So, who really cares more about the poor? Liberals or Conservatives?

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

FIRST-PERSON: So, who really cares more about the poor?

Dec 1, 2006
By Kelly Boggs
Baptist Press

ALEXANDRIA, La. (BP)--A couple of years ago I was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter on the subject of “gay marriage.” Somewhere in the midst of our conversation the discussion turned and the reporter said, “You have to admit that there are places in the Bible where Jesus comes across more like a tax and spend liberal who really wants to help the poor rather than a conservative who wants the disadvantaged to help themselves.”

Story continues here. . .

 

[burrow_owl]

This could easily end up like that stupid and easily debunked "study" from a years ago, claiming that red states are more charitible. Without the raw data, and given the historical dishonesty of these kinds of things emanating from the right, I'm just not going to buy it.

Get the raw data, then this might be worth something. Until then, it's about as credible as an Onion or WND column.

 

[jgarden]

Corporate Welfare, Inc.

Corporate tax breaks costs America at least $250 billion annually. Street crime costs us less than $20 billion.
--------------------------------------------------
Why we cannot afford to feed the hungry and help the needy and homeless...
-------------------------------------------------
$125 billion (not including tens and hundreds of billions more in local business "subsides" and "incentives") of your tax dollars every year is given away in direct cash disbursements as Corporate Welfare, Inc., to profitable national and transnational corporations like:
----------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland
ADM
McDonalds
Gallo Winery
Plush Colorado Ski Resorts
Weyerhauser
Georgia Pacific
Walt Disney
Martin Marietta
Mining Industry interests
National Meat Association
Energy and Petrochemical Industries
Pepsico's Frito-Lay
Anchor Glass Container Corp.
Federal Express
Nucor
Kidder Peabody Group, Inc.
Nebraska Beef, Ltd.
Mercedes-Benz
Time Warner
General Electric (GE)
ABB Instrumentation Inc Boveri
General Motors
Intel
Allied Signal
Eastman Kodak
Caterpiller
Union Carbide
Georgia Pacific
Microsoft
Hughes Aircraft (now part of Ratheon)
Motorola
Boeing
Corporate farmers
Sugar industry subsidies
RCA (now part of GE)
Searle & Co.

http://www.autobuyology.org/car15.1.html
---------------------------------------------------
Perhaps corporations could play by the same rulers that conservatives expect individuals to adopt.

SOCIALISM = WELFARE FOR THE POOR

CAPITALISM = WELFARE FOR THE RICH

 

[notto]

Defining giving to charities or churches as 'giving to the poor' would seem to be a bit of a sleight of hand.

A lot of the charities I give to have nothing to do with the poor and a large amount of my giving to my church certainly isn't dedicated to the poor.

My guess is that the article mischaracterizes this charitable giving and that if the charities were examined that many of them have nothing to do with the poor. The article also is comparing secular left to religious right.

 

[Rik]

Jesus admonished his followers to help the poor and less fortunate. Not once did he ever say it was the government's job to do so.

I'll agree that someone who is in position to help his fellow man has a responsibility to do so, whether it be monetarily or with his time. I don't however agree that the government should be able to force him to do so.

 

[JoshuaW]

Jesus admonished his followers to help the poor and less fortunate. Not once did he ever say it was the government's job to do so.

I'll agree that someone who is in position to help his fellow man has a responsibility to do so, whether it be monetarily or with his time. I don't however agree that the government should be able to force him to do so.

Jesus never commented on the relationship between citizens and the state outside of "render unto Caesar". That does not excuse governments from providing aid to their least fortunate citizens.

Why even have governments if they can't improve the lives of people? Republicans think of government as a rich boys club, an opportunity to provide contracts to each other. And you and I pay for those contracts.

Meanwhile, Americans are suffering.
Only a handful of Katrina victims have received reimbursement from the government for their destroyed homes. How many would have received aid by now if Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were president. Probably all.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Jesus admonished his followers to help the poor and less fortunate. Not once did he ever say it was the government's job to do so.

Nor did he say it was nothing to do with the government. he did not rule in or rule out any method of caring for the poor.

I'll agree that someone who is in position to help his fellow man has a responsibility to do so, whether it be monetarily or with his time. I don't however agree that the government should be able to force him to do so.

Why not? The Government can force him to pay for the defense of his country - I take it you have no reservations about that?

Like it or not if you are part of a society you have responsibilities to that society. If you don't like it you can move somewhere like Somalia where they don't have taxes, don't have an effective government, don't have welfare and have less and less of a cohesive society every day.

 

[Andoverpolo]

Liberals talk about it more. Frankly if you consider how easily politicians change their positions to get elected, then it's fairly obvious they don't actually "care" about the issues they talk about.

They run to get elected.

 

[oldbetang]

Corporate Welfare, Inc.

Corporate tax breaks costs America at least $250 billion annually. Street crime costs us less than $20 billion.

What is your source for that? Can you show examples of subsidies or tax breaks to those corporations that did not have a positive impact on the economy, and thus on the overall citizenry? The Corporate tax rate (35%) in the US is the second highest among the world's developed economies. Is that enough?

 

[Vylo]

The people helping the poor care more. Their political affiliation doesn't matter. If they are a politician, good chance they don't care much at all and just want brownie points for them and their party.

 

[Gracchus]

Jesus admonished his followers to help the poor and less fortunate. Not once did he ever say it was the government's job to do so.

Jesus has very few followers, certainly not enough to provide adequately for the poor. So, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, it is necessary for government to prevent too much wealth from accumulating in too few hands. How many houses does one man need when others are homeless? How many coats does he need when thousands tremble in the cold? Greed is boundless and insatiable. And so is the wrath that is unleashed when it is given free rein. Right or wrong aside, that's the way it is.

I'll agree that someone who is in position to help his fellow man has a responsibility to do so, whether it be monetarily or with his time. I don't however agree that the government should be able to force him to do so.

Government is applied force. How that force is applied, and when, is determined by the political process. I argue that the proper use of that force is to protect the weak from the strong, and the poor from the rich. The rich and powerful, after all, can protect themselves, until they become too few, and too oppresive for their own good. Then they learn the lessons of the Romanovs and the Capets.

I would hold then, that government ought to restrain the powerful from becoming too powerful for their own good. I have a selfish reason for that: I don't like blood running down the gutter in front of my home. It stinks and spreads disease.

 

[jgarden]

What is your source for that? Can you show examples of subsidies or tax breaks to those corporations that did not have a positive impact on the economy, and thus on the overall citizenry? The Corporate tax rate (35%) in the US is the second highest among the world's developed economies. Is that enough?

http://www.autobuyology.org/car15.1.html

"War-profiteering:

In this time of "national crisis", it's troubling--
some of the "Republican" party "leadership" choices...
granting highly selective tax roll-backs as follows:

$1.4 bllion for IBM
$833 million for General Motors
$671 million for General Electric
$572 million for Chevron Texaco
$254 million for Enron

 

[jgarden]

Corporate Income Tax Receipts as a Percentage of Total Federal Receipts and GDP - by Decade

Average Percentage ofCorporate Taxes As:
Share of Total Federal Receipts
Share of GDP -

1950-59
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 27.5%
Share of GDP - 4.8%

1960-69
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 21.3%
Share of GDP - 3.8%

1970-79
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 15.0%
Share of GDP - 2.7%

1980-89
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 9.3%
Share of GDP - 1.7%

1990-99
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 10.5%
Share of GDP - 2.0%

2000-09*
Share of Total Federal Receipts - 9.6%
Share of GDP - 1.7%

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm
-----------------------------------------------

Can you show examples of subsidies or tax breaks to those corporations that did not have a positive impact on the economy, and thus on the overall citizenry? The Corporate tax rate (35%) in the US is the second highest among the world's developed economies. Is that enough?

1. It would appear that despite the growth of corporations and multinationals, their contribution to total federal receipts has fallen from 27.5% in the fifties to 9.6% for the first decade of the 21stC.

2. Corporate taxes as a % of the GDP have fallen almost 300% (4.8%-1.7%) during the same period.

3. Its the "overall citizenry" who these "subsidies" and "tax breaks" were supposed to benefit that have had to compensate by "shouldering" an ever increasing % of total federal receipts.

4. Based on the current trends, corporations will be untaxed within the next few decades!

Corporate income tax revenues are lower in the United States than in most European countries. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, total federal and state corporate income tax revenues in the United States in 2000, measured as a share of the economy, were about one-quarter less than the average for other OECD member countries. Thirty-five years ago, the opposite was true — corporations in the United States bore a heavier burden than their European counterparts.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

 

[Gracchus]

We have the best government money can rent. (It won't stay bought.)

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Corporate Welfare, Inc.

Corporate tax breaks costs America at least $250 billion annually. Street crime costs us less than $20 billion.
--------------------------------------------------
Why we cannot afford to feed the hungry and help the needy and homeless...
-------------------------------------------------
$125 billion (not including tens and hundreds of billions more in local business "subsides" and "incentives") of your tax dollars every year is given away in direct cash disbursements as Corporate Welfare, Inc., to profitable national and transnational corporations like:
----------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland
ADM
McDonalds
Gallo Winery
Plush Colorado Ski Resorts
Weyerhauser
Georgia Pacific
Walt Disney
Martin Marietta
Mining Industry interests
National Meat Association
Energy and Petrochemical Industries
Pepsico's Frito-Lay
Anchor Glass Container Corp.
Federal Express
Nucor
Kidder Peabody Group, Inc.
Nebraska Beef, Ltd.
Mercedes-Benz
Time Warner
General Electric (GE)
ABB Instrumentation Inc Boveri
General Motors
Intel
Allied Signal
Eastman Kodak
Caterpiller
Union Carbide
Georgia Pacific
Microsoft
Hughes Aircraft (now part of Ratheon)
Motorola
Boeing
Corporate farmers
Sugar industry subsidies
RCA (now part of GE)
Searle & Co.

http://www.autobuyology.org/car15.1.html
---------------------------------------------------
Perhaps corporations could play by the same rulers that conservatives expect individuals to adopt.

SOCIALISM = WELFARE FOR THE POOR

CAPITALISM = WELFARE FOR THE RICH

I don't think that's a real logical argument when the poor get 200% of their taxes back, get serious welfare, and the rich pay enormous estate tax, property tax, income tax, corporate tax, then you complain when they get a wee bit back. Let's not forget - the rich and the corporations make up almost all of the taxes in the U.S., is it foolish to try to help them grow?

Anyways, to the original question. I think that people will try to twist it one way or the other. Liberals will say that they care more about the poor because they want the government to do it. The Conservatives will say that they care more about the poor because they actually give more of their own money to the poor.

For me, I'm pretty conservative and I am deathly conservative on this issue. Taking money from person X to give to person Y is wrong, it's forced charity. Rather than the government taking money and giving it to the needy, which instills in the needy that they have a RIGHT to reap the rewards of what others have sown, I would rather that the people who earn the money could give to charity as they please. For me, it's a chance to witness. For liberals, it seems like the government had ought to take that money from me and that opportunity to witness and then burn some of it, and give a portion of it to the needy - giving the poor a RIGHT to others' money, and keeping me from that opportunity to witness.

 

[nvxplorer]

Taking money from person X to give to person Y is wrong, it's forced charity.

If one is truly concerned with helping the poor, he wouldn't care what method was used. If he plans to give X dollars to Y people, it would make no difference who the middle man was, as long as X dollars went to help Y people. The only reason one would object to forced payment would be if he didn't want to contribute in the first place.

Rather than the government taking money and giving it to the needy, which instills in the needy that they have a RIGHT to reap the rewards of what others have sown, I would rather that the people who earn the money could give to charity as they please.

Nonsensical. If charity instills a sense of entitlement in recipients, it doesn't matter what method is used to distribute such charity. Government office or church, if someone feels he has a right to reap rewards, he will feel this way regardless of whether these rewards are received through the mail or in a church basement.

For me, it's a chance to witness.

Ah...the catch. One can witness any time he pleases. There is no inherent connection between witnessing and giving charity. This would be nothing more than dangling a carrot to the poor. You object to coerced charity, but you apparently don't object to coerced conversion.

For liberals, it seems like the government had ought to take that money from me and that opportunity to witness and then burn some of it, and give a portion of it to the needy - giving the poor a RIGHT to others' money, and keeping me from that opportunity to witness.

Again, no one is preventing you from witnessing. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that monetary reward should be used as bait for evangelizing?

Your argument is moot, anyway. If you prefer to give to charity rather than the government, you can do so, and then deduct the amount from your tax bill. There you go, witness an' all.