Why do Christians in the voting booth help billionaires instead of people in poverty?

[Jay NotApplicable]

Blacks and Hispanics are three times as likely to have an abortion than whites. It’s not because they are black or Hispanic though, it’s because they are also three times as likely to live in poverty. Poverty drastically increases the number of abortions that people have. Poverty also drastically increases crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide, among many other things.

When taxes on the rich were 94% the American economy thrived! Now taxes on the rich are only 35% (and Romney wants to lower them to 28%.) There’s PLENTY of room to raise taxes on the rich. If instead of lowering taxes on the rich and cutting programs that decrease poverty, we were to raise taxes on the rich to fund more programs to decrease poverty we could significantly reduce poverty and the problems associated with it.

So why do most pro-life Christian voters focus so much on candidates that want to lower taxes on the rich, and decrease funding for the poor? Is lowering taxes for billionaires really so much more important than reducing poverty, abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Why do trolls show up spouting leftist memes days before an election?

 

[Albion]

Blacks and Hispanics are three times as likely to have an abortion than whites. It’s not because they are black or Hispanic though, it’s because they are also three times as likely to live in poverty. Poverty drastically increases the number of abortions that people have. Poverty also drastically increases crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide, among many other things.

When taxes on the rich were 94% the American economy thrived! Now taxes on the rich are only 35% (and Romney wants to lower them to 28%.) There’s PLENTY of room to raise taxes on the rich. If instead of lowering taxes on the rich and cutting programs that decrease poverty, we were to raise taxes on the rich to fund more programs to decrease poverty we could significantly reduce poverty and the problems associated with it.

So why do most pro-life Christian voters focus so much on candidates that want to lower taxes on the rich, and decrease funding for the poor?

Because they recognize that it is not moral to steal from anyone, even if you do it in the voting booth. Where did you get the idea that everyone's rights are suspended just because someone else has an idea of what he'd like to do with your earnings?

And, you could try to be fairer with your treatment of this issue. No Republican wants to hurt the poor, but they feel that a thriving economy will help them better than putting them on the dole for life. That is what they believe cutting taxes across the board (you didn't bother to mention that, I notice) will do--as it did several times before in the past half-century.

 

[parsley]

I am responding to this thread only because I have liberal friends who equate Christianity with Tea Party with Anti-Abortion. We do have minds and vote individually. Christians have differing opinions, even within the same family.

A candidate's platform is much more complex than personal income taxing and abortion policies. The president is not even supposed to have a direct say over abortions, so it's strange for people to argue over that as a topic in a presidential race.

I usually vote with economic policies in mind, more than anything else. But even those do not play out the way a candidate promised, and even great economists do not have all the solutions or correct projections.

I have many friends who are self-employed, who often operate at a loss while working long hours. They lose money while they see others getting welfare while not working. I'm not saying they don't make much, but in paying their employees first, they go into debt in a normal operating day.

(c.f. Restaurant Impossible to see that running a business really is risky.)

These business owners' reaction to Obamacare includes personal fear, that they will now be required to come up with more money to cover health insurance, when they couldn't afford to pay their own families' insurance.

It is delusional to see a country trillions of dollars in debt, still push social programs, and create new ones. Where does the money come from? If the wealthy are less than 10% of the population, and 50% of the country is using assistance, then the tax difference applied to the wealthy is not going to save the country. We are in survival mode, but politicians work hard to pretend we're not.

Thanks for posting your opinion, and getting a conversation going.

 

[ptomwebster]

Jay, you have no idea what you are talking about!

 

[Mediaeval]

It is wrong to be generous with other people's money.
Charity must be voluntary.
One's earnings and property do not belong to the government.
What is immoral for the individual to do is likewise immoral for a group of people to do, no matter how noble their intentions.

 

[Albion]

A moment, please.

The writer of the OP has been online all this time and has offered no response. Obviously, the idea was just to stir up passions with a provocative blub while he watches. Let's not accomodate it.

 

[Yarddog]

Why do trolls show up spouting leftist memes days before an election?

What makes the OP a troll? This is the Current Events forum and his topic fits.

His is far less provocative topic than all of the conspiracy theory topics or out right Obama lies posted by Far right wingers.

 

[Yarddog]

Jay, you have no idea what you are talking about!

No, he really has some good points. The number of abortions drop when social services are more available to women in financial need. It increases when those services are curtailed. The economy has an effect on the number of abortions as well.

The tax rates are the lowest that they've been for years. Evidence shows that lowering taxes for the rich has very little effect in helping the economy. It does help the rich to get richer. The Trickle down economy of the Reagan years never helped anyone other than the rich because very little was allowed to tickle down.

The poverty level usually increases under the Republican administrations and decreases during the Democrats. A trend which stood until the economic turn down left by the Bush administration.

 

[ThatWhichIsnt]

Because neoliberal capitalism is as American as apple pie. If you are rich it is because you worked harder than anyone else, and if you are poor it is because your lazy fault. Government is evil, and should be as limited as possible. Equality is a utopian pipe dream which will only lead to dirty communism.



Or so the story is told.

 

[mandelduke]

Blacks and Hispanics are three times as likely to have an abortion than whites. It’s not because they are black or Hispanic though, it’s because they are also three times as likely to live in poverty. Poverty drastically increases the number of abortions that people have. Poverty also drastically increases crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide, among many other things.

When taxes on the rich were 94% the American economy thrived! Now taxes on the rich are only 35% (and Romney wants to lower them to 28%.) There’s PLENTY of room to raise taxes on the rich. If instead of lowering taxes on the rich and cutting programs that decrease poverty, we were to raise taxes on the rich to fund more programs to decrease poverty we could significantly reduce poverty and the problems associated with it.

So why do most pro-life Christian voters focus so much on candidates that want to lower taxes on the rich, and decrease funding for the poor? Is lowering taxes for billionaires really so much more important than reducing poverty, abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide?

You are talking about Blacks and Hispanics in the U.S.A. because it is not like that anywhere else? You think that someone that is successful should pay 94% taxes to cover for the dead beats?

 

[Keachian]

Because they forget that they have presidents on their money; Matt 22:15-22

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

Because they recognize that it is not moral to steal from anyone…

Jesus said that money belongs to the government. In America voters are part of the government. Money is a tool, and it could be used to help people.

No Republican wants to hurt the poor, but they feel that a thriving economy will help them better than putting them on the dole for life.

A thriving economy helps, but lowering taxes on the super rich doesn’t do much to help the economy or reduce poverty. For every extra dollar rich people have, a few cents of that trickles down to the poor. It would be far more efficient to use that money to directly help the poor.

It is delusional to see a country trillions of dollars in debt, still push social programs, and create new ones. Where does the money come from? If the wealthy are less than 10% of the population…

The top 1% of American’s own 35% of America’s wealth. There is plenty of money to reduce the debt and fund programs that decrease poverty, if taxes are raised on the rich.

It is wrong to be generous with other people's money...One's earnings and property do not belong to the government.

It’s wrong to be a billionaire while there are starving people in the world. According to Jesus money does belong to the government (Matthew 22:15-22), and in America voters are part of the government.

You think that someone that is successful should pay 94% taxes to cover for the dead beats?

Not everybody who needs financial assistance is a dead beat. Many people work hard and make very little money. Many are disabled, or elderly.

I’m saying that if somebody is so successful that they make millions of dollars a year, then they can afford to pay higher taxes so that there can be more funding to reduce poverty. Voters have the ability to lower poverty, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide. What I don’t understand is why so many Christian voters would instead rather use that money to help billionaires get richer.

 

[Knee V]

We thrived at high tax rates in the 50s because we didn't have any significant competition. Even with high tax rates, there was still incentive for American corporations to stay in the U.S. and do business in the U.S. Now that there is greater international competition, high tax rates will drive businesses clear out of the U.S., driving poverty rates even higher than they currently are. So no, we cannot afford to hike up tax rates.

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

Even with high tax rates, there was still incentive for American corporations to stay in the U.S. and do business in the U.S. Now that there is greater international competition, high tax rates will drive businesses clear out of the U.S....

Raising taxes on businesses might drive jobs overseas. But how would raising personal income tax on the super rich do that? They are still going to live in America and they will have to pay taxes on their income.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

I like to look at the two men hung on their cross beside our Beloved on that sad but great day.

Both sinners, but one was haughty and mocking the King, the other, humble and acknowledging the majesty of the King.

While it is impossible to know the fate of the haughty man, it is more than clear that the humble man was granted reprieve for his faith.

How jealous we are of that humble man. He lived a raucous and immoral life. Yet at the time of his death, he recognized the NEED for a savior and he turned from his wicked ways.

I think what it boils down to is how many times the proud and haughty should bail out those raucous immorals. How many times should the govt feed her children. How many electric bills should it pay for that old man who drank away his youth. How many times should it repair broken pipes delivering water to bathe that drug addict. How many children should the govt support while the deadbeat dads stroll around looking for their next foolish lover.


That is the way neocons judge the 47%ers. They're lazy, good for nothing leeches who won't pay their fair share. Little do they know, that without them, there is NO food. There is NO warmth for them. There is NO shelter for them.

And all it will take is for the 47%ers to STOP working. Don't show up to that farm. Don't show up to that gas station. Don't show up to Walmart. If the 47%ers quit working, the 1%ers would starve to death. PERIOD.

 

[florida2]

Raising taxes on businesses might drive jobs overseas. But how would raising personal income tax on the super rich do that? They are still going to live in America and they will have to pay taxes on their income.

It would drive the rich to live in other countries, people who set up and run large businesses.

 

[Albion]

Jesus said that money belongs to the government.

No, he didn't. Next item?

A thriving economy helps, but lowering taxes on the super rich doesn’t do much to help the economy or reduce poverty.

Not unless you think the "super rich" don't enjoy life and don't spend money. Not a very convincing argument, that one.

For every extra dollar rich people have, a few cents of that trickles down to the poor. It would be far more efficient to use that money to directly help the poor.

More than a few cents, but it's not your right to steal from anybody, even if you have the best of motives.

The top 1% of American’s own 35% of America’s wealth.

And pay over 50% of the taxes.

It’s wrong to be a billionaire while there are starving people in the world.

If that's your view. Personally, I do not believe it is Christian to advocate theft. Sorry.

 

[JamesP82]

Who did Jesus say was responsible for the poor? Stop blaming government for not doing enough or for wealthy for not paying enough. Go give until it hurts. Donate food to a food bank. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Clear your closet and give to someone who needs it. Teach a free class at the local library. Push your church to not be just a place of worship and a social club, but a civil charity.

In case you haven't heard, the government is running out of money. Medicare will run out of funds in the 2020's. Expansion of Obamacare will result in businesses cutting hours to part time to avoid the mandate to provide insurance. Millions will see cuts in their pay. Government subsidized businesses are not functioning as well as private. The problem with arguing the government deserves more money, should do more for the poor, is that you pass off your God-commanded responsibility to help the poor.

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” - Matthew 19:21

 

[Albion]

Who did Jesus say was responsible for the poor? Stop blaming government for not doing enough or for wealthy for not paying enough. Go give until it hurts. Donate food to a food bank. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Clear your closet and give to someone who needs it. Teach a free class at the local library. Push your church to not be just a place of worship and a social club, but a civil charity.

Oh no. The idea is to make others do what you yourself find unpleasant to do. That's why we're debating against a disciple of Karl Marx rather than Francis of Assisi.