been done by a Republican. And it certainly cost the Democrats dearly. I didn't vote for Johnson but that was the right thing to do! I voted for a real conservative in that election, Barry Goldwater, who would roll over in his grave if he saw what extreme ideology so called "conservatism" had morphed into in the last 15 years!
I humbly suggest that you re-evaluate your study of the degeneration of the middle class as it is badly skewed! Following WW II we had the greatest middle class ever which only declined with more recent events such as the efforts to destroy unions and the removal of many regulatory provisions for corporate entities! I've been on both sides of the labor issue as I was once in a union and later in life I, as management, worked with unions and union workers. I've also managed where there was no union. It was easier but working with one made me a batter manager!
Actually, I believe that NAFTA and the GATT agreements probably have played as big a role as any single thing in screwing the American worker and that was, as I noted, signed by Clinton and passed by Republicans. It may prove advantageous over many, many years but we sure don't need to expand on it at this time until we see some positive results besides richer mega corporations.
When you are on the very end of a mile long road and see something half a mile away it looks about the same except for size, which can mislead, as something a mile away. But when you are pretty near the middle it's easy to tell what is to the left or right! That's the difference in where we are both coming from and why I see some things (not all, by any means) different than you. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions and value your dialog, but just don't agree with all your conclusions!
Thanks for the dialog!
My point was simple; the industrial model is dead. The term "working people" is an archaic term that obscures the fact that the majority of Americans are professional or skilled workers who have far more bargaining power than their parents did.
Sorry, but I have done the homework and the numbers point toward marriage not toward unions. The middle-class rose as women joined the workforce and the industrial model gave way to the knowledge model. The middle-class shrank as the illegitimacy and divorce rate skyrocketed.
The numbers for all of these trends are documented in The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama.
Like I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You're not seeing things through the same realism that I do so we'll not see them the same and that's understandable. I am baffled at the idea of Republicans being good for the working class as I've been working class basically all my life and I've seen the difference and the results first hand! But if you think that, it's OK by me. You kind of wandered off on me with references to marriage and divorce when I'm talking economy but if you think women entering the work force made employers to pay less that is a novel idea! The middle class shrank as a direct result of twelve years of not just Republican dominated congress, but the specific republicans with Newt and his contract on America, the anti-American talk show hosts like Levine and Limbaugh and the resultant decay in real wages and working benefits.
As long as one ties himself to an ideology one will never see the actual situation in which we are living and the risks to both the middle class and to our nation in general. Try putting yourself in the position of an independent for a few months and see what different ideas you might encounter when you reject the confinement of ideology, even for a short time.
Rich,
You miss at least some of the point. No one should be getting tax breaks when we are trying to pay for a war! That's called stealing from your and my grandchildren. If we're going to have a war someone should have the guts to stand up and tell the truth about financing it! However, Kennedy had a tax cut or have you forgotten? It was done for a specific and targeted reason. Regan had something called a tax cut but my taxes actually increased! I obviously wasn't rich enough to benefit from his largess.
I'm not sure what kind of a point you are trying to make with thinly veiled insults, etc. but I'll not get into insults as that says more about the person saying them than the person insulted. Besides that, when someone starts insults it signifies that he or she has simply run out of facts so go ahead and insult me some more!
I've no idea what you're talking about with gated communities and the comment about guns. I am a total believer in our second amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period! What that has to do with this thread is a mystery to me. In fact, where did these so called "scum" get into the picture on this thread? Do you feel a lot of people are "scum?" Just what kind of people are those whom you seem to fear? Why is there such a collection of these dangerous people in the next town?
You reference illegals. I think the illegals need to be deported and our borders brought under control. While these may not be bad people in an of themselves but no nation can survive with illegals entering the country year after year by the millions! Again, what has this got to do with this thread?
I can assure you Rich, that I worked hard for about forty eight years under all kinds of administrations before I retired, and trying to work and support a family under Democrats was always easier than under Republicans. If you make under $100,000 a year the Republican party is not your friend. Many put that figure at double that amount but the fact that Democrats favor the working class is a fact much older than I am. If you are below that earning figure your deceiving yourself!
That said, I've voted for a lot of Republicans over the years but definitely not because the party was good for me. The individuals for which I voted were the best of the two candidates for the office at the time.
I believe this thread had been about beaten to death so perhaps I'll see you on the next one.
Sue,
You should check out Troy Stouffer's articles. He is one of my peers here at Gather and he speaks from the Right. I think he is a very good writer and makes very strong arguments for your side of the political spectrum.
James, I guess that is the difference between politics and science. The left looks at things like rhectoric, business practice, trends in outsourcing and emotional stories that make the news.
A good analyst looks at demography, how many middle-class jobs were created, how many were lost, how many people are classified as middle-class and how those numbers rise and fall.
The reality is that the primary reason why people drop out of the middle-class is that their two-income family has been reduced to a one-income family by divorce. The primary reason why a wage earner does not rise into the middle-class is the failure to join a two-income family.
Spin all you want about who "helps" the "working class" but the bottom line is marriage is the key and the party that address that issue head-on is the party that will do the most good.