S/O the Obama/SS Thread...

[Gigi]

I didn't want to derail that conversation, so I'll ask my question here.

I mean absolutely no snark when I say/ask this...I honestly want to know what the deal is.

What is so wrong with being wealthy? Why do people expect those who have more to fork it over to those who don't have as much?

I'm by no means wealthy. I am a teacher and a single mother. I bring home less than $35K per year.

I am very curious why there are people who feel that simply because they are citizens that the government owes them something.

I am very curious why there are people who believe that it is fair for those who make more to have to pay more to the government. If a person makes $300,000 per year, they get no more benefits from the government than someone who makes $30,000 per year. Why are they expected to foot more of the bill for our government spending? Just because???


Here's my idealistic view:

Tax the employed 15% - 20% of their income. Tax businesses 15% - 20% of their earnings.

Make the government make do with that. Citizens have to live within their means...why do we not expect the same from our elected officials who run our government??? If the government cannot or will not do this, get their butt out of there and put people in office who can and will do it.

As far as Social Security and Health Care: no one owes you anything. If you are able to work, then work. Even if it's part time. Even if it's fast food (I'm not talking about those who are not able. I'm all for there being programs to help those out who cannot do for themselves).



I am really not trying to start a debate about the haves and the have nots. I honestly want to know what people expect from their government?

We were given the right to the pursuit, not to the check. We were given liberty and justice, not financial aid. Freedom does not mean free ride.

Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting. I know my opinions are not the majority. I'm not speaking in anger. I just really, really, really don't understand.

[TuetonicWillow]

I have such a fierce opinion on this. However, there is simply no way to share it without pissing off everyone and while I have no problem with pissing off people in general, I don't see the point this time. It's like talking to a brick wall, IME. Suffice it to say that I believe a lot of people judt don't want anyone else to have what they don't have. They feel it's unfair that someone else is doing better. They don't want to earn it themselves and they're full of excuses. It's a "Nobody should be doing any better than me" attitude and it's very prevalent in our society these days. I detest it.


We were given the right to the pursuit, not to the check. We were given liberty and justice, not financial aid. Freedom does not mean free ride.

Bingo. Well said!

[TuetonicWillow]

If a person makes $300,000 per year, they get no more benefits from the government than someone who makes $30,000 per year

The former get LESS benefits from the government but pay in a much higher percentage. This still isn't quite good enough for the 'gimme some of that wealth' types.

[Gigi]

The benefits are not from the government, they are from the employer.

I have another view on health care.

I think the problem is the charging for the services...why do we have to pay for a case of gloves when we go in for three stitches?

If those who are charging out the ears for simple medical procedures were stopped from overcharging, health care would not be so ridiculous.

[joshsmom]

It's just being "neighborly"....

This is an interesting topic to me. I've been crafting an incredibly long post on the topic in my head this morning, particularly after reading about some of Obama's ties to the socialist party. I need to spend some time digging up links because what I read originated on a conservative blog. *I* think this nation is undergoing a very big, fundamental shift when it comes to this topic and I wonder if people have considered the long reaching ramifications.

[KaraJ]

I have such a fierce opinion on this. However, there is simply no way to share it without pissing off everyone and while I have no problem with pissing off people in general, I don't see the point this time. It's like talking to a brick wall, IME. Suffice it to say that I believe a lot of people judt don't want anyone else to have what they don't have. They feel it's unfair that someone else is doing better. They don't want to earn it themselves and they're full of excuses. It's a "Nobody should be doing any better than me" attitude and it's very prevalent in our society these days. I detest it. This.

[Justicedog]

The benefits are not from the government, they are from the employer.


It depends on whether they qualify for other government benefits - reduced/free lunches, WIC, some health programs, subsidized housing.

[KaraJ]

This is an interesting topic to me. I've been crafting an incredibly long post on the topic in my head this morning, particularly after reading about some of Obama's ties to the socialist party. I need to spend some time digging up links because what I read originated on a conservative blog. *I* think this nation is undergoing a very big, fundamental shift when it comes to this topic and I wonder if people have considered the long reaching ramifications. I'm worried that we as a society are heading closer to socialism, especially if Obama becomes president. Ick.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

Perhaps we should get rid of social security, public schools, parks, police and fire departments, and other socialist programs since it offends Karaj's sensibilities so much.

[MissionaryMomma]

KaraJ, why the "ick"? Is that for Obama or Socialism?

[TuetonicWillow]

That's reaching, Sasha.

[KaraJ]

Perhaps we should get rid of social security, public schools, parks, police and fire departments, and other socialist programs since it offends Karaj's sensibilities so much. Actually, that wouldn't bother me except for ridding the police and fire departments, and a few other programs, etc. We need safety of course. I would rather keep my tax money than have a public library. BUT, since those aren't going anywhere any time soon, and since my tax dollars are going towards public facilities, I'll continue to use them. Except the public schools, of course, since I home school.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

Oh, and earned income tax credit.

[TuetonicWillow]

Well I am not Karaj but I say ick to communism and socialism and I say ick to Obama, too.

[KaraJ]

KaraJ, why the "ick"? Is that for Obama or Socialism? Both, but mostly socialism.

[MrsKitty]

Community centers, government funded children's television, roads, forest rangers and national parks..

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

That's reaching, Sasha.

How so? America doesn't mind socialist programs when it wants to. Hell, it's damn hard to keep your kids *out* of public schools in some states because it's deemed so necessary for the good of all.

But I know that "socialism" to Karaj is just like watching that horrible nationalist video that CatSoup thought was so funny last week. As long as it doesn't hurt Karaj, she doesn't care.

[KaraJ]

How so? America doesn't mind socialist programs when it wants to. Hell, it's damn hard to keep your kids *out* of public schools in some states because it's deemed so necessary for the good of all. That needs to be changed.

[MissionaryMomma]

Perhaps I don't understand "ick". I take that to mean gross, disgusting, etc.

[KaraJ]

Perhaps I don't understand "ick". I take that to mean gross, disgusting, etc. No, your probably right.

[xobehs]

Community centers, government funded children's television, roads, forest rangers and national parks..
After school programs, pre K programs and on and on.
Maybe if we get rid of all of them all the poor people will just go away and it will be pure Utopia. Won't it be great?!

Yes, that is sarcasm. Fear is a powerful tool, watch out it doesn't gut you.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I agree, Xobehs. I don't understand why we should bother having a government if it isn't going to help its people who are in need (be they the poorest, the youngest, the oldest, whatnot). Why not just do away with it? It'll just be the lord of the flies. Only the strong survive and everyone else can get bent.

[KaraJ]

I agree, Xobehs. I don't understand why we should bother having a government if it isn't going to help its people who are in need (be they the poorest, the youngest, the oldest, whatnot). Why not just do away with it? It'll just be the lord of the flies. Only the strong survive and everyone else can get bent.
I'll help those less fortunate than me because I want to, not because I have to.

[xobehs]

Oh puhlease.

[joshsmom]

I, for one, don't believe we should get rid of all gov't programs or entitlements. The notion is ridiculous and not the feeling of most "mainstream" conservatives.

I am concerned about the ever growing gov't, brought to us by both sides of aisle. I am also concerned about some of B Obama's ideas about being "neighborly" and his political links to far left parties.

Mostly, I'm concerned about the mess in my house since I've been away and need to tackle that. I'll hop on and off when I can and post more in depth when I have a good chunk of research time this afternoon...

[GirlsMama]

Actually, that wouldn't bother me except for ridding the police and fire departments, etc. We need safety of course. I would rather keep my tax money than have a public library. BUT, since those aren't going anywhere any time soon, and since my tax dollars are going towards public facilities, I'll continue to use them. Except the public schools, of course, since I home school.


It takes a very ignorant person to say they would rather keep their money than have a public library. It is also very telling about your values. Ick.

[MrsKitty]

Poor people don't need to read, they are poor. Come on. They probably can't read anyways.

[xobehs]

Poor people don't need to read, they are poor. Come on. They probably can't read anyways.
We should just smoke them out.

I have to be humorous or this thread will seriously make me lose my mind.

[GirlsMama]

The lack of compassion... And Gigi is a teacher! I am so glad she isn't a teacher where I live.

Some people are poor. Their parents didn't have college educations so they worked jobs and didn't have careers. Say they saved money and lived frugally, paid their own expenses, owned a home and a car or maybe two. But they still can't afford to send their children to college. So their child has a choice, go to college and end up with student loan debts, or get a job like mom and dad.

I don't know what percentage go to school without money from mom and dad, I did it, but I don't know how many people make that choice. Even if you do go to college you may not end up making very good money.

If there were no government programs I would have had to stop going to college after my divorce and work full-time to be able to afford health care for my daughter. Because of medicaid I could afford to take part-time jobs (two of them) because I did not have to rely on a 40-hour a week job with benefits. If I had to work a ft job I would not have been able to finish college. I can see how a person can come to a point where they can't do college and work, and they need the money now so they have to choose a job that does not require an education.

These people are then left in a position of being poor. Perhaps they don't know all the options available to them, options that would not exist if Gigi and Karaj were in charge.

There are so many things I want to say, but I do not have the time. I have a little girl to get fed and dressed and ready for preschool. I am thankful for our public school and our free preschool. If it wasn't here I'd be teaching her myself and she really loves her teachers and is learning so much from them.

I want to leave with one more thought thrown out there. My ex is from Syria. Health insurance is free over there. College education is free over there if you work for the government for just five years after graduation. They are a third world country, or a developing nation, I am not sure the current status. Even their poorest of poor has health coverage and the chance for higher education.

[GirlsMama]

Gigi, do you have the cajones to post this little gem over at IHMMB? I think the women over there could probably shed some light for you.

[TuetonicWillow]

Gigi lacks compassion and you wouldn't want her to teach a child in your area?

This is absolutely crazy. Gigi said nothing heartless. Not even close.

[Sameach]

Gigi, do you have the cajones to post this little gem over at IHMMB? I think the women over there could probably shed some light for you.

IMO this is the most bitchy and unhelpful post on this thread.

I also find it interesting that no one who disagrees with Gigi's musings is able to express themselves without devolving into sarcasm and ridicule (with the exception of GirlsMama in the post right before her bitchy and unhelpful one). I, for one, would like to read the insights from the people who agree with Obama on this topic without the aforementioned sarcasm and ridicule.

I would also like to propose an additional question. Obama proposes his spreading the wealth scenario, but when he is further questioned about it from the few people who are willing to go there, he backpedals and assures the public that no, he is not advocating socialism. Are the Obama supporters disappointed that he is not standing up and offering a strong message about his vision? If you feel in your heart of hearts that "spreading the wealth" is the way to save our country, why wouldn't you scream it from the mountaintops?

[TuetonicWillow]

Save our country from what?

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I'll help those less fortunate than me because I want to, not because I have to.

*snort*

[Sameach]

:shrug: I don't know, saving it from what you see are the current problems? I don't believe that philosophy, so I don't know what it would be saved from.

[TuetonicWillow]

I hear that from time to time, "Obama will save this country!" I always say, "From what?" Nobody ever has a ready answer. They look at me all confused and say, "From financial ruin."

Right. Because the day he takes office everyone will be happy again and roses will bloom and nobody will be poor.

Whatever.

[Justicedog]

After school programs, pre K programs and on and on.
Maybe if we get rid of all of them all the poor people will just go away and it will be pure Utopia. Won't it be great?!

Yes, that is sarcasm. Fear is a powerful tool, watch out it doesn't gut you.



(this isn't just directed at xobehs, but she happened to be the post I happened upon)

Is there any moderation? It's not a choice between nothing or everything. I find that reaction to be immature. There could be a balance. It's not anarchy vs. socialism. There is a middle ground.

I agree with what Joshsmom wrote, except I haven't been away and have no excuse for the mess in my house. :)

I, for one, don't believe we should get rid of all gov't programs or entitlements. The notion is ridiculous and not the feeling of most "mainstream" conservatives.

I am concerned about the ever growing gov't, brought to us by both sides of aisle. I am also concerned about some of B Obama's ideas about being "neighborly" and his political links to far left parties.

Mostly, I'm concerned about the mess in my house since I've been away and need to tackle that. I'll hop on and off when I can and post more in depth when I have a good chunk of research time this afternoon...

[Justicedog]

I hear that from time to time, "Obama will save this country!" I always say, "From what?" Nobody ever has a ready answer. They look at me all confused and say, "From financial ruin."

Right. Because the day he takes office everyone will be happy again and roses will bloom and nobody will be poor.

Whatever.


But when he doesn't "save the country" it will be Bush's fault. I don't get that.

[MissionaryMomma]

Joshsmom can speak for me here.

As for the IHMMB comment---is that meant to insult her or the ladies on this board?

[KaraJ]

But when he doesn't "save the country" it will be Bush's fault. I don't get that.

:roflol

[joshsmom]

I get that some of these arguments are "tic", but they're akin to the argument that if "we allow gay marriage, what will be next.. people marrying dogs?"

Edited to fix quotes.

[CatSoup]

Gigi, do you have the cajones to post this little gem over at IHMMB? I think the women over there could probably shed some light for you.

What the heck are you even talking about? Gigi posted an honest, and good set of questions.

I would be happy to have her as my son's teacher. In fact we are lacking good teachers in ds's school. What do you say Gigi and Judy, want to move to Oklahoma? ;)

[MissionaryMomma]

Judy's taken. She will be living in my guest house when it's finished. For now, though, it's full of cement bags, lawn tools, and bathroom tile---oh and a wheelbarrow.

[newbie]

Why should someone who makes 300,000.00 a year pay the same or less taxes than someone who makes 30,000.00? People who make that much can AFFORD to pay more taxes. Health care should be a RIGHT. The mine, mine, mine, attitude of some people blows be the fuck away. How can anyone look at our country and think four more years of the same bullshit is GREAT IDEA.

[CatSoup]

Why should someone who makes 300,000.00 a year pay the same or less taxes than someone who makes 30,000.00? People who make that much can AFFORD to pay more taxes. Health care should be a RIGHT. The mine, mine, mine, attitude of some people blows be the fuck away. How can anyone look at our country and think four more years of the same bullshit is GREAT IDEA.

But they do pay more. It's % not amount.

[newbie]

It is fact the Bush tax cuts that Mccain wants to keep, benefit the wealthy way more than the middle class. Google it.

[pawprint]

The only thing I have to add is something my minister said last week. I like the guy okay, but he is not my favorite one. But every time i think he bores me he comes out with some great gem.

He was talking about how the word liberal has been sullied and what it really means to him, to us as UUs. He gave a lot of examples but of the things he said was "Being Liberal means looking into the face of those who say "it's not our job to help the poor" and saying Yes. It. Is."


I am not sure there is any explanation that is going to make anyone have a light bulb moment. Either you feel in your heart that it is your duty to help other citizens of the planet or you do not. I do, and no one can talk my heart out of it.

[dalurker]

I'll answer as best I can.

I don't think Obama can just step in and snap his fingers and make everything all better and I don't know anyone else who thinks that. However, I also don't believe what we have is working, so I choose to vote for what I think is less likely to continue down the road we're on. If I'm wrong, time will tell.

It is pretty silly to imply or outright say that people who support social programs are simply jealous of the "haves." Maybe some are; I don't know since I'm not the mouthpiece of the "have nots." Still, I can only use my family as an example and we're doing ok and yet we still support programs to help those in need. So far, we still have jobs, adequate income, benefits, so we (in my household) are not jealous of anyone. However, it sickens me--- no, really, just makes me feel so angry and sick and helpless when I go into a store and see, for example, a can sitting on a counter to raise money so that someone can have a life saving procedure like a transplant or so that a parent can care for a terminally ill child. Or other such fundraisers to raise money for health care. Could be a child or it could be an adult. No one is exempt from it. Those that own homes may have a bit of leverage since they can choose to use and possibly lose their homes to cover some of their bills, but those who don't do not even have that.

Here's one story that bothers me:
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?s=9070127
By blanket policies such as those able to work should be working, this woman should not be able to stay home and care for her two terminally ill children (well, one has since died). It's not as if she is able to put them both through extreme life saving measures. She is simply caring for them until the end.


When situations like that are brought up, some people who oppose social programs often say things like, "well, THAT should be fixed." The thing is how do we draw that line? People could list one example after another and others would say, "ok, well THAT should be fixed." This woman is able to work and to some who would make blanket policies based on that, she should be working. The point is that there are a lot of special circumstances and I'd much rather know that people like this are taken care of than worry about the ones who would take advantage of the system. Countries like Canada and Australia have effective if not perfect systems and the whole nations are not just home sitting on their sofas goofing off. People contribute to society and people benefit from it. That's desirable to me. I would love a day when I never have to walk into a store or open a newspaper to see a fundraiser for a sick person or where people have to choose between losing their homes or their lives.

I have no problem with wealthy people being wealthy. I just don't think people should be penalized for being poor. The disdain for the poor in this country bothers me. People seem to make the assumption that wealth = hard work and poor = deadbeat. Plenty of people work hard, two and three jobs without benefits, and they can barely buy food or pay rent. I get that people think "not my problem!" but I think in a working society, it is everyone's problem. If it makes me a socialist, well, socialism just isn't a dirty word to me to begin with. I'm more interested in making sure those that need help can get help than worrying about the ones who might take advantage of it. I also don't think it's mutually exclusive with personal accountability.


And I think the IHMMB comment to GiGi was shitty.

[newbie]

Well said paw, I totally agree. What amazes me is so many republicans are so vocal about their religious beliefs, they should seriously ask themselves WWJD?

[dalurker]

I am not sure there is any explanation that is going to make anyone have a light bulb moment. Either you feel in your heart that it is your duty to help other citizens of the planet or you do not. I do, and no one can talk my heart out of it.

I could have saved myself a lot of time typing if I'd seen this response first and just agreed with it. 100%.

Although I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind as much as explain what it is I feel.

[Bellaelle]

Well said paw, I totally agree. What amazes me is so many republicans are so vocal about their religious beliefs, they should seriously ask themselves WWJD?

Why do you assume Republicans do not in fact support programs to help the poor or needy? Ever heard of private donations? Private donations do more for the needy on any given day than the yoke of government programs.

[still_me]

I agree with paw and newbie.

What boggles my mind is that people (general) don't seem worried about the middle class breaking. The middle class carries this nation on it's back. It won't be able to for much longer with jobs being sent overseas and education becoming more and more expensive. It is a vicious cycle and doesn't smack of Democracy. I don't expect free things from the government. What I do expect is available health care coverage, affordable education, jobs staying in our areas, and more than 5% of the national budget going towards education for those in k-12. I'm sorry that for some people (general) that it is too much to ask for. How dare I ask for our hard earned tax dollars to be put towards something like that. I really believe that a lot of people forget that the government isn't a force unto itself. They are supposed to respond to the people. If the people want those things then they should have them. The government isn't some parental figure that says, 'No. We know what is best for you...' They should say, ' We work FOR you. How can we get done what the majority of this nation wants.'

Oh, and it really kills me that someone would be fine with things like public libraries being closed down. Nothing like taking books away from people. We don't want anyone to have different opinions right? gag me.

[MissionaryMomma]

dalurker, your post was thought-provoking.

[Justicedog]

But they do pay more. It's % not amount.

I think it's both. The % of the income goes up at various intervals. It is a greater % if one is making more money. Additionally, because they are earning more money, the actual amount that they're "donating" (as if the IRS is just "asking" for the money) is more because the amount you're making is more.


Example (single) - Currently, this doesn't take into account deductions and such:

If one's income is 31,850.25, they pay $4,386.25 or 13.77% of their income in taxes.

If one's income is $349,700, they pay $101,469.25 or 29.02% of their income in taxes.

Either way, they're paying more.

If there was a flat tax of 15%

$31,850.25 income person pays $4777.54 in taxes.

$349,700 income person pays $56,955 in taxes.

A flat tax seems like it would really help those making more. I don't have the math ability or patience to figure out where the breaking point is to whom it will help and whom it would harm.

A flat tax seems more fair, everyone putting in their fair share, but I don't know how the government would be able to function as I believe they'd be getting a lot less money.

Perhaps we can "ask" those making more to pay more and see how they really value programs to the poor and such. We can have a competition between liberals and conservatives and see which group "wins" in donation more than their fair share.

I got the numbers from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2007.pdf

[Bellaelle]

The only thing I have to add is something my minister said last week. I like the guy okay, but he is not my favorite one. But every time i think he bores me he comes out with some great gem.

He was talking about how the word liberal has been sullied and what it really means to him, to us as UUs. He gave a lot of examples but of the things he said was "Being Liberal means looking into the face of those who say "it's not our job to help the poor" and saying Yes. It. Is."


I am not sure there is any explanation that is going to make anyone have a light bulb moment. Either you feel in your heart that it is your duty to help other citizens of the planet or you do not. I do, and no one can talk my heart out of it.


I feel it is my civic duty to help others, which is why I donate to charitable causes both my time and money. I do not however feel the government should step in and take more just because I can afford to be taxed more.

[MissionaryMomma]

Well said paw, I totally agree. What amazes me is so many republicans are so vocal about their religious beliefs, they should seriously ask themselves WWJD?
How do you know they don't?

[Bellaelle]

Gigi, do you have the cajones to post this little gem over at IHMMB? I think the women over there could probably shed some light for you.

Seeing as how there are many cross posters, this is just a dumb post.

[CatSoup]

He was talking about how the word liberal has been sullied and what it really means to him, to us as UUs. He gave a lot of examples but of the things he said was "Being Liberal means looking into the face of those who say "it's not our job to help the poor" and saying Yes. It. Is."


I am not sure there is any explanation that is going to make anyone have a light bulb moment. Either you feel in your heart that it is your duty to help other citizens of the planet or you do not. I do, and no one can talk my heart out of it.

I thought our morals were not supposed to be legislated.

[Babyblue]

I agree with gigi 100%

[Bellaelle]

And this has in fact been discussed at IHMMB. Same arguments from both sides, so I don't see the reason for that stupid post she made.

[newbie]

I don't want to depend on American donations only to help the needy, that is unrealistic.

[CatSoup]

I agree with paw and newbie.

What boggles my mind is that people (general) don't seem worried about the middle class breaking. The middle class carries this nation on it's back. It won't be able to for much longer with jobs being sent overseas and education becoming more and more expensive. It is a vicious cycle and doesn't smack of Democracy. I don't expect free things from the government. What I do expect is available health care coverage, affordable education, jobs staying in our areas, and more than 5% of the national budget going towards education for those in k-12. I'm sorry that for some people (general) that it is too much to ask for. How dare I ask for our hard earned tax dollars to be put towards something like that. I really believe that a lot of people forget that the government isn't a force unto itself. They are supposed to respond to the people. If the people want those things then they should have them. The government isn't some parental figure that says, 'No. We know what is best for you...' They should say, ' We work FOR you. How can we get done what the majority of this nation wants.'

Oh, and it really kills me that someone would be fine with things like public libraries being closed down. Nothing like taking books away from people. We don't want anyone to have different opinions right? gag me.

With the exception of karaj, who knows nothing about living in the real world, no one is suggesting we get rid of any of those things, or even that we can't gain them.

[xobehs]

What about all the of the government's hefty sweet industry hand outs? Is that socialism?

I know many rabid Obama supporters IRL, and I have never heard any of them say he will save the country.
I have never heard any McCain supporters say it either for whatever it matters.

I've had some pretty good money making years and some really low ones as well. In the hefty years I paid an accountant to do my taxes, it was pretty shocking what I got back and what I was able to write off, so I can only imagine how much of the wealthy folks out there do the same.

[xobehs]

I don't want to depend on American donations only to help the needy, that is unrealistic.
America helps out far more than just the needy.

[Bellaelle]

One of the biggest problems I have with paying more in taxes is that the money we are already paying is not being used wisely. Pork barrel spending is out of control and beyond wasteful. Why should I have to pay more so Congressman Smith could slap his damn name on a tunnel?

[CatSoup]

What about all the of the government's hefty sweet industry hand outs? Is that socialism?
.


Mostly, yes.

[still_me]

With the exception of karaj, who knows nothing about living in the real world, no one is suggesting we get rid of any of those things, or even that we can't gain them.


I was unaware that I said that.



ETA dalurker, That was a really great post. Thank you.

[pawprint]

I thought our morals were not supposed to be legislated.

I do not believe it is immoral to want to keep every slim dime. I just thinks it's unpalatable.

[newbie]

How do you know they don't?


I would be surprised if they did and in their mine Jesus said "what is yours is yours, screw the poor".

I would like to add that I am not jealous, I work, dh works we make darn good money, we go on vacations, have a nice house and drive new vehicles. I don't mind paying more, I assumed that was part of it. I really don't mind my taxes paying for programs to help the poor.

[CatSoup]

I was unaware that I said that.

I guess I didn't understand what you were getting at then. Sorry.

[Justicedog]

How do you know they don't?


Exactly.

I'm a republican, yet I work as a lawyer at a non-profit legal services firm. I make probably about $100K less than if I were in a non-legal services firm. I do it for two to three main reasons. First, is a personal reason, because it's more flexible for a parent, second, because it's a way that I can help those less fortunate attempt to get equal justice and third, because it's needed.

My political party and beliefs are mocked and derided at my employer, yet I continue because I believe that it's important work and that I'm helping those who need it.

To imply that liberals/democrats are the only ones who care about the poor is greatly insulting to me and to other republicans who work hard each day in jobs that serve the poor, both volunteer and poorly paid positions, or who donate their hard earned money to programs that help the poor.

Should people be forced to help those who need it - either by paying more than their fair share or working for less than market pay for their job? I don't think so.

[xobehs]

I want to clarify....
I don't think those pesky socialist liberals shed a tear for the needy wealthy industry.

[pawprint]

I don't want to depend on American donations only to help the needy, that is unrealistic.


Absolutely. I know many wealthy people who donate nothing at all. Plus we must ensure there is assistance for people outside of religious groups.

[Bellaelle]

I don't want to depend on American donations only to help the needy, that is unrealistic.

You would be surprised to know just how much private donations do for those in need. Most communities that offer free health care for those who cannot afford insurance do so through charitable programs set up by churches and civic minded groups.

The fact is that private organizations are better able to get help to those in need at a quicker and better pace than the government.

[still_me]

I guess I didn't understand what you were getting at then. Sorry.


No biggie. :)

I said this:

Oh, and it really kills me that someone would be fine with things like public libraries being closed down. Nothing like taking books away from people. We don't want anyone to have different opinions right? gag me.

Because Karaj is a someone...I just didn't feel like making it all about her when I said that.

[Bellaelle]

I would be surprised if they did and in their mine Jesus said "what is yours is yours, screw the poor".

I would like to add that I am not jealous, I work, dh works we make darn good money, we go on vacations, have a nice house and drive new vehicles. I don't mind paying more, I assumed that was part of it. I really don't mind my taxes paying for programs to help the poor.

Do you donate to private organizations? What about your time?

[dalurker]

One of the biggest problems I have with paying more in taxes is that the money we are already paying is not being used wisely. Pork barrel spending is out of control and beyond wasteful. Why should I have to pay more so Congressman Smith could slap his damn name on a tunnel?


I think that's reasonable, Bellaelle.

I also think it's honorable that you are so involved in charity and I'm sure you give generously. I really believe you are a kind, compassionate and generous person. Unfortunately, everyone isn't as generous as you, and as long as so many people are still slipping through cracks and unable to obtain help, I think social programs are a necessary "evil."

[QuiltyConscience]

I agree with Gigi And TW. I see a lot of comments like "Wealthy people don't need all that money."

I think that's heartless. Somebody works and earns a lot of money, yet somehow they don't deserve to keep it because somebody thinks it is too much.


Who decides what is too much? Is it a million? Maybe 200,000? If anyone dares say that people living on Welfare shouldn't be buying luxury items, there would be a 27 page thread with howls of protest. But If somebody earns their money people are just fine criticizing them for spending too much on shoes, clothes, boats, whatever. I don't understand the contempt so many seem to have for the wealthy.


How many people can say that after they pay all their base necessities, every nickel over that they give away?

It's the people who are earning the wealth who employ others, invent products, and donate to charity. I don't see the point in penalizing them for their success.

[Bellaelle]

Absolutely. I know many wealthy people who donate nothing at all. Plus we must ensure there is assistance for people outside of religious groups.


Most of the organizations I am familiar with are both religious and secular in nature. The religious ones that I work with do not require the recipients to be religious etc.

[CatSoup]

Exactly Quilty!

[GirlsMama]

Originally Posted by KaraJ View Post
I'll help those less fortunate than me because I want to, not because I have to.

The problem with this statement is not everyone will help if they have a choice, and if you only help because you choose to you will likely only help those you choose, and there are countless people who need help who wouldn't know where to find it if they had to rely on individuals rather than the government. The government is organized to help the people, all the people.

If you have more than you need your entire life and one day find you are in need of the basics, food or clothing or shelter, what will you do if no one offers to help you? What if you suffer an illness or injury and cannot work, what if your spouse/breadwinner dies (my dad died at age 44, my mom was 35 left to raise two children), there are so many factors outside of our control, we can't always rely on family or friends to help us, that is part of the government's job, to prevent masses of people from going without.

I was thinking about the homeschooling thing, I think it's great if a parent decides to homeschool and if they can, I am thinking about it all the time, however, if we did not have public schools there would be countless children not getting an education because their parents are both working out of necessity or because the parent who is supposed to be educating them is doing a poor job.

(off to finish reading the thread).

[newbie]

Do you donate to private organizations? What about your time?


I donate money to private organizations, but not time. I work long hours, dh works long hours, any time we have left is spent with our two kids.

[Bellaelle]

I think that's reasonable, Bellaelle.

I also think it's honorable that you are so involved in charity and I'm sure you give generously. I really believe you are a kind, compassionate and generous person. Unfortunately, everyone isn't as generous as you, and as long as so many people are still slipping through cracks and unable to obtain help, I think social programs are a necessary "evil."

I have no problem with social programs. I do agree they are very much needed.
Pork Barrel projects are more costly to Americans than social programs on any given day.

[GirlsMama]

Joshsmom can speak for me here.

As for the IHMMB comment---is that meant to insult her or the ladies on this board?


Not meant to insult anyone, I have read a lot of good solid debate over there and I think those women would be better able than I am, to put their thoughts and words together succinctly. I have a very hard time putting my thoughts down the way I want them to.

I didn't mean to be bitchy, I was so upset by what Gigi said that I let it get the best of me with my response.

[xobehs]

It's the people who are earning the wealth who employ others, invent products, and donate to charity. I don't see the point in penalizing them for their success.
I just can't agree with this statement. It is a total over generalization.
Poor people invent. Business loans launch businesses that provide employment. Somehow poor people manage to launch HUGE projects. I'm an example. I am FAR from wealthy and I am one of those who started a business and employs people.

[Justicedog]

I was unaware that I said that.



ETA dalurker, That was a really great post. Thank you.


Quotes from this thread -

Sasha Perhaps we should get rid of social security, public schools, parks, police and fire departments, and other socialist programs since it offends Karaj's sensibilities so much. Oh, and earned income tax credit.


MrsKitty Community centers, government funded children's television, roads, forest rangers and national parks..

XOBEHS After school programs, pre K programs and on and on.
Maybe if we get rid of all of them all the poor people will just go away and it will be pure Utopia. Won't it be great?!

Yes, that is sarcasm. Fear is a powerful tool, watch out it doesn't gut you.

Sasha I agree, Xobehs. I don't understand why we should bother having a government if it isn't going to help its people who are in need (be they the poorest, the youngest, the oldest, whatnot). Why not just do away with it? It'll just be the lord of the flies. Only the strong survive and everyone else can get bent.


MsKitty Poor people don't need to read, they are poor. Come on. They probably can't read anyways. (in reply to KaraJ's dislike? of public library funding)



Joshsmom had a good point (after I figured out tic = tongue in cheek) I get that some of these arguments are "tic", but they're akin to the argument that if "we allow gay marriage, what will be next.. people marrying dogs?"


I imagine Cats quoting you (Still) was more of a reading the sum of things said vs directly replying to you. I don't know. I know I've read threads and quoted people who seem to be going along with the others that were more ridiculous.

[CatSoup]

I do not believe it is immoral to want to keep every slim dime. I just thinks it's unpalatable.

It's still about forcing people to do something because you think it is the right thing to do. A lot of wealthy people have become so by the sweat off their own backs. That is their body. Why should we say that we can't tell a woman what to do with her body when it comes to abortion, but can tell the rich that they have to essentially pay more of their own sweat and hard work for others?

[GirlsMama]

What the heck are you even talking about? Gigi posted an honest, and good set of questions.

I would be happy to have her as my son's teacher. In fact we are lacking good teachers in ds's school. What do you say Gigi and Judy, want to move to Oklahoma? ;)


There are a lot of poor people where I live. I feel a person who feels people don't have a basic right to social security (set up by FDR for people who need it) and health care, would not be the best choice to be working in a poor area like where I live.

I love Judy. To pieces, so I wouldn't group her with gigi just because they both teach.

[Bellaelle]

I donate money to private organizations, but not time. I work long hours, dh works long hours, any time we have left is spent with our two kids.


How old are your kids? Children love to help out. I take my oldest with me when I can. Plus, it gives them an appreciation for what they have in life and they learn the importance of giving back to the community.

[pawprint]

Oh for fucks sake CatSoup.

[GirlsMama]

I feel it is my civic duty to help others, which is why I donate to charitable causes both my time and money. I do not however feel the government should step in and take more just because I can afford to be taxed more.


You are able to donate your time and money because of your husband's income. A large percentage of Americans cannot donate their time because it is spent working or caring for their families, and a large percentage of Americans cannot donate their money because they need it to live on.

I think it's wonderful to be in a higher income bracket and be able to volunteer and donate, but I know what it's like to be in a lower income bracket and want to donate, but not have money to donate, and want to volunteer, but have to work instead.

That being said, I never sell anything, I always donate it to thrift stores, and I have volunteered at my dd's school as much as I can, as much as the schools will let me because I have to bring a younger sibling with me.

[CatSoup]

There are a lot of poor people where I live. I feel a person who feels people don't have a basic right to social security (set up by FDR for people who need it) and health care, would not be the best choice to be working in a poor area like where I live.

I love Judy. To pieces, so I wouldn't group her with gigi just because they both teach.


I don't disagree with what she said about social security. I see nothing wrong with a teacher who has good work ethic.



As far as Social Security and Health Care: no one owes you anything. If you are able to work, then work. Even if it's part time. Even if it's fast food (I'm not talking about those who are not able. I'm all for there being programs to help those out who cannot do for themselves).

[xobehs]

Oh for fucks sake CatSoup.

Yeh, no joke.

[CatSoup]

Oh for fucks sake CatSoup.

All right then. :confused:

[Tweet]

After school programs, pre K programs and on and on.
Maybe if we get rid of all of them all the poor people will just go away and it will be pure Utopia. Won't it be great?!

Yes, that is sarcasm. Fear is a powerful tool, watch out it doesn't gut you.


While we're at it, let's go ahead and get rid of the Early Childhood Program and Early Intervention as well! Those kids should be pulling their weight, damn it!

Sarcasm aside, there might actually be people out there that are jealous of others' wealth. I've not personally met anyone that admits this. However, when people say this it really reminds me of the people that say that the terrorists are "jealous of our freedoms". I think things are usually way more complex than that *shrug*

Personally, I support social programs because I believe in helping people that can't help themselves. I believe this is a betterment for our society rather than a hindrance.

[GirlsMama]

I think you are an exception Bellealle, with your ability and desire to give back. I've seen pictures of your house, it's obvious you have time and money to share, which is GREAT, but not all people have that option.

If there were no social programs to help those who need help, they would slip through the cracks because no one would know they need help, those who had help to give would not be finding them, and they would not know where to go.

[newbie]

I can't help but think of all of the wealthy people who are wealthy for the same reasons a lot of poor people are poor, they were born that way. No sweat off their backs, for generations..........

[The_Market]

I'll help those less fortunate than me because I want to, not because I have to.

So you'll be voting Libertarian, then?

[pawprint]

If you cannot see a difference between "My god says gay people are all going to burn and shouldn't have the same civil rights as straight people!" and "I believe in my souls that people should help one another" I can't help you.

[CatSoup]

I can't help but think of all of the wealthy people who are wealthy for the same reasons a lot of poor people are poor, they were born that way. No sweat off their backs, for generations..........

So those born wealthy should pay extra then? And who gets to decide who deserves to keep their money and who doesn't?

[pawprint]

Prostitutes earn money on their backs. Perhaps we shouldn't tax them... I'm kidding, I couldn't resist.

[QuiltyConscience]

I just can't agree with this statement. It is a total over generalization.
Poor people invent. Business loans launch businesses that provide employment. Somehow poor people manage to launch HUGE projects. I'm an example. I am FAR from wealthy and I am one of those who started a business and employs people.

I should clarify That that I am talking about people who become wealthy because they started a business, invented something, etc.

[dalurker]

I think what Bellaelle is saying is that there should be more responsible spending of the tax money already collected and that she's not inherently opposed to social programs so much as continuing irresponsible spending while raising taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bellaelle. If that's so, I agree with her, actually.

[Justicedog]

Most of the organizations I am familiar with are both religious and secular in nature. The religious ones that I work with do not require the recipients to be religious etc.



I actually don't know of a religious organization that helps the poor that requires a person to subscribe to their religion or anything. The only thing I can think of is that they may say a prayer over a meal, but don't require anyone to pray, just to be respectful to those who are praying.

[CatSoup]

If you cannot see a difference between "My god says gay people are all going to burn and shouldn't have the same civil rights as straight people!" and "I believe in my souls that people should help one another" I can't help you.

Who is this in reference to?
Not me I hope. I've never had anything against the civil rights of gay people, nor do I believe my God says they will burn in hell.

[Tweet]

I think that's reasonable, Bellaelle.

I also think it's honorable that you are so involved in charity and I'm sure you give generously. I really believe you are a kind, compassionate and generous person. Unfortunately, everyone isn't as generous as you, and as long as so many people are still slipping through cracks and unable to obtain help, I think social programs are a necessary "evil."


Exactly. Except I don't think it's "evil". I think it's the right thing to do and it just makes sense to want your society to succeed. I absolutely am against pork spending . I will rail all day that people need to pay their taxes, but one thing that greatly upsets me is when we're asked to pay more to fix our local schools and very damn little is fixed. I want to know whose pockets are being lined and who is taking away from the kids. I agree that kind of thing needs to stop and I'm thinking that happens more often than regular citizens taking advantage of the system.

eta I feelI should add I'm strictly talking about what I see going on in my own city here. Something isn't right.

[dalurker]

I don't think it's evil, either, Tweet, which is why I put it in quotes-- because I know people do. I think it's the right thing to do.

[Bellaelle]

You are able to donate your time and money because of your husband's income. A large percentage of Americans cannot donate their time because it is spent working or caring for their families, and a large percentage of Americans cannot donate their money because they need it to live on.

I think it's wonderful to be in a higher income bracket and be able to volunteer and donate, but I know what it's like to be in a lower income bracket and want to donate, but not have money to donate, and want to volunteer, but have to work instead.

That being said, I never sell anything, I always donate it to thrift stores, and I have volunteered at my dd's school as much as I can, as much as the schools will let me because I have to bring a younger sibling with me.

Bunch of excuses. The majority of people I know who donate time are in fact not wealthy and do work. One of the biggest fallacies I see are people who assume everyone who donates money or time are wealthy and non working.

If you have time to spend on the internet, you have time to volunteer.

And, it is not my husband's income. It is our income.

[Justicedog]

I can't help but think of all of the wealthy people who are wealthy for the same reasons a lot of poor people are poor, they were born that way. No sweat off their backs, for generations..........


Part of the reason I work hard and save is so that my children can have a good life, a better life because of my hard work. Why shouldn't a parent/grandparent/great grandparent be able to provide that for their issue? What's the reason to work hard, if not to be able to provide a better life for my children?

[xobehs]

Just cus...
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/taxday2008/999.pdf

[Justicedog]

Bunch of excuses. The majority of people I know who donate time are in fact not wealthy and do work. One of the biggest fallacies I see are people who assume everyone who donates money or time are wealthy and non working.

If you have time to spend on the internet, you have time to volunteer.

And, it is not my husband's income. It is our income.


Exactly. Or one can work for a non-profit group at a less than market rate if one wants to combine volunteer work and paid work.

[pawprint]

Who is this in reference to?
Not me I hope. I've never had anything against the civil rights of gay people, nor do I believe my God says they will burn in hell.


You're talking about morals, but you mean religious beliefs. One shouldn't legislate their religious beliefs. Morals are not the same thing.

mor⋅al
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

One must obviously govern with an understanding of right or wrong. It just shouldn't be dictated by what they perceive their personal god's opinion is.

[newbie]

You can provide a better life for your children, I never said you can't. It is not like Obama wants to tax the rich so much they will be poor.

[pawprint]

All the volunteer work in the world becomes... unappealing when thrown in other people's faces. I'm not saying that's been done here, I just see it coming.

[QuiltyConscience]

I would like to just say that I do not agree with Karaj on anything she says in this thread or probably any other threads either.

I do agree that we need some social programs. I am for Public Libraries, SS for Disabilities, and many many other programs.

What I take great issue with is our Government has shown again and again how very efficient they are at wasting money.

[Justicedog]

Just cus...
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/taxday2008/999.pdf


That's interesting.

[The_Market]

It is to our benefit as a culture to nurture the unpriviledged.

When poverty is allowed to run rampant, it is a very bad situation. Crime blooms and cycles begin that end in situations like the French Revolution or Nazi Germany.

I feel like so many people do not have a solid grasp of the full extent of Socialism. On one hand, they want a country that is economically pure capitolism, but on the other hand, they want the gov't to assert one set of religious ideals.

The idea that laws should be made under the influence of Christianity is about as socialist as having the rich pay higher taxes.

[QuiltyConscience]

Prostitutes earn money on their backs. Perhaps we shouldn't tax them... I'm kidding, I couldn't resist.


Outside of Nevada, we don't tax them. I think we should, but that's another thread.

[Bellaelle]

I think what Bellaelle is saying is that there should be more responsible spending of the tax money already collected and that she's not inherently opposed to social programs so much as continuing irresponsible spending while raising taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bellaelle. If that's so, I agree with her, actually.

Exactly what I am saying and believe.

We fork over money to the government and they just waste it on stupid things instead of what is really needed.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[CatSoup]

You're talking about morals, but you mean religious beliefs. One shouldn't legislate their religious beliefs. Morals are not the same thing.

mor⋅al
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

One must obviously govern with an understanding of right or wrong. It just shouldn't be dictated by what they perceive their personal god's opinion is.

I am not speaking of religious beliefs. My ideals are not governed by my religion, but by my morals.

[Justicedog]

All the volunteer work in the world becomes... unappealing when thrown in other people's faces. I'm not saying that's been done here, I just see it coming.


I think volunteer work is brought up because there are some that depict one side as not caring about the poor/less fortunate because they don't consider the government to be the best provider of services to them. Also, this becomes a personal issue - I've read between the lines an attitude of - you don't care about the poor because you don't support (endless*) government spending on them. The mention of volunteer work is to refute those claims.

* yes, I editorialized

[HammBugga]

It's still about forcing people to do something because you think it is the right thing to do. A lot of wealthy people have become so by the sweat off their own backs. That is their body. Why should we say that we can't tell a woman what to do with her body when it comes to abortion, but can tell the rich that they have to essentially pay more of their own sweat and hard work for others?


so you're admitting to being a hypocrite then.

[xobehs]

I think volunteer work is brought up because there are some that depict one side as not caring about the poor/less fortunate because they don't consider the government to be the best provider of services to them. Also, this becomes a personal issue - I've read between the lines an attitude of - you don't care about the poor because you don't support (endless*) government spending on them. The mention of volunteer work is to refute those claims.

* yes, I editorialized
I see your point, but looking forward it doesn't pan out. The "rich" are still going to carry the burden, and martyr? if we go to a privatized charity only nation. They will be the bulk of the donators and service providers. They (i hate using that word but I cannot come up with another) will be the stakeholders over the needy and that sounds like a pretty bad situation.

[Bellaelle]

Exactly. Or one can work for a non-profit group at a less than market rate if one wants to combine volunteer work and paid work.


Yes, this is very important to society. Educated professionals who are willing to take a smaller pay in order to help those in need. Without people such as yourself, many would go without legal help, medical help, educational help etc.

[QuiltyConscience]

I can't help but think of all of the wealthy people who are wealthy for the same reasons a lot of poor people are poor, they were born that way. No sweat off their backs, for generations..........


Well certainly it is so. There are people who have great wealth who never lifted a finger to earn it. I still don't think I have dibs on it.

So what if someone is born wealthy? When someone dies, should they have to leave everything they made in their lifetime to the government to have? Do we really want to require that everybody start in life with nothing so everybody is even?

[xobehs]

Socialist ideals, crazy? aren't they?

[Bellaelle]

I think volunteer work is brought up because there are some that depict one side as not caring about the poor/less fortunate because they don't consider the government to be the best provider of services to them. Also, this becomes a personal issue - I've read between the lines an attitude of - you don't care about the poor because you don't support (endless*) government spending on them. The mention of volunteer work is to refute those claims.

* yes, I editorialized

Exactly.

[pawprint]

Telling someone that they have time to volunteer dammit and implying that if they really cared they'd volunteer is what I'm reading.

[still_me]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalurker View Post
I think what Bellaelle is saying is that there should be more responsible spending of the tax money already collected and that she's not inherently opposed to social programs so much as continuing irresponsible spending while raising taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bellaelle. If that's so, I agree with her, actually.


Exactly what I am saying and believe.

We fork over money to the government and they just waste it on stupid things instead of what is really needed.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Bold mine.


ITA with both of you.

ETA: I think this is how most of the country feels. We need to figure out a way to do something to clear out the pork and put that money towards improving our country.

[newbie]

Well certainly it is so. There are people who have great wealth who never lifted a finger to earn it. I still don't think I have dibs on it.

So what if someone is born wealthy? When someone dies, should they have to leave everything they made in their lifetime to the government to have? Do we really want to require that everybody start in life with nothing so everybody is even?


Now your just putting words in my mouth, I was just pointing out that a lot of wealthy people are wealthy because they were born into it, the same reason why a lot of poor people are poor, and ftr I don't think I have dibs on it either.

[QuiltyConscience]

I see your point, but looking forward it doesn't pan out. The "rich" are still going to carry the burden, and martyr? if we go to a privatized charity only nation. They will be the bulk of the donators and service providers. They (i hate using that word but I cannot come up with another) will be the stakeholders over the needy and that sounds like a pretty bad situation.



I don't think anybody ( save KaraJ) is arguing for a charity only nation. It's not a choice of two extremes, Either no social programs and everyone keeps all their money, or everybody has exactly the same amount of everything.



No matter how you cut it, richer people do have the bulk of the money to donate or be taxed out of. They already are the stakeholders.

[QuiltyConscience]

Now your just putting words in my mouth, I was just pointing out that a lot of wealthy people are wealthy because they were born into it, the same reason why a lot of poor people are poor, and ftr I don't think I have dibs on it either.

Okay.. Some wealthy people are wealthy because they were born that way. And?

[QuiltyConscience]

Telling someone that they have time to volunteer dammit and implying that if they really cared they'd volunteer is what I'm reading.


I imagine it is just as annoying as reading " you have the money and if you really cared you wouldn't mind the government taking a lot of it"

[CatSoup]

so you're admitting to being a hypocrite then.

Just turning the same argument around.

[Bellaelle]

Telling someone that they have time to volunteer dammit and implying that if they really cared they'd volunteer is what I'm reading.


That is not how I am meaning it to come off. It was implied that I am able to volunteer/donate because of my *husband's income* and my sahm status.
Not everyone who is in the same boat as me will do so.

Just as not everyone who does donate/volunteer is well off and not working.

It does grate on my nerves to see people pointing fingers at others for not caring etc, yet they themselves do nothing to help out.

Most can find a way to give back. Even just an hour at your local shelter is giving back to society.

One of the people I admire most here and at IHMMB is MaWhit. She is a busy mom who homeschools, takes care of the house and is struggling money wise, but she is out there helping animals in need.

That is what I call a true humanitarian.

[xobehs]

I imagine it is just as annoying as reading " you have the money and if you really cared you wouldn't mind the government taking a lot of it"
Hire a slick accountant and get out of a good deal of it. Not saying anyone should break the law. It IS a reality though.

[alejorge]

I feel that the more better off people should have to pay more towards taxes. Why should someone that makes signifacantly less pay the same amount in taxes when they are already struggling to pay bills? People that make 100's and 1000's a year can afford the extra taxes where someone working for $8.00 an hour gets all these taxes taken out and can barely cover their bills and when they ask for help from the government and get told no that they make to much money I think that is really messed up. Not everyone can make enough money for the cost of living anymore. So yes I do think that some people will feel that the government owes them.

[QuiltyConscience]

LOL, FTR I am Not wealthy. Far far from it. An Accountant would giggle if I asked for their services. I can do my taxes in 20 minutes with a pencil and paper.

[xobehs]

LOL, FTR I am Not wealthy. Far far from it. An Accountant would giggle if I asked for their services. I can do my taxes in 20 minutes with a pencil and paper.
Right, I have years like that too, telefile even.
But, it I had the extra cash laying around for a good accountant, darned skippy I would be getting a good portion of my taxes back.

[CatSoup]

I feel that the more better off people should have to pay more towards taxes. Why should someone that makes signifacantly less pay the same amount in taxes when they are already struggling to pay bills? People that make 100's and 1000's a year can afford the extra taxes where someone working for $8.00 an hour gets all these taxes taken out and can barely cover their bills and when they ask for help from the government and get told no that they make to much money I think that is really messed up. Not everyone can make enough money for the cost of living anymore. So yes I do think that some people will feel that the government owes them.

You do realize that someone who makes 200,000 a year does not pay the same amount as someone who makes 50,000 a year right? Look back at JD's previous post about amounts and %.

[HammBugga]

As for the question in the OP, without the middle class the rich would not be rich. This Country is in a financial crisis. It's time to give back. It helps EVERYONE. If the middle class suddenly becomes the poor, they can no longer spend money to make the rich richer.

Think about all the lawyers who will no longer have clients, the Dr.s who will no longer get paid because their patients no longer have health insurance or can not afford to pay exurbanite out of pocket expenses. Because believe me, it is not food that is going to be the first to go, it's going to be all the luxuries and extra's. People will be in survivor mode, not go out and stay at the Hilton for vacation mode.

[QuiltyConscience]

I feel that the more better off people should have to pay more towards taxes. Why should someone that makes signifacantly less pay the same amount in taxes when they are already struggling to pay bills? People that make 100's and 1000's a year can afford the extra taxes where someone working for $8.00 an hour gets all these taxes taken out and can barely cover their bills and when they ask for help from the government and get told no that they make to much money I think that is really messed up. Not everyone can make enough money for the cost of living anymore. So yes I do think that some people will feel that the government owes them.


People who make more are already paying more taxes. If you are paying, say 800 for your taxes, Then I can guarantee you that you that rich people are not paying 800 on their taxes.

I am fairly certain that someone making $ 8.00 an Hour is getting most if not all of their taxes back anyway.

[Justicedog]

I see your point, but looking forward it doesn't pan out. The "rich" are still going to carry the burden, and martyr? if we go to a privatized charity only nation. They will be the bulk of the donators and service providers. They (i hate using that word but I cannot come up with another) will be the stakeholders over the needy and that sounds like a pretty bad situation.


I'm not advocating that the government does nothing, I'm just concerned about it doing too much. And by too much, I'm meaning that it gives people a false sense of secuirty and lack of initiative to work hard. (I know there are a bunch of people on social service programs who are working hard, but, there are also a bunch who aren't working to their potential. There are those who, how can I cay this nicely, don't have all that much potential to do well. I recognize that.

An example is social security. Social security was never intended to be ones only source of retirement funding. It was supposed to supplement one's private and saved for retirement. I think that the government should have done a better job at protecting private retirement by not allowing companies to get away with stripping it from employees, particularly those who had already "earned" it. I think a lot of people have relied on getting social security and failed to plan better, they then get on social security and for some reason, it's less than what they thought it would/should be.

[HammBugga]

Just turning the same argument around.


Oh please, your argument is not even in the same league. I take that back, it's not even the same SPORT. It just shows how delusional your thinking is. Actually it's fucking SICK.

Comparing a 3% tax increase with controlling another human beings body/mind? That is just sick.

[Bellaelle]

Hire a slick accountant and get out of a good deal of it. Not saying anyone should break the law. It IS a reality though.

We have a great CPA and tax attorney. We still pay up the wazoo.

[xobehs]

I think a lot of people have relied on getting social security and failed to plan better, they then get on social security and for some reason, it's less than what they thought it would/should be.
They failed?
They failed to work for a company that provided benefits, they failed to get a decent paying job that allowed them to cover their basic needs and put some away for retirement.

Heck, i lost half my shu-fizzled out retirement savings last month too. Guess I learned my lesson, why gamble?

My FIL gets SS, he paid in his years and he has a nifty pension too from both the private sector (30 years as a plant manager) and from the VA. He lives in a shit-hole-vet's home. Wow, good for him for being so wise.
I digress.

[CatSoup]

Comparing a 3% tax increase with controlling another human beings body/mind? That is just sick.

You can think it's sick if you want to, but they are both about body/mind in a way. I'm not even talking about 3%, just in general, for the sake of argument. We're in the 50,000 a yr bracket, so it doesn't actually hurt me if someone in the 200,000 bracket has to pay more.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

What about all the of the government's hefty sweet industry hand outs? Is that socialism?

Yup. Nationalizing banks is socialism. Mortgage buy-outs is a form of socialism.

It sucks that it's not fair for Joe Millionaire to pay more in taxes. It's not fair that blue collar workers lose their jobs when the companies move to Mexico because it's cheaper to pay a non-union laborer $3 an hour instead of skilled American union workers $20. It's not like the company will go out of business paying the American worker that amount, it'll just cut into the CEOs profit margin.

Life's not fair. For any of us, not just Joe Millionaire. However, I'd sure as hell rather see unfairness from Joe Millionaire's seat than Jane Blue Collar.

If we're worried about insane government spending, the Iraq war is a hell of a lot more expensive than social programs

[HammBugga]

You can think it's sick if you want to, but they are both about body/mind in a way. I'm not even talking about 3%, just in general, for the sake of argument. We're in the 50,000 a yr bracket, so it doesn't actually hurt me if someone in the 200,000 bracket has to pay more.


Nope they aren't the same, in ANY way. Pull your head out of your ass.

[newbie]

Lets not forget ENRON, how many people lost everything thanks to greedy big wigs? I swear greed will be the death of this country.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

One of the biggest problems I have with paying more in taxes is that the money we are already paying is not being used wisely. Pork barrel spending is out of control and beyond wasteful. Why should I have to pay more so Congressman Smith could slap his damn name on a tunnel?

I absolutely agree with this.

Unfortunately, though, what I usually see in these debates, both here and IRL, are complaints about welfare and other programs for the needy. Instead of making life harder on the people most on the brink, why don't we--Democrats, Republicans, and all in between--hold Washington more accountable for its spending?

[CatSoup]

Nope they aren't the same, in ANY way. Pull your head out of your ass.


Again, I never said that they were the same. I said that they both involved bodies/minds.

[HammBugga]

You can think it's sick if you want to, but they are both about body/mind in a way. I'm not even talking about 3%, just in general, for the sake of argument. We're in the 50,000 a yr bracket, so it doesn't actually hurt me if someone in the 200,000 bracket has to pay more.


I also feel the need to point out that under Obama's plan the person in the 200,000 bracket will actually be getting a tax BREAK. Maybe you would know that if you weren't just voting on one issue.

[Justicedog]

You do realize that someone who makes 200,000 a year does not pay the same amount as someone who makes 50,000 a year right? Look back at JD's previous post about amounts and %.



To be fair, this doesn't take into account deductions and so forth. I don't know how to calculate all that into the equation. I suspect, they still pay a larger $ amount if not %age, but that's speculation. I'm willing for someone to give me a $200,000-$300,000 salary and I'll test it out. (see what I'm willing to do for you guys.) :)

[dalurker]

CatSoup, I'm going to respectfully ask you to give a summary of the point you're making. I'm not getting it because it looks like you're comparing figurative blood and sweat to literal abortion. It does not compute for me. For the sake of not erroneously assuming anything, what are you trying to say?

[HammBugga]

Again, I never said that they were the same. I said that they both involved bodies/minds.


I know what you said. Comparing the two is just insulting.

[Bellaelle]

Lets not forget ENRON, how many people lost everything thanks to greedy big wigs? I swear greed will be the death of this country.


This is true and it is disgusting. I think there are quite a few people who should be sitting in jail right now for the latest fiasco to happen to the country.

[CatSoup]

I also feel the need to point out that under Obama's plan the person in the 200,000 bracket will actually be getting a tax BREAK. Maybe you would know that if you weren't just voting on one issue.


That's assuming a lot. Especially since I never said who I was voting for or why. I'm not happy with McCain, and I don't agree with Obama on many issues, so I'm not even sure I if will be voting yet.

[Bellaelle]

I absolutely agree with this.

Unfortunately, though, what I usually see in these debates, both here and IRL, are complaints about welfare and other programs for the needy. Instead of making life harder on the people most on the brink, why don't we--Democrats, Republicans, and all in between--hold Washington more accountable for its spending?


I am with you 100%. It makes my blood boil to know we bailed out AIG and then the scumbags have the nerve to take a $ 440,000 vacation! WTF?

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I was thinking about the homeschooling thing, I think it's great if a parent decides to homeschool and if they can, I am thinking about it all the time, however, if we did not have public schools there would be countless children not getting an education because their parents are both working out of necessity or because the parent who is supposed to be educating them is doing a poor job.


As a homeschooler--likely one whose kids will never attend a public school--this attitude annoys me. It is so self-serving.

My dh is a disabled American veteran who fiercely opposes the Iraq war. Should he be exempt from paying taxes since so much of it goes to defense?

[Justicedog]

I absolutely agree with this.

Unfortunately, though, what I usually see in these debates, both here and IRL, are complaints about welfare and other programs for the needy. Instead of making life harder on the people most on the brink, why don't we--Democrats, Republicans, and all in between--hold Washington more accountable for its spending?


Because that's what "they" want us to do and lead us to do. Let's point fingers at the Democrats or the Republicans, then we'll get distracted and not point fingers at those in Washington. (And, to be clear, I'm not talking about residents in Washington DC who aren't given the right to elect their own government.)

[newbie]

Yes, lets not forget the Iraq war, John McCain says the troops could be in Iraq for 100 years and that would be fine with him, talk about WASTING taxpayers money.

[CatSoup]

CatSoup, I'm going to respectfully ask you to give a summary of the point you're making. I'm not getting it because it looks like you're comparing figurative blood and sweat to literal abortion. It does not compute for me. For the sake of not erroneously assuming anything, what are you trying to say?

Like I said I don't have a stake in it either way. I don't think that taxes and abortion are on the same level. I'm just pointing out that the same people who advocate choice in some areas of the law are very much opposite on others. While working and being pregnant are not the same thing, they both involve the bodies and minds of others. Again, they are not equal. They both just happen to involve the bodies of other people.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

How old are your kids? Children love to help out. I take my oldest with me when I can. Plus, it gives them an appreciation for what they have in life and they learn the importance of giving back to the community.

i agree. my bigger kids both volunteered (with us, of course) at a soup kitchen (at a church, in fact) recently and it was an amazing experience for all of us.

I also agree with Bella's point, which I didn't quote, about private organizations often being in position to help those in need faster than the government. We've seen this, nationally, after Katrina and my family personally witnessed this over the summer with the floods. FEMA came to help--and they really did, by all accounts, do a great job--but the immediate relief came from the local churches and the Red Cross.

[pawprint]

Bella, I just don't want this to turn into a pissing contest about who volunteer where and how often. I know you don't mean it that way.

[QuiltyConscience]

Yup. Nationalizing banks is socialism. Mortgage buy-outs is a form of socialism.

It sucks that it's not fair for Joe Millionaire to pay more in taxes. It's not fair that blue collar workers lose their jobs when the companies move to Mexico because it's cheaper to pay a non-union laborer $3 an hour instead of skilled American union workers $20. It's not like the company will go out of business paying the American worker that amount, it'll just cut into the CEOs profit margin.

Life's not fair. For any of us, not just Joe Millionaire. However, I'd sure as hell rather see unfairness from Joe Millionaire's seat than Jane Blue Collar.

If we're worried about insane government spending, the Iraq war is a hell of a lot more expensive than social programs

I'd like to see us work towards keeping companies in the US and penalizing companies who outsource. That would go much farther for keeping Jobs in the US for people to earn a living.

[pawprint]

CatSoup you are not making any sense at all now.

[Meredith]

To imply that liberals/democrats are the only ones who care about the poor is greatly insulting to me and to other republicans who work hard each day in jobs that serve the poor, both volunteer and poorly paid positions, or who donate their hard earned money to programs that help the poor.

I agree. However, to imply that the poor are lazy, jealous freeloaders who are just looking for a handout from those who have more is greatly insulting to me (I'm not talking about you, JD, but just in general).

My DH and I have made some bad decisions that have led to where we are now. We've owned up to that. We're at the beginning of what I believe will be the turning point in our financial situation. Yes, we're poor. Yes, we receive some benefits from the government. That does NOT mean we're not reaping the consequences of our bad decisions.

I'm pretty sure that no one has actually said this on this thread, so I'm just speaking in general, but the idea that we're supportive of government benefits and "spreading the wealth", if you will, because we want to live on easy street and not pay the price for what we've done in the past. That is SO not the case.

I am putting on my big girl panties and pulling myself up by my bootstraps in order to make a better life for my family. However, I'm very glad that my sons can go to the doctor and have healthy food on the table, thanks to government programs. I am NOT one of those people who milks the government so I can have extra spending money for frivolities. I am one of the reasons that these programs exist. Yes, there are people who take advantage. Don't lump me in with them. Please.

I'm having a rough day. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm attacking people, I'm not. This thread just struck a nerve, and I went off on a bit of a rabbit trail. Forgive me.

I also agree with Bella on wasteful spending of tax dollars.

[QuiltyConscience]

I absolutely agree with this.

Unfortunately, though, what I usually see in these debates, both here and IRL, are complaints about welfare and other programs for the needy. Instead of making life harder on the people most on the brink, why don't we--Democrats, Republicans, and all in between--hold Washington more accountable for its spending?[


Absolutley. I agree with that 200%. And then some.

I simply do not trust the government to spend wisely.

[xobehs]

CatSoup you are not making any sense at all now.
I am so trying to get it, but don't. Metaphors? Body mind, taxes? huh?

[still_me]

I am with you 100%. It makes my blood boil to know we bailed out AIG and then the scumbags have the nerve to take a $ 440,000 vacation! WTF?


I think they should have paid the money back to the government when they did this.


Hell, I think that we should have looked at their books and saw how their "credit score" was. I then think we should have given them the going loan interest rate and made them pay the money back to the American people with interest.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

If you are able to work, then work. Even if it's part time. Even if it's fast food (I'm not talking about those who are not able. I'm all for there being programs to help those out who cannot do for themselves).

Those part time and fast food jobs don't pay a living wage. It's created a class called the working poor. What are they to do?

So those born wealthy should pay extra then? And who gets to decide who deserves to keep their money and who doesn't?

I think that they "deserve" to pay more taxes more than an elderly person "deserves" to be without social security, more than a disabled veteran "deserves" to be without health benefits, more than a poor child "deserves" to go without food stamps.

[CatSoup]

CatSoup you are not making any sense at all now.


Probably not. Honestly I'm just being argumentative because I'm bored and have nothing better to do.
Oh and Hamm (and others)I wasn't trying to offend. I thought I had a good point but I'm not being able to put it into words.

[newbie]

I have a 7yo dd, a 4 yo ds, and a 1yo down syndrome nephew that I have legal custody of, my dh is lucky if he doesn't work 7 days a week. We live a crazy hetic life, I did a lot of volunteering before kids, and I will do a lot when they get older, right now not so much.

[newbie]

Those part time and fast food jobs don't pay a living wage. It's created a class called the working poor. What are they to do?



I think that they "deserve" to pay more taxes more than an elderly person "deserves" to be without social security, more than a disabled veteran "deserves" to be without health benefits, more than a poor child "deserves" to go without food stamps.

EXACTLY. Especially when paying more taxes is not going to change their lifestyle, but that child who doesn't get foodstamps will go hungry.

[QuiltyConscience]

I am getting suspicious that a lot of us agree with each other much more than we thought we did.
( but Not KaraJ)

[dalurker]

I am getting suspicious that a lot of us agree with each other much more than we thought we did.
( but Not KaraJ)

That was my observation as well (including KaraJ). It appears the differences generally lie in how to achieve a common goal.

[CatSoup]

I am getting suspicious that a lot of us agree with each other much more than we thought we did.
( but Not KaraJ)


I think you're right. More than anything else I think that we should have more of a choice in what the government is making us pay for, and I don't mean social programs.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I know what you said. Comparing the two is just insulting.

Saying that her Obama/Soviet Union video wasn't hate-filled was insulting. I think that CatSoup likes to be passive aggressively insulting.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I'd like to see us work towards keeping companies in the US and penalizing companies who outsource. That would go much farther for keeping Jobs in the US for people to earn a living.

I agree. What I haven't seen McCain say--and I'd really like for him to say it--is that the jobs that he wants to create with corporate tax breaks will be jobs paying a living wage with benefit packages and retirements plans.

More Wal-Mart jobs will create more of the working poor. More working poor means more people who need food stamps, more people who qualify for medicaid, more people who won't have retirement savings.

Is he talking about union jobs or is he talking about $8 an hour jobs?

[KaraJ]

Why do you assume Republicans do not in fact support programs to help the poor or needy? Ever heard of private donations? Private donations do more for the needy on any given day than the yoke of government programs. This.
I'm only speaking for myself, but I'd prefer to see more private facilities than public. Private is almost always more efficient and run better.
I'd much rather choose who to donate money to than have the government decide for me.
*goes back to reading the thread*

[Tweet]

It is to our benefit as a culture to nurture the unpriviledged.

When poverty is allowed to run rampant, it is a very bad situation. Crime blooms and cycles begin that end in situations like the French Revolution or Nazi Germany.

I feel like so many people do not have a solid grasp of the full extent of Socialism. On one hand, they want a country that is economically pure capitolism, but on the other hand, they want the gov't to assert one set of religious ideals.

The idea that laws should be made under the influence of Christianity is about as socialist as having the rich pay higher taxes.


You said it far better than I was. I really don't think we'd want to see our country go down that road.

[Tweet]

This.
I'm only speaking for myself, but I'd prefer to see more private facilities than public. Private is almost always more efficient and run better.
I'd much rather choose who to donate money to than have the government decide for me.
*goes back to reading the thread*


Really? What private institution is equal to Early Intervention, for example? If one exists for the public ( and everyone can use it), I'd sure love to know about it. Especially if it's run more efficiently.

[The_Market]

I think that's heartless. Somebody works and earns a lot of money, yet somehow they don't deserve to keep it because somebody thinks it is too much.



It's still about forcing people to do something because you think it is the right thing to do. A lot of wealthy people have become so by the sweat off their own backs. That is their body. Why should we say that we can't tell a woman what to do with her body when it comes to abortion, but can tell the rich that they have to essentially pay more of their own sweat and hard work for others?

These statements show a lot of ignorance about how wealth is acquired in our country. A significant majority of the wealthy, and the vast majority of the very wealthy, were born into priviledge. Almost no one in this day and age starts from a dilapidated apartment and becomes Gerald Ford.

This is a perception I see a lot; the wealthy earned that money and they deserve to keep it. The problem is, most of them didn't. Did Paris Hilton sweat for that limo? Did George Bush hurt for that ranch?

Frankly, it is the wealthy that have been running this country, for the most part. I'm inclined to feel like they aught to be taking as much responsibility for getting us out of the current financial mess as they had in getting us into it.

However, for the most part, our country thrives when we have a sizeable and strong middle class. Ultimately what we really want to consider is what tax plan, health plan, education plan, etc is going to strengthen the middle class.

Yes, the bigger the middle class, the more threatened existing and inherited wealth is, but that's essentially the only downside.

The feudal system didn't work people. Let's avoid repetition, shall we?

[The_Market]

I also recall reading in several places that the lower classes actually give a higher % of their income to charity, overall.

[KaraJ]

Really? What private institution is equal to Early Intervention, for example? If one exists for the public ( and everyone can use it), I'd sure love to know about it. Especially if it's run more efficiently. I'll admit I don't know what private institutions are equal to Early Intervention (I'll look into it), but regardless, I haven't been impressed with most government programs or the workers.

[Justicedog]

I have a 7yo dd, a 4 yo ds, and a 1yo down syndrome nephew that I have legal custody of, my dh is lucky if he doesn't work 7 days a week. We live a crazy hetic life, I did a lot of volunteering before kids, and I will do a lot when they get older, right now not so much.



And I think that this is admirable. I do think that it's ok to "volunteer" based on ones' current conditions. As it's difficult now because of what's going on in your life to do it now, you've done it before and will do it again.

I apologize if any of my earlier post made someone feel like they're not volunteering enough or doing their part.

There are lots of people who don't though and use flimsy excuses not to do so. I don't know if there's a way to gauge the difference between those who could do more, but don't and those who shouldn't do more because they're doing all they can.

Quite frankly, I'm probably one of them. I do some, more than most people I am around, but not as much as I feel I should. However, I also feel like I'm hanging on to things by my fingernails and there's more in my family/house I need to be doing.

I also think that when I post some things, I think of individuals and then sort of generalize.

[The_Market]

I agree that most of our social programs are miserably mismanaged to the point of bastardization, but that doesn't mean we should do away with them. My dishwasher doesn't work very well, but I'm not too keen on just not having a dishwasher. Yes, I could just wash the dishes by hand, but it's not nearly as efficient as replacing the broken with something that works.

The potential for the networks and facility of the government to build our middle class to a point where our capitalist nation can thrive is there. I do not think that handing it all over to the private sector to start from ground zero is the best solution. I do think that we need to pull in more of the people from the private sector who know how to run things better and less good ole' boys.

[QuiltyConscience]

These statements show a lot of ignorance about how wealth is acquired in our country. A significant majority of the wealthy, and the vast majority of the very wealthy, were born into priviledge. Almost no one in this day and age starts from a dilapidated apartment and becomes Gerald Ford.

This is a perception I see a lot; the wealthy earned that money and they deserve to keep it. The problem is, most of them didn't. Did Paris Hilton sweat for that limo? Did George Bush hurt for that ranch?

Frankly, it is the wealthy that have been running this country, for the most part. I'm inclined to feel like they aught to be taking as much responsibility for getting us out of the current financial mess as they had in getting us into it.

However, for the most part, our country thrives when we have a sizeable and strong mhttp://www.breastfeeding.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=551307
Forums - Reply to Topiciddle class. Ultimately what we really want to consider is what tax plan, health plan, education plan, etc is going to strengthen the middle class.

Yes, the bigger the middle class, the more threatened existing and inherited wealth is, but that's essentially the only downside.

The feudal system didn't work people. Let's avoid repetition, shall we?

yet, several studies seem to show otherwise. Yet mine is an ignorant statement? I think not.

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/04/18/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/
Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”


http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
And just some interesting reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

[GirlsMama]

Bunch of excuses. The majority of people I know who donate time are in fact not wealthy and do work. One of the biggest fallacies I see are people who assume everyone who donates money or time are wealthy and non working.

If you have time to spend on the internet, you have time to volunteer.

And, it is not my husband's income. It is our income.


If I am on the internet it's because I am home while my dh is working and my little one is napping or my little ones are playing or my kids are asleep for the night.

Having time to hop on the computer and do some reading is not the same as having time to leave your house. If I went to volunteer most places I cannot bring my 17-month old. If I am on the computer she is either sleeping or playing or on my lap having something to eat or nursing.

I was unaware you worked Bellaelle, sorry for saying it was your husband's income. I was under the impression for some reason, which I don't know what, that you were a sahm with little ones like I am.

[QuiltyConscience]

These statements show a lot of ignorance about how wealth is acquired in our country. A significant majority of the wealthy, and the vast majority of the very wealthy, were born into priviledge. Almost no one in this day and age starts from a dilapidated apartment and becomes Gerald Ford.

This is a perception I see a lot; the wealthy earned that money and they deserve to keep it. The problem is, most of them didn't. Did Paris Hilton sweat for that limo? Did George Bush hurt for that ranch?

we?

And Yes, I think people who have earned their money should be entitled to keep a lot of it. I also think people who have been given enormous sums of money should be entitled to keep a lot of it. If I decide to leave my kids a house, I think it's reasonable that they should have it.


I am not particularly interested in how somebody got their money. I agree that they should be taxed fairly.

[TuetonicWillow]

I feel it is my civic duty to help others, which is why I donate to charitable causes both my time and money. I do not however feel the government should step in and take more just because I can afford to be taxed more.


Yes, yes, yes.

I pay over 40% when all is said and done. 40%!! And my own 'friend' told me straight to my face that I should be paying even more so that people like her don't have to pay in at all.

[GirlsMama]

It is to our benefit as a culture to nurture the unpriviledged.

When poverty is allowed to run rampant, it is a very bad situation. Crime blooms and cycles begin that end in situations like the French Revolution or Nazi Germany.

I feel like so many people do not have a solid grasp of the full extent of Socialism. On one hand, they want a country that is economically pure capitolism, but on the other hand, they want the gov't to assert one set of religious ideals.

The idea that laws should be made under the influence of Christianity is about as socialist as having the rich pay higher taxes.

I don't think religion has any place in government, there are too many different ways of worshiping and believing, and there are people who do neither.

I agree that it is our benefit as a culture to nurture the underprivileged.

I am still irked about the comment about the library, lol, I LOVE the library. We have around 400 childrens' books in our home and probably as many adult books, but I LOVE the library and I just cannot imagine anyone saying they would rather not have libraries, especially a sahm who is also homeschooling! You should take your children to the library, it's so much fun.

Ok, I will try to stop talking about the library now. :)

[TuetonicWillow]

Do you donate to private organizations? What about your time?


I find that usually, the ones whining the loudest about how much the rich should give actually give nothing on their own. They say they don't have the time or money or resources to volunteer or donate.

To that I say again- poppycock.

[dalurker]

I don't find that to be my "usual" experience at all.

[KaraJ]

I am still irked about the comment about the library, lol, I LOVE the library. We have around 400 childrens' books in our home and probably as many adult books, but I LOVE the library and I just cannot imagine anyone saying they would rather not have libraries, especially a sahm who is also homeschooling! You should take your children to the library, it's so much fun. Actually, I do. I take my daughter to Story Time every week. Because the facilities are available, I do use them. I just think that private institutions are usually better.
The library was the first system that popped into my head. But I do think that as far as public institutions go, the library is one of the best.

[GirlsMama]

As for the question in the OP, without the middle class the rich would not be rich. This Country is in a financial crisis. It's time to give back. It helps EVERYONE. If the middle class suddenly becomes the poor, they can no longer spend money to make the rich richer.

Think about all the lawyers who will no longer have clients, the Dr.s who will no longer get paid because their patients no longer have health insurance or can not afford to pay exurbanite out of pocket expenses. Because believe me, it is not food that is going to be the first to go, it's going to be all the luxuries and extra's. People will be in survivor mode, not go out and stay at the Hilton for vacation mode.


Brilliant post. The wealthy depend on the middle class and even the poor to a certain degree. Just look at your local company doing road work. The more cars that drive over the road, the more often that company gets money to fix it. Less people can afford to drive, and this mostly means the middle class and the poor, so in effect, their having less funds is going to make the road company have less funds. In the end everyone will be struggling a little more than they were before, except perhaps the people who were barely getting by to begin with.

[Justicedog]

Yes, yes, yes.

I pay over 40% when all is said and done. 40%!! And my own 'friend' told me straight to my face that I should be paying even more so that people like her don't have to pay in at all.



While your at it, could you pay for me too? :)

[GirlsMama]

I absolutely agree with this.

Unfortunately, though, what I usually see in these debates, both here and IRL, are complaints about welfare and other programs for the needy. Instead of making life harder on the people most on the brink, why don't we--Democrats, Republicans, and all in between--hold Washington more accountable for its spending?


Bold mine, because, who really has influence over Washington? Us or the lobbyists? Seriously asking.

[TuetonicWillow]

Bunch of excuses. The majority of people I know who donate time are in fact not wealthy and do work. One of the biggest fallacies I see are people who assume everyone who donates money or time are wealthy and non working.

If you have time to spend on the internet, you have time to volunteer.

And, it is not my husband's income. It is our income.


I wish I had little pompoms because I'd sitting here wanting to cheer this on.

I can't think of ANYONE who wouldn't find a few hours a month to help out some random cause.

And I swear, one day I'm going to lose it on someone who makes one of those "your husband's money" comments. It's been mainly my investments and my business decisions that put us where we are. People always, always assume the man makes the money. My DH would be the first to say "it's not me, I'm just the face of the business. She makes us the money".

Masked sexism is worst when it comes from women, especially when said women are on a liberal soapbox about ethics. lol

[The_Market]

That's assuming a lot. Especially since I never said who I was voting for or why. I'm not happy with McCain, and I don't agree with Obama on many issues, so I'm not even sure I if will be voting yet.
Have you looked into the Libertarian party? I'm not a fan myself, but it might be a good fit for you. Flat tax, no regulation, nothing inposed on bodies or minds, state's rights out the wazoo...

[xobehs]

Actually, I do. I take my daughter to Story Time every week. Because the facilities are available, I do use them. I just think that private institutions are usually better.
The library was the first system that popped into my head. But I do think that as far as public institutions go, the library is one of the best.
You never cease to amaze me. What the hell are you basing your big ol' private is better statement on then?


I find that usually, the ones whining the loudest about how much the rich should give actually give nothing on their own. They say they don't have the time or money or resources to volunteer or donate.

To that I say again- poppycock.
I think that is one of the shittiest most elite things said in the thread and I am seriously disappointed.

[KaraJ]

As for the question in the OP, without the middle class the rich would not be rich. This Country is in a financial crisis. It's time to give back. It helps EVERYONE. If the middle class suddenly becomes the poor, they can no longer spend money to make the rich richer.

Think about all the lawyers who will no longer have clients, the Dr.s who will no longer get paid because their patients no longer have health insurance or can not afford to pay exurbanite out of pocket expenses. Because believe me, it is not food that is going to be the first to go, it's going to be all the luxuries and extra's. People will be in survivor mode, not go out and stay at the Hilton for vacation mode. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." If people can't afford lawyers and doctors, than eventually lawyers and doctors will be forced to lower their prices.

[KaraJ]

You never cease to amaze me. What the hell are you basing your big ol' private is better statement on then? From my own experience. Private doctors, adoption agencies, private schools, and so on. I have met maybe two competent government workers out of many.

[GirlsMama]

As a homeschooler--likely one whose kids will never attend a public school--this attitude annoys me. It is so self-serving.

My dh is a disabled American veteran who fiercely opposes the Iraq war. Should he be exempt from paying taxes since so much of it goes to defense?


Ok, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I said I think about it all the time, I meant I think about home schooling all the time.

I never said anyone should be exempt from paying taxes.

I was saying there is a need for public schools for those who need to send their children to public schools, I wasn't saying everyone should. (A little unclear as to what you thought I meant).

[TuetonicWillow]

Sorry to disappoint. I'm frequently disappointed by those who have never once stood outside collecting toys for poor kids at Christmas or those who bitch and moan that the wealthy don't give enough while they themselves have never been on the serving end of a soup kitchen or a food drive or anything.

You must know a much higher calibur of people if you don't know anyone who's never put their money (or time) where their mouth is. I do know those people and they don't all come from high income brackets.

2 yrs in a playgroup was enough to open my eyes to just how little most people actually do. They talk a lot, but what do they do to help?

If you (general) aren't doing something to pitch in, you lose your right to complain about anyone else.

[QuiltyConscience]

From my own experience. Private doctors, adoption agencies, private schools, and so on. I have met maybe two competent government workers out of many.


Yes, Everyone knows that as soon as people start working for the government they become completely inept. The government must have missed those two. I hope you report them immediately.:nono:

Seriously, is every issue so extreme with you? You out-radical every radical I know IRL. And I know some nutty folks.

[pawprint]

She makes the other crazies look bad. I swear to god.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

Ok, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I said I think about it all the time, I meant I think about home schooling all the time.

I never said anyone should be exempt from paying taxes.

I was saying there is a need for public schools for those who need to send their children to public schools, I wasn't saying everyone should. (A little unclear as to what you thought I meant).


I didn't think that you thought that. :) I've heard it often from others homeschooler, though. I mean, we could probably all find something that the government pays money to that we disagree with. Homeschoolers included. They shouldn't get out of paying taxes, though, any more than anyone else.

[Givebac]

IMO I think someone's hard work should be taxed less than investments. I agree with the others who want to see an end to the pork and other government waste. I just think a lot of programs could best be handled by the individual state.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

You out-radical every radical I know IRL. And I know some nutty folks.

She's a caricature of neo-conservatism and extreme libertarianism. I would say she's a mixture of Elmer Fud and Oscar the Grouch but the latter is from a socialist sect.

[Justicedog]

I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." If people can't afford lawyers and doctors, than eventually lawyers and doctors will be forced to lower their prices.


I'll speak on the lawyer issue here as I feel I've got some experience in that arena. When people cannot afford lawyers, they're not able to equally access the legal system, equal access to the legal system equals equal access to justice. The legal system is stacked against the person who doesn't have a lawyer in all but small claim cases.

If we're talking about a non-represented person going into court to battle a landlord who has an attorney, that non-represented person is, more often than not, going to be blown away. If a person cannot afford their rent (or the extra bogus charges the LL is charging because they can bully the tenant) how are they going to afford even a lowered attorney fee?

The represented person is going to win in court over a non-represented person most of the time, even when they have a good case.

I could go on and on about how those with access (money) to lawyers can circumvent the law to take advangage of the person who doesn't have the money for an attorney. An attorney lowering their fees isn't going to help because be it a $50/hour fee or a $300/hour fee, that person cannot afford it. There needs to be legal help for those who cannot afford anything.

There will always be people who can afford lawyers and doctors.

[QuiltyConscience]

But I like Oscar the Grouch. I can relate to him, before my coffee.

ETA: Sasha, that is offensive to Elmer Fudd and Oscar. Wascally Wadicals.

[GirlsMama]

I agree. However, to imply that the poor are lazy, jealous freeloaders who are just looking for a handout from those who have more is greatly insulting to me (I'm not talking about you, JD, but just in general).

My DH and I have made some bad decisions that have led to where we are now. We've owned up to that. We're at the beginning of what I believe will be the turning point in our financial situation. Yes, we're poor. Yes, we receive some benefits from the government. That does NOT mean we're not reaping the consequences of our bad decisions.

I'm pretty sure that no one has actually said this on this thread, so I'm just speaking in general, but the idea that we're supportive of government benefits and "spreading the wealth", if you will, because we want to live on easy street and not pay the price for what we've done in the past. That is SO not the case.

I am putting on my big girl panties and pulling myself up by my bootstraps in order to make a better life for my family. However, I'm very glad that my sons can go to the doctor and have healthy food on the table, thanks to government programs. I am NOT one of those people who milks the government so I can have extra spending money for frivolities. I am one of the reasons that these programs exist. Yes, there are people who take advantage. Don't lump me in with them. Please.

I'm having a rough day. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm attacking people, I'm not. This thread just struck a nerve, and I went off on a bit of a rabbit trail. Forgive me.

I also agree with Bella on wasteful spending of tax dollars.


Well said Meredith!

If I had not received food stamps and medicaid when I was finishing college and working two part time jobs while my oldest was little I would not have been able to finish college. Having that help from the state enabled me to work two part time jobs during the hours I was not in school.

I was out of my house from 6 am to 7 pm either working or in school. Had I been forced to pay for health insurance I would have had to take a full time job and I wouldn't have been able to finish school.

Now, we are only paying into the system, not taking out, the total time I took out of the system was probably two or three years. I worked from age 14 to age 28 and I will work again in a few years. I think having paid into the system more than taking out is the norm, and I do think we need these programs to help people out when they need it. Most people who get public assistance are going to be happy to get off it and happy to help others later by paying in.

[CatSoup]

From my own experience. Private doctors, adoption agencies, private schools, and so on. I have met maybe two competent government workers out of many.

My BIL is a game warden. Even good ole boys can work for the government.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

But I like Oscar the Grouch. I can relate to him, before my coffee.

Well, don't complain to me when the letters of the day spell CCCP.

ETA: Sasha, that is offensive to Elmer Fudd and Oscar. Wascally Wadicals.

:gig:

[CatSoup]

Have you looked into the Libertarian party? I'm not a fan myself, but it might be a good fit for you. Flat tax, no regulation, nothing inposed on bodies or minds, state's rights out the wazoo...

I don't know anything about it honestly. A couple of my old high school teachers were always talking about being libertarians, but that's as far as my knowledge goes on the party.

[Justicedog]

From my own experience. Private doctors, adoption agencies, private schools, and so on. I have met maybe two competent government workers out of many.


I'm interested in your experience. How old are you? What is your education level? What is your profession/work?

[GirlsMama]

Actually, I do. I take my daughter to Story Time every week. Because the facilities are available, I do use them. I just think that private institutions are usually better.
The library was the first system that popped into my head. But I do think that as far as public institutions go, the library is one of the best.


Who has access to private institutions and which ones are you talking about that would allow people to borrow books for free? Most small towns I've seen have public libraries, what kind of private institution could possibly be in even the small towns to lend books to people?

[Justicedog]

Well said Meredith!

If I had not received food stamps and medicaid when I was finishing college and working two part time jobs while my oldest was little I would not have been able to finish college. Having that help from the state enabled me to work two part time jobs during the hours I was not in school.

I was out of my house from 6 am to 7 pm either working or in school. Had I been forced to pay for health insurance I would have had to take a full time job and I wouldn't have been able to finish school.

Now, we are only paying into the system, not taking out, the total time I took out of the system was probably two or three years. I worked from age 14 to age 28 and I will work again in a few years. I think having paid into the system more than taking out is the norm, and I do think we need these programs to help people out when they need it. Most people who get public assistance are going to be happy to get off it and happy to help others later by paying in.



And I think that's the way it should be. It should be a hand up. The point is to get people to a spot where they can provide for themselves. If it's not getting someone to that point, something isn't working and it needs to be evaluated why it's not working.

[GirlsMama]

Whew, end of the thread for now.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

Justice, what do you think about Obama's plan to trade college tuition for volunteer work?

[GirlsMama]

Justice, what do you think about Obama's plan to trade college tuition for volunteer work?


I hadn't heard about that, that is a great idea! I'd have sooner volunteered then had to sit around with student loans.

[QuiltyConscience]

Justice, what do you think about Obama's plan to trade college tuition for volunteer work?

Not JD but I'd like to know more about that.

[QuiltyConscience]

Well, don't complain to me when the letters of the day spell CCCP.



:gig:


CCCP?

[GirlsMama]

CCCP, former USSR

[KaraJ]

I'll speak on the lawyer issue here as I feel I've got some experience in that arena. When people cannot afford lawyers, they're not able to equally access the legal system, equal access to the legal system equals equal access to justice. The legal system is stacked against the person who doesn't have a lawyer in all but small claim cases.

If we're talking about a non-represented person going into court to battle a landlord who has an attorney, that non-represented person is, more often than not, going to be blown away. If a person cannot afford their rent (or the extra bogus charges the LL is charging because they can bully the tenant) how are they going to afford even a lowered attorney fee?

The represented person is going to win in court over a non-represented person most of the time, even when they have a good case.

I could go on and on about how those with access (money) to lawyers can circumvent the law to take advangage of the person who doesn't have the money for an attorney. An attorney lowering their fees isn't going to help because be it a $50/hour fee or a $300/hour fee, that person cannot afford it. There needs to be legal help for those who cannot afford anything.

There will always be people who can afford lawyers and doctors. Good point. I'd have to speak with my father on the subject, to get a better grasp on the issue and how it would affect him, since he's a lawyer himself.

[KaraJ]

My BIL is a game warden. Even good ole boys can work for the government. Game wardens are fine. One lives next door to us.

[QuiltyConscience]

Good point. I'd have to speak with my father on the subject, to get a better grasp on the issue and how it would affect him, since he's a lawyer himself.

That's a good idea.

[Justicedog]

Justice, what do you think about Obama's plan to trade college tuition for volunteer work?


I like it, although I haven't read the details. I like it so long as the people are actually working and not just slacking off. I'd want to make sure that they are doing the work, if you know what I mean. There needs to be accountability. I've heard (don't really know first hand) that some of the Americorp volunteers are not all that helpful. (I'm not even sure that the Americorp volunteers are along the same line as what Obama is proposing.)

I would liken it to the GI bill. There are certain things that need doing that is valuable to the government and in return for doing them, the government will help with college tuition. (I don't know if that's the plan or not.)

I don't know if the "volunteer" work should completely cover all tuition costs. I think there's some value to a student loan and having to pay cash. I don't know how to determine what volunteer work would qualify. I don't like to term it "volunteer" work.

I think the McCain plan (and all I know about it is from the 2nd half of the last debate) for "more student loans" is an idiotic one. (Then, I'm biased against student loans. I think they hurt more than help.)
The amount of student loans needed should be limited. I think too many students come out of college with a mortgage size educational debt and are not able to repay it. (But, it's likely I'm pesonalizing this.)


At one time, if I became rich, I wanted to create sort of a welfare type apartment building. It would hold all the resources that people needed to become self sufficient. It would have been sort of an experiment to see how many folks, if given decent childcare (provided by some of the residents), decent transportation, decent shelter, would be able to go from being a welfare recipient to being self sufficient. Also, to see how many would give back once they became self sufficient. (I think I just digressed a lot.) Sorry.

[QuiltyConscience]

Game wardens are fine. One lives next door to us.
Whew. Game Wardens everywhere are relieved to have your approval.

[TuetonicWillow]

The more I think about it, the more hurt I am by the disappointment comment.

I'll remember that as I stand out in the frigid cold outside the local mall again this year watching 9 out of 10 people pass by without giving me a second glance let alone a donation. I'll consider which is the bigger disappointment.

[Justicedog]

Good point. I'd have to speak with my father on the subject, to get a better grasp on the issue and how it would affect him, since he's a lawyer himself.


What type of law does he practice?

I would see a large decrease in fees not making lawyers just reduse their fee to make it actually affordable for the lower and middle class, but would make the legal profession reduce its numbers and make an even bigger gap between the haves and have nots.

Granted, there are those that will say that having fewer lawyers would be a good thing, many of my relatives who like to blame lawyers for all the bad in the world, but I don't think that's the case.

There are lots of unrealized expenses to a law firm (as I imagine there are with a doctor's practice.) It's taken away from the professional aspect of both. There's only so low that one can go.

[JudyJudyJudy]

As far as Social Security and Health Care: no one owes you anything. If you are able to work, then work. Even if it's part time. Even if it's fast food (I'm not talking about those who are not able. I'm all for there being programs to help those out who cannot do for themselves).
Do you truly not understand that there are plenty of people who are working, possibly even more than you're working, who simply cannot afford health insurance or basic healthcare? It's a reality. Not even close to all jobs offer health insurance.

[Justicedog]

Whew. Game Wardens everywhere are relieved to have your approval.


Relieved or embarrassed?

*ETA: I'm sorry KaraJ, that comment/joke wasn't kindly spirited.

[QuiltyConscience]

Relieved or embarrassed?

It depends. Is her neighbor one of the two competent workers that she knows?

[EvilAmy]

Well said paw, I totally agree. What amazes me is so many republicans are so vocal about their religious beliefs, they should seriously ask themselves WWJD?

Oh cripes I hate that line..
He's stay out of it. Jesus was a teacher not a politician. Jesus didn't fool around in Gov't matters. He kept to the sepration of church and state. He spoke up about it long enough to say "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and give to God what is God's".

[KaraJ]

What type of law does he practice? Maritime and small business.

[Sashahomeschoolmama]

I like it, although I haven't read the details. I like it so long as the people are actually working and not just slacking off. I'd want to make sure that they are doing the work, if you know what I mean. There needs to be accountability. I've heard (don't really know first hand) that some of the Americorp volunteers are not all that helpful. (I'm not even sure that the Americorp volunteers are along the same line as what Obama is proposing.)

I would liken it to the GI bill. There are certain things that need doing that is valuable to the government and in return for doing them, the government will help with college tuition. (I don't know if that's the plan or not.)


I agree with you. And, to be fair, I haven't looked over his plan, I've just heard him talk about it in speeches. It might be a totally moronic plan. It sounds like a good idea, though.

I don't know if the "volunteer" work should completely cover all tuition costs. I think there's some value to a student loan and having to pay cash. I don't know how to determine what volunteer work would qualify. I don't like to term it "volunteer" work.

I think it depends on how much cash a student could pay. I have no idea how to go about figuring that out fairly, though. I agree that it isn't volunteer work. I think it's more like Roosevelt's New Deal than 'volunteer'. You don't get anything tangible back when you volunteer.

I think the McCain plan (and all I know about it is from the 2nd half of the last debate) for "more student loans" is an idiotic one. (Then, I'm biased against student loans. I think they hurt more than help.)
The amount of student loans needed should be limited. I think too many students come out of college with a mortgage size educational debt and are not able to repay it. (But, it's likely I'm pesonalizing this.)

Oh, I agree.


At one time, if I became rich, I wanted to create sort of a welfare type apartment building. It would hold all the resources that people needed to become self sufficient. It would have been sort of an experiment to see how many folks, if given decent childcare (provided by some of the residents), decent transportation, decent shelter, would be able to go from being a welfare recipient to being self sufficient. Also, to see how many would give back once they became self sufficient.

I like something like what was done for the Hershey workers. Take care of people's needs in exchange for hard work.

I definitely like your idea better than the ill-thought-out welfare to work programs that generally leaves people poorer when working than on welfare.


(I think I just digressed a lot.) Sorry.

not at all. i like reading about your point of view.

[KaraJ]

Relieved or embarrassed?

*ETA: I'm sorry KaraJ, that comment/joke wasn't kindly spirited. All good.

[Tweet]

I'll admit I don't know what private institutions are equal to Early Intervention (I'll look into it), but regardless, I haven't been impressed with most government programs or the workers.


Somehow, I'm having a hard time imagining you've had much experience with either from what you've posted here. But, I don't want to assume too much. Which private organizations are more efficient than government sponsored programs? In your experience, that is.

[Justicedog]

Maritime and small business.


Maritime is a very specialized field. It sounds fun.

[KaraJ]

Maritime is a very specialized field. It sounds fun. He loves it. He also really enjoys mediation.

[EvilAmy]

CCCP, former USSR


Okay I may be confused by what you are saying but CCCP was the Russian acronym spelling of USSR. So technically both are "former".

(I was thinking that you thought CCCP was a new acronym for USSR)

[Sameach]

Exactly.

I'm a republican, yet I work as a lawyer at a non-profit legal services firm. I make probably about $100K less than if I were in a non-legal services firm. I do it for two to three main reasons. First, is a personal reason, because it's more flexible for a parent, second, because it's a way that I can help those less fortunate attempt to get equal justice and third, because it's needed.

My political party and beliefs are mocked and derided at my employer, yet I continue because I believe that it's important work and that I'm helping those who need it.

To imply that liberals/democrats are the only ones who care about the poor is greatly insulting to me and to other republicans who work hard each day in jobs that serve the poor, both volunteer and poorly paid positions, or who donate their hard earned money to programs that help the poor.

Should people be forced to help those who need it - either by paying more than their fair share or working for less than market pay for their job? I don't think so.


I should probably read the rest of the thread before chiming in, but I just want to say that ITA. My husband and I are Republicans. We are also Jews who believe with all of our hearts in the concept of "tikkun olam" which means to "repair the world." We try to live this in our daily lives and strive to impart it onto our children. Furthermore, I work in a non-profit career, and he is a public school employee. I would seriously recommend those of you who feel that you have all Republicans figured out, take a step down off your high horse and open your own minds.

[JudyJudyJudy]

As far as Social Security and Health Care: no one owes you anything. If you are able to work, then work. Even if it's part time. Even if it's fast food (I'm not talking about those who are not able. I'm all for there being programs to help those out who cannot do for themselves).

The more I think about this thread, the more it pisses me off. What do you think Social Security is? I truly find it odd that someone whose father is on Social Security disability and Medicare starts such a thread. I'm still shaking my head.

[Tweet]

I should probably read the rest of the thread before chiming in, but I just want to say that ITA. My husband and I are Republicans. We are also Jews who believe with all of our hearts in the concept of "tikkun olam" which means to "repair the world." We try to live this in our daily lives and strive to impart it onto your children. Furthermore, I work in a non-profit career, and he is a public school employee. I would seriously recommend those of you who feel that you have all Republicans figured out, take a step down off your high horse and open your own minds.


Just like some of the republicans should not assume that those of us in support of many social programs feel that it's something that is "owed" or that we ourselves don't put any effort to volunteer work. Some of us just don't talk about it a lot.

[Sameach]

Just like some of the republicans should not assume that those of us in support of many social programs feel that it's something that is "owed" or that we ourselves don't put any effort to volunteer work. Some of us just don't talk about it a lot.

Exactly. I would never assume that, and especially never type it on a message board with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

[xobehs]

Just like some of the republicans should not assume that those of us in support of many social programs feel that it's something that is "owed" or that we ourselves don't put any effort to volunteer work. Some of us just don't talk about it a lot.
I believe that is referred to as humility. Or humbleness.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The more I think about it, the more hurt I am by the disappointment comment.

I'll remember that as I stand out in the frigid cold outside the local mall again this year watching 9 out of 10 people pass by without giving me a second glance let alone a donation. I'll consider which is the bigger disappointment.
You seem to be assuming that those people haven't given elsewhere or at another time or aren't volunteering somewhere.