Who to vote for?

[pat34lee]

Your definition of "Socialist government" is itself Capitalism.

By whose definition of capitalism? Not Webster's for sure.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Democrats and Independents turned out in record numbers. Someone had to save the country from the wealthy.

It makes a difference knowing what the government was always meant to save the nation from. ..and how much certain things make a difference. In example, one can consider Veterans Benefits. The compensation is done with aid concerning those who came back from wars with serious disabilities (from post-tramautic stress syndrome to being maimed and many other things)---and seeing how often many have come back from wars without having any kind of income or things to bounce off from, often leaving them destitute in many respects, helping them out is a big issue------and IMHO, I don't have issue if I'm taxed in order to aid them....no more than I'd be in paying taxes to build roads I drive on, provide for the police/firemen and other services that've aided me greatly and all have had to contribute to.

And while on the issue, where I stand...

1. I believe it's moral to want to sustain the lives of citizens too poor to feed themselves (food stamps)---while also providing ways in which to ensure that it's done indiscrimenatly and with fairness for those who're in the working poor class...

2. I believe it moral to want to sustain the lives of citizens who can no longer work (Social Security).

3. I believe it moral to want to sustain the livelihoods of those who have been disabled (Social Security).

4. I believe it is moral to want to provide institutions to balance access to opportunity---from things such as updated school supplies to materials/facilities (Public Education/Libraries, etc).

5. I believe it moral to want to provide services that save, maintain, and promote health and life(Medicare/ Medicaid).

6.) I believe it moral to want to ensure that benefits we recieve from the stance in our infrastructure which we all benefit from---from roads being made to emergency services in hospitals/law enforcement agencies and the military---for the sake of our nation..with taxation as apart of that process.




​

I'd probably be for a mixed economy, where public and private ownership are mixed, and where industrial planning is ultimately subordinate to market allocation. That's something generally adopted by those within the camp I'm closely lined with known as Christian democracy ---as their positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, ...and which aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation/ program creations working to counteract and end the social injustice that seem inherent in capitalism. For more info, one can go to "The GOP's Time for Choosing: Mike Huckabee would make the party more like Europe's Christian Democrats." and "Common Center" ( http://www.commoncenter.us/ ).

That said, On the issue of what the role of government is, scripture must always be what shapes our thoughts on the issue. And when we look to Scripture, we can see that there were certain conditions set forth for providing aid to those in the first churches who were poor. While these conditions do not directly apply to those outside the church, it helps us consider some basic principles. In 1 Timothy 5:9 /1 Timothy 5:9 , Paul gives instructions for caring for widows in the church. He says,"No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds."

From the text we see that there were conditions made for giving aid to a widow....specifically, commitments & building relationships...alongside showing that they're putting effort forth in overcoming their situation. In these situations, solid Christian organizations committed to caring for the poor can be of significant merit.

Additionally, for another scriptural perspective, one needs to consider 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , where Paul strongly objected to advocating an unproductive lifestyle of others not working for their food.---as he made clear that in 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."


The question of "Should the state care for the poor?" is not a small one---and from there, the understanding of government and its role is key. For the Bible seems to indicate the role of the state is to protect its citizens since God has established all authority for our good (Romans 13:9 ). And this can be accomplished through a number of ways. One, the government makes laws...as Proverbs 8:14 says, "By me kings reign and rulers make laws that are just." Two, the government is responsible for enforcing those laws---restraining injustice and improper behavior committed by the transgressor while positively commending those who do good ( 1 Peter 2:6). As Romans 13:4 says, "For [the ruler] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Three, the government is to judge--as Proverbs tells us that "By justice a king gives a country stability"....and "If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will always be secure" (Proverbs 29:4; Proverbs 29:14).

The scripture in Proverbs seems to be very much key when it comes to government----as it's odd that people will fight for laws established against crime or rape...and yet, none will fight for laws aiding the poor. But when governors govern well the result is peace among their citizens....and it makes more than enough sense, seeing how often it is the case God spoke heavily on the issue--concering his taking out entire nations when they failed to protect the rights of the Poor, Destitute and others.

And this was not just the case in the nation of God--but in worldly nations as well ( Deuteronomy 10:17-19, Deuteronomy 24:17, Psalm 10:18, Psalm 68:5, Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 1:23, Isaiah 58 Jeremiah 5:27-29, James 1:27, etc). The entire purpose behind the OT tithing system---which was a mandatory tax system to aid others----was of te same mentality

As the state is to protect its citizens against wrongdoers and unfair judgments, it'd seem logical (IMHO) to say that the state is responsible to help the poor, albeit in a different way than the family or church does. Obviously, a government that protects and justly governs its citizens through laws and courts will be caring for the poor.

Additionally, it may also be necessary for the government to provide food or shelter for its citizens in the event of a national crisis, such as Joseph did for Egypt when the government collected from others for the sake of saving the nation in times of famine--with the text making clear that God sovereingly did so to aid all (Genesis 41:13, Genesis 47:7 )-- as the role of the government is to care for it's citizens...and having a plan for hard times and resources to deal with those times is a smart move. When looking in scripture, rulers were often called on to help the oppressed and those who cannot speak for themselves ( Daniel 4:26-28 / Daniel 4, etc)...

Proverbs 14:31
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 31:1
8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy."


Proverbs 31:9, “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”


Isaiah 58:8
True Fasting
1 "Shout it aloud, do not hold back.
Raise your voice like a trumpet.
Declare to my people their rebellion
and to the house of Jacob their sins.

2 For day after day they seek me out;
they seem eager to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that does what is right
and has not forsaken the commands of its God.
They ask me for just decisions
and seem eager for God to come near them.

3 'Why have we fasted,' they say,
'and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?'
"Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.

4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.

You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high.

5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?

Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?
6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:

to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?


​

On another issue, Ezekiel 16:49-50 says, “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

It's interesting to see that as noted with a secular nation, one of the reasons God destroyed the four cities on the plain was that they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And this was long before the concept of "church taking care of it" ever came into view---as not defending the poor was as worthy of fighting for laws/enforcement of them in protecting them as much as enforcing laws on murder since both affect others made in the Image of God and their rights. Government should try to strengthen the poor, not make them weaker. And if the government is going to give things away, instead of giving fish, they should give a fishing pole. Then the poor would have the means to go out and catch their own fish. If government, church or individuals help the poor it should only be in such a way to get them started in helping themselves...and to aid with compassion.

When it came to Solomon and his understanding of what a King's duty was , I'm reminded of Psalm 72:2--as there he writes, "Endow the king with your justice, O God…He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice…He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor…he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight."

Again, it seems fairly reasonable to say that scripture does give a perspective of how the government does have a limited obligation to care for the poor. From the verse within 1 Timothy 5 that was mentioned earlier, of course the text makes clear that the state’s obligation should not supplant that of the family or Church----with government acting wisely when it comes to providing assistance. However, by no means does this exaust the Christian’s moral responsibility to care for the poor.

And of course, when it comes to recieving funding from the government on things, there needs to be caution..for regarding funding/parternship, IMHO, I think it may be a matter of practicality. For example, Nehemiah took donations from the Persian king to build the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:8). Zerubbabel, however, refused the help of the Samarians in rebuilding the temple (Ezra 4:1-3). What seems to make the difference is the idea of whether the influence would be corrupting.

The same goes for King Cyrus, who was used by the Lord even though he was not a servant of Yahweh, to help in funding the Jew’s work of restoring Jerusalem. (Isaiah 44:28-45:6). In Nehemiah’s case there were no strings attached, BUT Zerubbabel’s case did….& therefore the question to ask at all times is whether the donation will hinder or aid our commitment to the Lord. The same thing, IMO, goes for government funding. I can see no where where there’s biblical reason for Christian organizations to not receive support from the state. I think there’s a positive biblical precedent for God’s people receiving funds from governmental sources (ex. Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:8). If and when the state’s willing to fund the Kingdom (provided there are no compromises or strings attached), PRAISE GOD.

Obviously, that’s not how it is 24/7 in the U.S. Many cases involve government donations with compromises to the faith (ex. state monies not being ALLOWED for “proselytizing activities,” including preaching of the GOSPEL). It’d be better for ministries to not accept state funding in that case……..and seeing that how the church related to the state differs from country to country, Each ministry must again ask itself whether accepting secular funding will compromise the FAith. Also, one must also remember the principle of FIRST LOOKING TO THE CHURHCES AND RALLYING BELIEVERS ON THE BASIS OF THE GOSPEL before going elsewhere...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Democrats and Independents turned out in record numbers. Someone had to save the country from the wealthy.

Many people focusing on Obama being voted for have often brought up that keeping people on welfare isn't the answer. . and that's true.

However, not all forms of welfare were ever remotely concerned with keeping the poor on welfare. That's one of the streotypes often given by people who've never experienced it/been benefited by it who are now middle class. Working with others who either did WELFARE reform or who've been on welfare and were once upper-middle/upper class, people have no idea on how others got poor or how they got out of it...and the value of having a safety net in place to aid them, which also includes things such as helping the elderly (Medicare, Social Security, etc). Many of those things have made a great impact and the concept of having social welfare is crucial in the establishment of having true care for groups.

Jim McGovern: Cutting food aid doesn't fix deficit; devastates millions of women and children​

For more, one can research the Great Awakenings (As there were 3 of them, if not 4). In each of them, many things got developed, such as prison reform and Protection for Children in Sweat Factories with child labor laws, the creation of Hospitals. The same goes for women such as Jane Addams and her “Hull Houses”—which involved the rich voluntarily going into POOR communities/buying property to create homes that the poor could live in. It was an experimental model of reform — trying solutions to see what would work — and committed to full- and part-time residents to keep in touch with the neighborhood’s real needs, Jane Addams built Hull-House into an institution. For more info, Jane Addams biography & Jane Addams College of Social Work & Jane Addams Hull House Association

There are other examples today of organizations (especially churches ) having the same kind of impact….as it’s one of the reasons why faith-based initiatives have been receiving funding from the government in the work they do—-as well as para-church ministries and non-profit organizations when it comes to things such as domestic abuse shelters, food pantries, medical-clinics in the inner-city and many other things. In example, Dave Wilkerson wrote a book not too long ago known as “Cross and Switchblade”–detailing his work in the Inner City with those who were destitute…and how the Lord worked mightily to aid them powerfully. From there, he was able to make “Teen Challenge” ( ) , which is an evangelical Christian recovery program and a network of Christian social / evangelizing work centers aiding those who’re drug addicts, alcoholics, gang members, prostitutes and people with life-controlling problems. The organization was a grass-roots organization—yet during its existence, President Bush sought to try backing it heavily with government because of the success it was having. And in public policy debates, President Bush brought up “Teen Challenge” as an example of why such programs merit the federal funding of faith-based organizations, as its documented success rates played a significant role in the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001. ( President Bush sought to try backing it heavily with government because of the success it was having ( ( more found here )

There’s another one that was backed by President Bush in n 1991, known as “Urban Concern”—-by a mnistry known as “Xenos”, a Christian inner-city charity recognized by President George H. Bush in his “Thousand Points of Lights” awards. The ministry of “Xenos” is a non-denominational/cell-church based (home church) fellowship which has done extensive work for those in the inner city—-and together with Columbus city government and business leaders, Xenos has been continually expanding their work with the inner city in amazing ways. In 2007, Xenos constructed a Christian school and community center in the inner city…and now also provides two free clinics for the underprivileged in the Columbus area. For more info, go to Xenos Annual Reports & Xenos Free Clinics and history of Urban Concern.

Another one is Homeboy Industries ( ), which is a Christian-Based ministry that assists at-risk and former gang involved youth to become contributing members of our community through a variety of services in response to their multiple needs…giving free programs — including counseling, education, tattoo removal, job training and job placement — enabling young people to redirect their lives and provide them with hope for their futures. Father Greg Boyle, who has worked with people in the L.A community and fought to see others employed/thriving (especially amongst Latino/Black gangs), has been revolutionary in that regard.....and still doing amazing despite people saying that nothing good has been done in hard times:

Jobs not Jails
Nothing Stops a Bullet Like a Job
Nothing Stops a Bullet Like a Job
Homeboy Industries - From Guns to Pastries
Father Boyle & Adult Education: Schools, not Prisons!
Father Greg Boyle Talks about Homeboy Industries at UCLA​

If one studies history, they will notice that the same dynamics occurred during the very course of the Civil Rights Movement with Martin Luther King. Nearly all great movements began at the Grass-Roots level—with the Church/Individual doing what they can…..but at some point, government backing was necessary to keep things going. He was simply a Baptist preacher teaching on how things were…and later, he got the attention of people higher up....and he advocated for government intervention. As he had seen what life was like for the impoverished, he too advocated for the governemtn to show more concern about safety nets and social welfare....and it made a big difference.

There are many others who are trying to bridge the gap when it comes to safety nets and social responsibility/wisdom. In example:

–”Fatherhood Programs” ( )
-National Fatherhood Initiative ( )

—”National Fatherhood: Fatherhood Programs and Curriculum” ( )


—-”National Fatherhood: Corrections /Fathers in Jail” (/ )

– “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” ( )

–”—”Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives” ( )

——–”The Urban Institute | Poverty and Safety Net” ( )

———”The Urban Institute | Welfare Reform: Ten Years Later” ( )
------ “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996″ ( )
​

As a Human Services Worker, I see much wisdom in utilizing government assistance in practical issues….and I have friends/family who’ve benefited from it first hand. Saw it alot when I did work with Pastor Pendellton Brown at “City of Refuge” ( ) and doing Inner-City Work with the Children’s Ministry . Doesn’t mean that I’m for the many ways government gives indiscrimately—as in funding organizations that’re not being effective in helping others or promoting compassion alongside responsibility. And hence, that’s one of the reasons I think that there needs to be significant improvement in the way government does things if it’s relied upon. I’m not for the notion that government no longer can aid in helping the poor/giving—-but should government be involved, I am for the notion of government learning how to give/help people in SMARTER ways that’d actually last.

If agencies are asking for funding from government, why not have it in the sense of looking for the programs that’re doing the best jobs/making results—as well as recieving aid from others due to their impact—and then choosing to give resources there if in need? That way, those which are not creating would die off and those which would last would make it. It’s much like “Survival of the Fittest”–but it does serve to breed the best and allow for competition among others rather than promoting “entitlement” mentality/lack of incentive. And it’d provide a way that both the community and the church can come together to actually deal with issues….

The means many times did not seem to be as much of an issue as much as the end-goal of “how can we find ways to truly promote love for our neighbor.” And at the end of the day, what matters is practical application. For as Deng Xiaoping said best when it comes to finding solutions for issues, ” “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a black cat or a white cat..for as long as it can catch mice, it’s a good cat.”

Industry from the private sector has ALSO keep people out of employment multiplw times and numerous economists have noted it when it comes to the ways people in BIG BUISNESSES have willfully kept others out of buisness who were able to compete.

One of the reasons why President Obama is known to be a CORPORATIST. As much as others think President Obama has always been against all forms of privitization since he is a huge advocat of government-run healthcare, the Obama administration already laid out its plan for financing public housing by turning to the private sector.

For more, one can go here:

• Carney: Obama's subsidies: Private profit, public risk ...
• Mobilizing Capital in Places that Need it Most | The White House
• Public-Private Partnerships, Ingenuity and $11M Tax Credit Provides Innovative Housing Solutions for Philadelphia’s LGBT Seniors

They also announced a public-private partnership to prevent health-care fraud...( more here /here /here for reference). With the current presidential term, it seems that President Obama favors both BIG Buisness and BIG Government leading the way.....and for many, it seems that privization of organizations and government-run programs are in a waltz together.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Democrats and Independents turned out in record numbers. Someone had to save the country from the wealthy.

There are many wise ways to go about this that would ensure that wealth was used properly and that the destitute amongst others in the nation were provided for.

Cutting assistance to government programs for the needy doesn't equate to an economic recovery. Getting more jobs is wonderful. Go about creating them. Don't cut people off from food if they need it though. The idea that you just cut food stamps and jobs start magically appearing is a pipe dream.

There's a great need for welfare reform (as Bush did, more here/ here and here and here if recalling what was done withGeorge Bush and the Americans with Disabilities Act). George Bush advocated for welfare when it came to his concept of Compassionate Conservatism. Back then, the ideology was that Republican leaders could be fiscally conservative, favor "small government," and believe in the free market, for example, but also believe that government should and must partner with the private sector -- especially non-profit and faith-based organizations -- to help lift people out of poverty, both abroad in the developing world and here at home in the richest nation on the planet. Such a conviction requires two things: A genuine empathy and commitment to the poor, and a more balanced and positive view of government -- neither of which were much evident in the GOP's right-wing quarters, where the compassionate conservative agenda was opposed by party leaders such as Tom DeLay and Dick Armey....and yet that is something that has worked repeatedly in differing contexts/settings, from memories of ancient history if recalling the Byzantine Empire/the Sheer brilliance it demonstrated in ensuring others were taken care of to what happened with many faith-based initiatives who did excellent work/benefited from support given by the government to fund their actions.

Other conservatives have shared similar thoughts with welfare reform..

• Article | What Is Compassionate Conservatism?'
• Column: Is compassionate conservatism dead?
• Whites and Welfare: GOP and the Food Stamp Fallacy
• Compassionate Conservatism: A Primer | Hoover Institution
• 
  Republicans back Clinton welfare rule - Washington Times
• Welfare Reform Solutions | Republican Study Committee (RSC)

President Obama actually supported Bush in the actions he sought to implement when it came to faith-based organizations/volunteer-based programs as ways to help others through hard times:

Obama Celebrates George H.W. Bush Volunteerism​

.

Others who seemed to idolize Romney/Ryan have often said that they're concerned about the needs of the poor (despite the multiple times that the opposite has been said directly)....and their plans do a lot of damage when it comes to the impoverished since it has often taken the government working with people in order for things to work.

As said best elsewhere:

Ryan has said local charities and churches should provide for needy communities instead of the federal government. But there is a flaw this plan: churches and faith-based charities, which offer roughly $50 billion worth of services a year to the poor and needy, often depend on government funds to operate. Catholic Charities, for example, is one of the largest charities in America, and gets over half of its operating budget from federal funds.

Yet the Romney/Ryan ticket appears undeterred by this reality. In fact, if Romney followed through on Ryan’s proposed budget and cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $169 billion, every single church in America would have to come up with an additional $50,000 simply to feed those in need. For many cash-strapped churches, this is an impossible task.

What’s more, the Romney/Ryan budget would likely overburden soup kitchens and food programs by cutting welfare, food stamps and agriculture subsidies by two trillion dollars over the next ten years. These cuts would leave millions of Americans – especially those most in need of assistance – without the means to feed and clothe themselves, and already-overburdened faith-based charities unable to provide for them.

So if congregations and charities can’t provide the care required and Ryan’s government refuses to help, who exactly is the “strong” tasked with stepping in for the “weak”? Ryan isn’t saying.

Ryan and other conservative commentators like Gov. Mike Huckabee talk a lot about how they believe faith is under attack in America. But if Ryan truly believes a society is best judged by “how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves,” then perhaps he should take a second look at how his own policy proposals negatively affect those doing the hard work of caring for the poor — churches and faith-based charities.

The charity functions for many mainline churches are like small boutique shops in a mall. They aren’t meant to be the main support for the indigent. It is more of a hobby and if they were then required to be a main support system many of these hobbyist helpers will stop helping.


So when the religious charity model collapses upon itself then what?

People will be hurt or worse could die.


The conservative model is if you cut the money it will force people to get off the dole but many people need help through no fault of their own so they can’t just “get a job” especially if the poverty is structural (there are just no jobs). A city will have many options but the largest segment of poor is outside the cities which also then has fewer resources outside the government.


Forcing all of the social safety net on the churches doesn’t wish away the poor as Paul Ryan and those like him believe. And if he does get his plan put into action you can bet the money cut in the budget will not go to the people who could actually use it to survive
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Democrats and Independents turned out in record numbers. Someone had to save the country from the wealthy.

There was also a need for someone to show serious concern with economic benefits for others who actually protect our country all the time..and yet are often ignored, as it concerns our veterans.

The president has shown a concern for the military repeatedly---as well as the military people who also make up the American people he has been called to defend...and other soldiers have noted their appreciation for it, be it those with disabilities or those who have Post-Traumatic Stress syndrome (as my grandfather does).and thus, for anyone saying he's not concerned for the American people (soldiers included), I can understand why others get offended at the insults given the President whenever people think that others voted didn't think he was the best option

As said before.

Adding to that, after seeing the debates and hearing plainly where the president noted the need to support soldiers/veterans coming home so that they get the support that they need (be it with those having Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or those who want to do work that they did as medics in the field and yet cannot get certified coming back from the war and many other things).....it doesn't seem that people are aware of how much it matters that our own soldiers here feel safe. It's like being concerned with the number of soliders/tanks and equipment on your side and thinking that makes one safe....and yet ignoring the many ways the people who make up the army are not being treated right and thus influence the effectiveness of how others fight in battle since things are demoralizing.

Many have often noted where they feel abandoned and that's not good...and to see the president be committed to using less lives to wage war is big deal. The same can be said as it concerns his commitment to take care of the people who did fight for us here in the U.S.

Obama Pushes Congress For Vets Jobs- Full Video Of MN Speech


The work done by the President and First Lady has really been a HUGE blessing when it comes to fighting on behalf of military families. First Lady stated that she would like to focus attention as First Lady on issues of concern to military and working families

For more, especially as it concerns the work of the president and the First Lady in their work with military families:

• First Lady Lauds Military Families on 'Colbert Report'
• "Michelle Obama Makes Military Families Her Mission: The first lady is often moved by accounts of personal sacrifice by service families
• "What Michelle Means to Us: We've never had a First Lady quite like Michelle Obama. How she'll change the world's image of African-American women—and the way we see ourselves

Additionally, in regards to the military family work being done by First Lady Michelle and her husband

A Surprise Call From The First Lady
First Lady Michelle Obama in Haiti
First Lady Interview - Part One
First Lady Interview - Part Two
Supporting Military Families
Joining Forces to Support Military Families
First Lady Michelle Obama Interview
An Interview with The First Lady Part 2
Supporting Military Spouse Employment
Operation Shower Big Surprise at Camp Lejeune
Joining Forces to Provide Jobs for Military Families
Raw Video: First Lady Meets US Military Families
The First Lady Announces New Funding for Military Families
Michelle Obama joins forces with Hollywood for military families
Presidential Election 2012 Countdown First Lady Michelle Obama
President Barack Obama 20 Minute Speech with First Lady Michelle Obama to Military​

That's why I hate the opposite side of it. I know it's an oversimplification, but it doesn't seem like theres much care about their welfare, constantly sending them off to fight. (I supposed you don't have to help them with Post traumatic.... if they're always in the "trauma."

Sadly, as said before, it's the difference between others who take care of their soldiers/see them as people and others seeing them as weapons and "cannon fodder" to be used/discarded just as quickly later on. People often have a romantic view of war/battle and have no idea how serious it is and what others go through---and when they push for war and say others are "weak" for not advocating for it (as well as building up more weapons for others to use), they don't see where they essentially devalue human life since life is taken in the process......and thus, others noting where warfare needs to be reformed/refined and made more efficient with the use of less men in battle, they think it's a "loss."

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

....Capitalism has always had the poor at heart, hasn't it? What are the alternatives to social programs? Will you feed the poor? Will you give them a home and see that their children get an education so that they can "lift themselves out of any present state they find themselves in"? Will you be the one to shoulder the financial burden of those who cannot afford medical care and are forced to use the Emergency Room to receive any kind of medical attention at all, even for the common Flu?

Pure Capitalism is heartless - a system built on "survival of the fittest." Well, there truly are some "fittest" among the poor of the world who simply have no chance unless we help them as a society. Call it extreme. Call it Socialism. Call it whatever you want, but it is BUILT IN in the American psyche that heartless and callous financial policy is immoral, that we need to be aware of the less fortunate, and that social policies are the bedrock for a morally healthy civilization.

On point and thanks for pointing out what you did

 

[sevengreenbeans]

More complete info. about Javier Solana can actually be found on Wikipedia: Javier Solana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some highlights from the article:

"He is an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, a member of the Spanish section of the Club of Rome. He has received the Grand Cross ofIsabel the Catholic in Spain and the Manfred Wörner Medal from the German Defence Ministry."

"He is a frequent speaker at the prestigious U.S. based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is likewise active in the Foreign Policy Association (FPA) as well as the New York City based East West Institute."

"In January 2010, King Juan Carlos I appointed Javier Solana the 1,194th Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece for his career in diplomacy."

 

[GuardianShua]

Republican governors have announced Friday they would not implement a key part of the Obama new healthcare law. I guess they figure the public and the law can go to hell.

 

[pat34lee]

Republican governors have announced Friday they would not implement a key part of the Obama new healthcare law. I guess they figure the public and the law can go to hell.

The law that was rushed through before even congress could read it after Obama's big speeches about legislation being put online at least 3 days before voting on it so WE could see it. The one that Pelosi said they would have to pass to see what's in it. The law that was made without Republican input or a single Republican vote after Obama's campaign promises of bipartisanship.

He was going to reach across the aisles and build consensus. He only reached over to push their noses in the mud.

 

[GuardianShua]

The law that was rushed through before even congress could read it after Obama's big speeches about legislation being put online at least 3 days before voting on it so WE could see it. The one that Pelosi said they would have to pass to see what's in it. The law that was made without Republican input or a single Republican vote after Obama's campaign promises of bipartisanship.

He was going to reach across the aisles and build consensus. He only reached over to push their noses in the mud.

The Republicans took an oath to reject everything from Obama.

 

[pat34lee]

The Republicans took an oath to reject everything from Obama.

They didn't on his first term. They were ready and willing to work with the new president. But while the democrats held a veto-proof majority in both houses, they shut the republicans out of the process. If you ever want to see a dictatorship in action, we were very close for two years. If it weren't for a few internal squabbles between the center-left and far-left, they could have passed anything they wanted, constitutionality be damned, as it was in the healthcare bill and Obama's amnesty plan.

 

[GuardianShua]

They didn't on his first term. They were ready and willing to work with the new president. But while the democrats held a veto-proof majority in both houses, they shut the republicans out of the process. If you ever want to see a dictatorship in action, we were very close for two years. If it weren't for a few internal squabbles between the center-left and far-left, they could have passed anything they wanted, constitutionality be damned, as it was in the healthcare bill and Obama's amnesty plan.

Washington Post
By Dan Balz and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 3, 2010; 3:06 PM

After midterm wins, GOP vows to block Obama's agenda...

Youtube: Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans vow to block all Senate legislation until the extension of Bush ...

 

[visionary]

Something to ponder:
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security

Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and Card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% On the first $90,000.

3) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible

4) That the money the participants put in went to the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and spent.

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically
controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is the uninformed believe it!

 

[GuardianShua]

Republican Grover Norquist who leads the conservative group called "Americans for Tax Reform," has been successful in getting a majority of Republican lawmakers in Washington to sign a pledge promising not to support any effort to raise taxes. Recently, with the fiscal cliff coming, Republicans are working to stand against Obama's tax increase for the wealthy. Talk about ______ for brains, the Democrats need do nothing but let the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire. It looks like the Republicans are no longer living in the real world. What a display of stupidity in the extreme.

 

[visionary]

You guys are lame.

I think you need to take a look again at your own statistic post.... Those who pay the most taxes are those represented by those lines across the top... and it is not the people at the bottom of the ladder...hint hint... individual income tax is for those who earn their own money not by being an employee like the CEO of a corporation, but by self employment... who have not yet enough earnings or smarts to incorporate their business and understand the tax shelter business that incorporation gives them. It is "almost there" for these people, that they can almost taste it. Anyone who is an employee from CEO down through the corporation or companies are under the income tax rulings. So don't think it is just poor folk who get hit with these taxes. Besides this chart does not reveal the volume of taxes money coming in but % by category tax money is coming in. All it is really saying about corporations is that we do not have a whole lot more of them than it has been for years. And corporations do not die like people do, they are just handled by various shareholders who can be anywhere in the world.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A lot of folks seem to be in Robin Hood mood with fighting against taxes

 

[aniello]

A lot of folks seem to be in Robin Hood mood with fighting against taxes

Well actually I always thought Robin Hood(Ladruncolo) robbed the rich and gave the loot to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham was on his case and no doubt was the screw for the rich establishment. Probably attended tea parties.

I don't care for either bunch, nor their various afiliates. Two too extremes tearing at the middle folk.

A pox on both their houses.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well actually I always thought Robin Hood(Ladruncolo) robbed the rich and gave the loot to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham was on his case and no doubt was the screw for the rich establishment. Probably attended tea parties.

I don't care for either bunch, nor their various afiliates. Two too extremes tearing at the middle folk.

A pox on both their houses.

Definately can understand where you're coming from

 

[GuardianShua]

The Fiscal Cliff Game.

The Republicans want to make deep cuts to Social Security and Veterans benefits, along with other programs, but they don’t want to say how much until after the bill is signed.


Huffington Post.
“Boehner said when he saw the election results in November, he conceded that he and the Republicans would have to be willing to allow some tax increases for wealthy Americans in conjunction with deep spending cuts on entitlement programs.”

“Boehner said there are specific tax loopholes that he would like to eliminate for the wealthy instead of raising taxes on them. But when Wallace asked him repeatedly for specifics, Boehner avoided answering the question. "Listen, there are a lot of options in terms of how to get there," he said. "I'm not going to debate this or negotiate this with you. But if you could sign the bill into law, I'd be happy to."”

John Boehner On Fiscal Cliff Talks: 'We're Nowhere' (VIDEO)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Fiscal Cliff Game.

The Republicans want to make deep cuts to Social Security and Veterans benefits, along with other programs, but they don’t want to say how much until after the bill is signed.


Huffington Post.
“Boehner said when he saw the election results in November, he conceded that he and the Republicans would have to be willing to allow some tax increases for wealthy Americans in conjunction with deep spending cuts on entitlement programs.”

“Boehner said there are specific tax loopholes that he would like to eliminate for the wealthy instead of raising taxes on them. But when Wallace asked him repeatedly for specifics, Boehner avoided answering the question. "Listen, there are a lot of options in terms of how to get there," he said. "I'm not going to debate this or negotiate this with you. But if you could sign the bill into law, I'd be happy to."”

John Boehner On Fiscal Cliff Talks: 'We're Nowhere' (VIDEO)

There was an excellent review on the issue elsewhere, as seen here:

• The Sticking Point on Taxes Gets Less Sticky - Economist Mom

javascript:void(0)