Who will help with my taxes?

[funscout 11]

Eammon,

 

You may have misunderstood me and thought that I don't advocate helping the needy. I DO advocate helping the TRULY needy. Personally, I don't know of anyone who does not advocate taking care of the truly needy. In this and other threads I have told of how my fellow Conservative Christian church members (mostly Republican) help others on a daily basis. I took time away from my own family when my best friend was dying of cancer. My kids and husband didn't see as much of me as they should have, during that time, but my friend's kids had a greater need for me, so that's where I put my time and energy.

 

I know it's a popular notion that only Democrats care about the needy, because they constantly tell us that they care. The people I hang out with help others without feeling the need to tell everyone about it, so I guess that's part of the reason we don't get "credit" for caring for needy.

 

One lady who used to go to my church is quite liberal and is constantly in our small town newspaper for her "do-good" acts. I'm happy that she does help others, but I know of many more people who do WAY more than her, but don't seek the limelight, and thus are never publicly recognized for their work.

 

So, what I am trying to say, is that most conservatives (at least all the ones I personally know) follow God's direction to help those who need it. We just don't ask for applause.

 

We all know that there are plenty of areas that could and should be cut out of govt. spending. Both Republicans and Democrats need to work on this. The national endowment for the Arts is one area that should be privately funded (if at all!) Also, although I'm a supporter of small farmers, there are too many situations where wealthy people who own farm land are given money not to farm, when they weren't even going to farm anyway! Those are just two examples, and I'm sure there are lots more that I don't even know about. So, please don't advocate tax increases when spending cuts can be made first.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

I must agree with the Tyler quote TheScout posted. This country has peaked and is irreversibly going down. Our citizenry is selfish, greedy, and complacent. Great nations do not sustain themselves with that kind of character. We continute to believe we're the greatest nation on earth, yet we don't do great things. I'd give us 60-80 years until we are completely enveloped in anarchy.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

ok, In less than a year we will be selecting a new president. Hopefully this new president will have a great term, be re-elected and go out after 8 terrific years. I wish that for any president. Then, perhaps 10-15 years after leaving office, he/she is interviewed by Larry King (he will never die, he has this picture...) who asks him what was his/her best qualification for being president and the ex-president says? I wasnt George Bush? Thats all we have for criteria?

[funscout 11]

Good one, OGE!

[Lisabob 13]

Funscout, re: that acquaintance from your church whom you mentioned - all I can say is that showboating and lack of tact know no ideological boundaries. Those types of people exist in every community. Don't judge all of us liberals by her stripes.

[Eamonn 61]

funscout

In my book, doing what is right has nothing to do with political affiliation.

While I could be very wrong? Looking at the USA,it seems that it is only here that the term "Conservative Christian church members" is used.

I think (I don't claim to know!) That this "Conservative Christian" movement has its roots thanks to deals made by Ronald Reagan with people like Jerry Falwell and Albert Mohler.

I wonder if while Nancy was consulting with her astrologers,

Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter, was teaching his Sunday school class at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Ga?

When it comes government waste and pork barrel spending both sides of the house seem guilty to me.

Eamonn.

[TheScout 10]

True, but at at least Republicans acknowledge that smaller government is a noble ideal(Though they often fail to achieve it).

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Comedians usually never fail to get a laugh when they mention Congress. It's an easy target, but then why is the recidivism rate of Congress so high? Why is so hard to dislodge an incumbent? People will decry Congress as fat cat bloated idiots, but their Congressman? He is usually a "nice guy" worthy of re-election. And just why is he a nice guy? Well, two years ago when the Defense DEpt wanted to shut down that Army base a few townships over, Congressman Nice Guy lead the charge to keep it open, even though it was redundant and wasnt necesary for National Defense but was the economic heart of the tri-county area and without it hundreds would lose their jobs. Then there was the bridge he got the federal funds for. A nice big one, maybe bigger than needed, but that Congressman Nice Guy, he sure gets "our share, and maybe a wee bit more" and we love him for it. He is a great guy, not like some of those other guys who love their Pork Barrel projects

[Beavah 205]

Yah, OGE...

 

And then there's the fact that the sittin' incumbents functionally have a controlling vote in their state's political party, and so have quite a bit of control over funding and "rules" for runnin'. Not to mention access to a much wider donor pool and name recognition. Better media contacts. Free mail to constituents.

 

I don't think any of my Washington critters (Senators or rep.) are great guys, eh? Just who I was stuck votin' for as da lesser of two weevils

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[funscout 11]

LisaBob and Eammon,

 

You are absolutely correct that people from both political parties can show compassion for their fellow man. I was simply trying to make the point that while Republicans are typically assumed to be selfish and Democrats are assumed to be the only ones who care about others, that there are exceptions to to that way of thinking. I'm glad you two realize that, too!

[scoutingagain 20]

"True, but at at least Republicans acknowledge that smaller government is a noble ideal(Though they often fail to achieve it). "

 

So how is saying one thing and doing another considered noble?

 

SA

[TheScout 10]

SA, if you read what I wrote I said the "ideal" was noble . . .

[scoutldr 732]

Eamonn said, "At some stage the government is going to have to face the fact that there just isn't enough money coming in to pay all the Baby Boomers who are retiring and find a way of making up for the shortfall."

 

There's the rub. It is not the function of the Federal government to "pay all the Baby Boomers". I assume he is referring to Social Security...a system that has become so bastardized and abused over the years that it is no longer sustainable. It was never intended to provide total support for those who retire, and certainly not to pay for all the ancillary things. And it was not meant to supplement the income of corporate executives with multi-million dollar golden parachutes. The best thing to do would be to scrap the whole system, including Medicare with all its abuses. (I have 6 aluminum walkers in my shed from parents who needed them and Medicare paid for them...we didn't need them, didn't want them, but every time someone got sick, we got a new one...courtesy of the taxpayer. They have no resale value, since everyone gets them for "free").

 

Many corporations, and the Federal Government, are moving away from defined pension plans and placing the responsibility for financing retirement back on the employees, whcih I happen to agree with. I recently read that the average employee will need $600,000 in savings to survive retirement. Less than 10% will have that amount set aside. Why should I be expected to "make up the shortfall", with my hard-earned money, which I only have because I have scrimped, saved and sacrificed over the years, foregoing the "toys" and expensive homes and new cars. I have relatives who have lived a higher lifestyle than me over the years...but they have no savings. What will they do? They don't know...they don't care...they don't even know they have a problem...all that matters to them is today. Sometimes I wonder if they're not right...they do seem to be a lot happier and stress-free.

 

I will probably vote for Ron Paul...let the people keep their tax money and decide where their charity should go. But I can tell you, if you are unmarried with no health insurance, have 6 kids by 5 different fathers, and can afford cable TV, fancy nails, cigarettes, cell phones and $1000 rims on your car...you won't make it on to my list. Go ask a Democrat.

 

[Lisabob 13]

Wow, that's some stereotyping there at the end scoutldr. I work with a lot of very poor students (mainly inner city but some from rural areas too) and I gotta say that what I see and hear from them and their experiences with TANF certainly don't match up with the so-called "welfare queen" stereotypes.

[scoutldr 732]

I'm not familiar with "TANF". I, too used to work in the inner city (health department). I used to see it every day. There's a difference between being poor through no fault of your own and making poor choices all your life (which you can control). One I can help with. But, as they say "you can't fix stupid" no matter how much charity you throw at it.