Could Christine O'Donnell Win?

Pamela - posted on 09/22/2010 ( 78 moms have responded )

1,496

104

41

I was trying to watch David Gregory, Bob Schieffer and Chris Wallace, but Jack Black and his rockin' 10-year-old students were irresistible. Christine O'Donnell is no Jack Black, but, like him, she and her Tea Party compatriots cannot wait to blow the minds of the establishment and drown out all the nay-saying number crunchers like Karl Rove with another stunning battle-of-the-bands upset.

It helps, of course, that O’Donnell looks like Sarah Palin—the round face and pop-out cheeks, the shoulder-length, big-banged brown hair—even without the Tina Fey glasses. There's always a satisfaction, in the media and in us, in discovering lookalikes. The fun process of comparing and contrasting itself makes us want to keep O’Donnell on the national stage. And many of us are deciding she’s "better" than Palin. Next to the lipsticked pit bull, Christine has the face of an angel.

"She does not have a mean bone in her body," says Bill Maher, who claims O'Donnell is a "close friend." "She's a lot more relaxed.… More fluent with the English language," says Joe Scarborough. "She is better in front of cameras than even Sarah Palin."

She should be. She’s defended her flakesville follies on Maher’s old show, Politically Incorrect, on some twenty-two episodes. On Friday, he ran a clip in which she laughingly admitted that she had "dabbled into witchcraft," and he warned her, hostage-crisis style, "If you don’t come on this show, I’m going to show a clip every week." Who knows if those tapes hold anything more wicked than Wicca, but (again, unlike Palin) she seems able to laugh at herself. "I think she's a goof and a good sport," notes Chris Kelly, a writer for Real Time with Bill Maher. "She's got a smile that could light up an abortion clinic bombing."

Besides, in the Christian-inflected Republican and Tea parties, you can get a pass for screw-ups if you claim to now be saved. Witchcraft? A teenage indiscretion that opened her eyes to the evils of Halloween. Anti-masturbation nuttery? Extremism in pursuit of virtue is no vice. Wouldn't lie to Hitler to save a Jew? A silly hypothetical. Believes scientists have developed "mice with fully functioning human brains"? Why not?! The elites have developed a Muslim commie with fully functioning presidential powers. Wake up, sheeple!

Perhaps a more worrisome infraction among her crowd is that O'Donnell is not a Mama Grizzly—she’s 41 years old and has no kids. But, eh. None of that matters any more than facts—or logic or reason or consistency—have ever mattered among the faith-based political base. As one woman who called into a radio station years ago said, "President Bush would have to murder my mother before I’d turn against him."

What matters is the passion, the televisual sparkle, or, as Chris Matthews has been hammering home recently, the "juice"—"the desire to get to that voting booth and vote with all you got against what is going on now," he said. "That comes at the Democrats in November, that juice."

So far, though, the Democrats have been delighted that O'Donnell, and not the popular, moderate Mike Castle, will face Democratic senate nominee Chris Coons in November. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe the witch business or the watchdog group CREW's charges that O’Donnell is a "criminal" who has been "embezzling" campaign money will eventually repulse the far right in Delaware.

But for now the 11-point spread favoring Coons does not seem insurmountable, and the money—$1 million reportedly the day after the primary—is flowing O'Donnell's way, in part to punish Rove for saying that she lacked "rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character" (this from a man who allegedly engineered the imprisonment of the Democratic former Alabama governor Don Siegelman on trumped-up charges and who still insists the Iraq war was justified). And anyway, most of the races pitting Tea Party types against Democrats are close or tinged red: Rand Paul v. Jack Conway in Kentucky; Sharron Angle v. Harry Reid in Nevada; Joe Miller v. Scott McAdams in Alaska. And who saw that Scott Brown would take Ted Kennedy's seat this long before election day?

But even if O'Donnell doesn’t win this battle of the bands, she’s already won the battle of the BS. She’s shown that no matter what stupid things you’ve done, if you have a certain twinkle in your eye while you spout rightwing shibboleths, the media will find you bewitching.

What do you think? Can Christine O'Donnell win Delaware? Why or why not?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

I agree that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not advocated in the bible. Neither is the concept of group salvation. Salvation is a personal journey that all Christians share collectively. In the same scope however, the idea of limited government and lower taxes is also not in the bible. But the Republicans and Tea Party Movement would like everybody to believe it is. They keep shouting about their founding father"s Christian values...but where in the bible do you find these values? My bible and my values come from this:



Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God and those in position of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of authorities? Do what is right and they will honor you (Romans 13:1-3)



Pay your taxes, too for the same reason. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them. Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them and give respect and honor to those who are in authority (Roman 13:6-7)



Remind the believers to submit to government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. They must not slander anyone and must avoid quarreling. Instead, they should be gentle and show true humility to everyone. (Titus 3:1-2)



Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigree or in quarrels and fights about laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. If people are are causing divisions among you, give first and second warnings. After that, have nothing more to do with them. For people like that have turned away from the truth and their own sins condemn them (Titus 3:9-11).



Many people believe they were created by a free and perfect God and that therefore makes them free. I believe that to be true also. But God did not say, "I created you, you are free, now do whatever you want"! He gave us a decree or a comission to go out and spread the good news, so that others may come to know him.



When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. I do everything to spread the Good News and share in it's blessings (1 Corinthians 9:22-23).



My problem with the Tea Party Movement is that they want to cut and paste the bible, just like they want to cut and paste the constitution, to fit their agenda. I would rather have a "bleeding heart" than a heart of stone. I would rather support a government that at least tries to elevate the poor (even though it's a difficult task), instead of one that tries to pretend they don't exist or worse, blames them for their own misfortune.



Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love (1John 4:7).



At the end of the day...my salvation is not determined by what Oprah, Brad Pitt, or President Obama does. My salvations depends on what I do! I speak out against abortion, just like I speak out against poverty and war! Human life is valuable to me at every stage of life! I do what I can in my church and local community center. That is not deception. That is intelligent and practical and compassionate!



But alas...I tire of this discussion. I feel like I'm on a merry go round. I will not be contributing anymore on this thread.

Pamela - posted on 10/05/2010

1,496

104

41

Actually Christa, the whole concept of individualism is not biblical. When we read scripture, we are often tempted to read it from our 21st c. American mindset - complete with self-actualization, self-reliance and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Too often we try to put that on understanding onto the bible - often because it bolsters what we're comfortable with. But Jesus didn't come to make us comfortable, he came to turn everything we know upside down.



My point is you state that all those passages quoted are for individuals. Except they're not; Judaism was never an individualistic religion. Every passage quoted to the people of Israel was to the people of Israel as a nation, as a whole people. The judgments that they experienced were as a whole people - it wasn't just the bad kings who were hauled off to Assyria with fishhooks in their faces; it was the people. And when we come to the New Testament, the same holds true - it's whole communities that are exhorted, encouraged, yelled at and executed for their faith.



The whole point is we're all in this together. There is no such thing as just "my rights". What I do in my life, in the here and now, has effects that ripple out into my immediate family, my friends, my community - perhaps beyond. Because we're all in this together. To quote Ray Stevens from his hit song from 1970 or so, "united we stand, divided we fall, and if our backs should ever be against the wall; we'll be together..." Now that is bubble gum pop and it's all nice and gushy, but at its core is a truth that we dare not ignore.



"Jesus spoke out and led by example, he didn't FORCE people to do anything, and he could have". You are absolutely correct when you state Jesus didn't force people. He invited people to participate in what the Father was doing. But at the same time, he made it very clear what it meant to follow him. In fact, many of his disciples left him because his sayings were "too hard. Who can do this?" The path of Jesus is a rocky, narrow path and it's mostly uphill. So if we're to be his followers, we must first count that cost because it means we are too surrender every area of our lives - our minds, our hearts, our memories, our families, our money, our relationships, our sexuality, our careers - everything. Hard words, who can possibly do it?



Of course we don't do it on our own nor even with Jesus will we do it perfectly. That's why we're on the path...that's why we call it a journey. That's why we make ourselves available for his transformative power in our lives. We always want to make sure our journey is headed towards Christ. All this to say, if God's concern and heart is towards the poor, the dispossessed, the marginalized and those who reside in the cracks they've fallen through, then our concern as Christians, as Jesus freaks, had better be towards them as well. That is not an option for us as Christians.



So as a Christian, I must align myself with the issues of social justice. And if that means fighting for regulatory laws that quell corporations running roughshod over those with little to no voice and voting in politicians who will do that, well then, okay. If it means looking at the systemic issues that promote injustice and working towards change, well then, okay. We cannot ignore systemic injustice, particularly in a democratic form of government. Were we like Paul and the Christians of his churches, we'd have to be far more subversive in our working towards justice (and a more verdant world - sorry, had to through in the NPR thing). Okay. That was a lot of blah blah blah on my part.

Pamela - posted on 10/04/2010

1,496

104

41

@ Christa: God however speaks an awful lot about justice. As Christians, we are never really given much by way of option to just give up on justice - just because we live in an unjust world. In fact, all throughout the minor prophets and all the way into the New Testament, God seemed to have a lot to say about social justice. While idolatry was listed as the primary sin (in the Hebrew bible), out of idolatry came the sins of social justice. If we real Ephesians 5, the author tells his audience that the greedy person is an idolater. To be greedy is to place wealth and monetary gain above God. The fruit of greed is always oppression and Jesus himself proclaimed that he came to set the oppressed free. And the results of idolatry are disastrous for any society. Israel spent a lot of time in the dog house because of the way they treated their poor:



And Amos again, "You sell the innocent for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals; they trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed";



Isaiah, "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice form the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?"



What were the sins of Sodom and "her daughters" according to Ezekiel? They were "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy." Social justice issues are highlighted in Ezekial - not sexual perversion.



It's not about fairness - it's about justice. Justice is the full recognition of a person's value as a human being made in the likeness of God. And as Christians, we are called to an agenda that places a high value on those close to God's heart - the poor and the needy. The first step is recognizing that poverty is systemic - it's not solely because poor people are lazy slugs. Of course some are - but many have no chance of anything. The cards are set against them; the deck is stacked and we're asking them to climb Mt. Everest with no climbing gear. It's systemic, systemic, systemic.



And you're correct that some of the problem has been the welfare system that has hobbled our poor in this country. I'm not for totally abolishing welfare - but I certainly like the idea of reforming it to the degree where people can have pride of work, be able to get educated and care for their families. I don't have the answers to what that fully would look like but it would be a dandy day if we could all come to the table and offers SOLUTIONS. But not just those of us who come from privilege...we need to include those who are in the systems that don't work.



You're absolutely correct that it isn't about "rights". As followers of Christ, we are given the privilege to die to ourselves and to live to Christ. We are the change in God's pocket and it is our privilege to allow God to spend our lives in whatever way he wishes to.



But I'm speaking as a Christian. Here is an interesting passage from Paul that seems to be ignored by many who proclaim to be Christians but embrace full-heartedly the heated umbrage of government by the Libertarians. It has been misused of course (as has much of scripture), but it's an interesting little piece nonetheless: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves..." The passage actually continues on exhorting the audience to "give to everyone what you owe. If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor"



The rulers Paul is talking about are the pagan civil rulers. Perhaps some of his audience were thinking about starting up their own little "tea party" movement and felt they didn't need to pay taxes because their allegiance was only to Christ. Yet Paul refutes this attitude. Rulers, Paul is saying, are for the benefit of society - to protect the general public by maintaining good order.



The Romans of course, did that with a sword. To be fair, the Romans were not walking compassion, social justice machines - no they were conquering empire, thank you very much. But they did provide a stable system that worked for the most part. Until they decided to use you for a human torch - then things got a little spotty.



But it is fascinating that the early church did practice social justice and that is why women and slaves flocked to the movement. The church - which consists of the people, not the building or institution - not only cared for their own poor, but also those outside of the faith. Women, the poor, and slaves poured into the fledging church because they were first recognized as human beings made in God's likeness, and second, they were given assistance.



The prostitute had a place to get away from her pimp and be safe for a while. You know that veil that women were supposed to wear? It was actually a status symbol - it indicated a woman's status in Roman culture. Women who wore the veil were of upper class and therefore were regarded as having value. It was apparently illegal for a woman of lower status to wear the veil. Paul's command that women wear the veil in the churches was his way of raising the status of the women attending. It was a statement that said "You have position and value here in the Kingdom of God". It was totally subversive. This was one of the reasons people in power hated the Christian church. The boy slave, whose sole purpose was to be his master's sex toy until he was too old and past desirability, was given a place at the table (do a study sometime on the practice of homosexuality in Roman culture at that time. It'll make you cry - I'm not kidding).



My whole point with all this is social justice is huge in the scriptures. It is close to the heart of God and we dare not ignore it.



Of course there's Jesus' proclamation in Luke 4.18-19 (which originally comes from Isaiah 61.1-2), "The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Krista - posted on 09/30/2010

12,562

16

842

"Trickle-down" economics are a proven failure. When rich people are given more money, they don't use it to create jobs and stimulate the local economy -- they just squirrel it away in offshore tax havens.

If poor people are given more money, you know what they do? They BUY STUFF THAT THEY NEED. They go shopping. They buy clothes for their kids. They buy food. They might even buy a used car. The stores where they shop start seeing more profits, so they expand, and maybe even hire more staff. Those staff are now making money that they weren't before, so THEY'RE now able to become consumers. And so on, and so forth.

If you give poor people money, they're going to spend it locally. They're not going to hide it in an offshore account, or spend it in Paris or Dubai, or import a new car from Germany.

Getting people out of poverty, and putting more money in the hands of the working classes? THAT is what stimulates the economy, not giving tax cuts to corporations who already loophole themselves out of paying taxes anyway.

Sara - posted on 09/29/2010

9,313

50

584

Just out of curiosity, where can you buy cigarettes with food stamps? You can't even buy diapers with food stamps. I get your point, and I don't totally disagree, but I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the problems that plague social programs in this county.



For me, I feel that most social programs are in the toilet and people commit fraud to get them because in the last 30 years not enough money has been devoted to the programs for them to run efficiently or effectively. If you want to stop the fraud, then you need to staff the programs. Most social services operate on shoe string budgets and pay their employees crap. And, since so many programs have been cut since the Reagan era, is it any wonder why we have so many uneducated people in the workforce today that get laid off from their unskilled labor job and then spend 2 years on unemployment? The problem with how most conservatives view this whole mess is they think everyone starts out with the same opportunities, and I just don't think that's true. Cutting one Head Start program in a depressed community has ramifications that can't be assessed for years. If you want to make it better, make it better, but I can tell you with certainty the way to make it better isn't to take more money away from programs and then complain about the negative impact of it.



I agree that there is a lot wrong with our current systems, and I think that they need to be addressed to help with our spiraling debt. I guess I just don't know how we get from here to there without investing more in the short term. It seems like a lot of politicians want a quick fix and something they can go on their campaign trails with saying "See???", but most of those solutions aren't really long term fixes. However, when you have people who want to be progressive and enact policies that wll have long term benefits, they're crucified. It's a mess.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

78 Comments

View replies by

Isobel - posted on 10/08/2010

9,849

0

282

You are right...nobody is (on either side)...and that IS a problem...maybe if we could slow down some of the asinine accusations and crazy talk about communists and birth certificates and Muslim agendas, witches, gay scandals, blah blah blah...there would be time to talk about what's ACTUALLY going on...and I have heard SO many liberals say that over the past few years you wouldn't believe it. Or should I say, you wouldn't listen.

Christa - posted on 10/08/2010

3,876

14

209

Laura, you all (speaking on the Dem party as a whole) aren't even talking about how to fix it, nobody is. We need to fix the fraud, red tape, inefficiencies, etc. on our existing programs before we continue to waste money on them. Does that make sense? You have to fix the leak before the bucket will fill up no matter how much water you dump into it. IF we can fix these programs to the point that they are proven needed and successful and THEN you want to talk about raising funding for them, THEN we could talk. Until then leave people's money alone because it's all just a waste. IF we could get our systems working to a point where you can’t see abuse in your daily lives, us conservatives would be yelling a lot less. We want to help those who REALLY need it. The problem is many of us, I know I have, have seen people blatantly abusing all different programs. When we see that we would rather keep our money to be given by us to someone who actually needs it. It’s very frustrating when someone like myself who struggles every month to make ends meet, we don’t eat out, we don’t vacation, we don’t buy nice things (heck we barely buy things, I haven’t bought myself a new outfit since I had kids), and I pay my taxes and ask for nothing in return and then some loser on aid is living a better life then me. What is wrong with THAT picture? And it happens, a friend of my best friend has been on UE for 2 years and is proud of it. She goes out, she buys new stuff, she’s living a far more exciting life then I. So I’m sorry if I don’t want to pay more taxes (and I will if congress and BO don’t pull their heads out and extend the Bush tax cuts) when we are already struggling to pay for some waste on society.

Isobel - posted on 10/08/2010

9,849

0

282

I don't think you'd find a soul in the house who didn't think that our social programs (both American and Canadian) need fixing...it's the method of fixing that we disagree with. Like I've said so many times before, get rid of the waste, the bureaucratic red tape, 'flatten' the organizations (give the front line workers more authority over their own actions instead of having hundreds of managers)...but don't cut taxes.



During the most profitable time in America's history of a middle class was the fifties...and at that time the manufacturing industry was booming and the upper class was taxed at a whopping 90%. It could be argued that tax cuts to the wealthy began the long slow decline of the middle class in America.



The solution? Make it illegal to sell goods in America that would be illegal to create in America. That way, anybody who wanted to sell to the massive American Market would be forced to comply with your labour laws...and the prices of goods would even out all over the planet.

Christa - posted on 10/08/2010

3,876

14

209

I need to be clear, I don't want to abolish all social programs, some do have their place. But they need to be kept in check. Putting more money into a broken system doesn't do anybody any good. We need to fix the system, not take more people's money.

Krista - posted on 10/07/2010

12,562

16

842

I just don't feel a government program is the way to go and I don't think forcing the rich to pay even more into a broken system is going to do any good. It has to come voluntarily from each and every one of use.

And as I've said on multiple occasions, peoples' lives should not be dependent upon a popularity contest, which would be the case if charity came solely from private sources. Those men's homeless shelters where some of those veterans get to go? Not too many people give voluntarily to men's shelters. Not too many people give voluntarily to save the Brazillian Merganser, whose immediate risk of extinction is greater than that of the Giant Panda, a much more appealing species.

If charity is solely voluntary, then the cause that can afford the best PR will get the lion's share of donations. And that is just not right.

Christa - posted on 10/07/2010

3,876

14

209

Jenny, I'm not touching the abortion thing since it's been forbidden. I only point out the hypocrisy in the Dem. platform.

Raising taxes isn't going to fix anything, why isn't that sinking in? We have to change the way we treat each other and ourselves. We have to be willing participants in this change, not forced by our government. That's my whole point.

Krista, please give me some credit. I'm fully aware there are homeless people in this country. But I ask you are any of them living with no water or electricity for 8 months straight? Are any of them doing their laundry in a mud pit of standing water probably filled with every pathogen known to man? No they aren't. We have homeless shelters and soup kitchens etc. No these aren't permanent fixes and it may only be for a day or a night here and there but that's better then what those poor people have in Afghanistan or elsewhere. That was my point, that even those homeless people living in a box are richer than many others around the world.

I'll leave with this, because I'm tired of banging my head on a wall, I want to help the poor. I want to fix many of the problems we have in this country, I just don't feel a government program is the way to go and I don't think forcing the rich to pay even more into a broken system is going to do any good. It has to come voluntarily from each and every one of use. We have to start caring about each other. No one cares about each other anymore. When was the last time someone held the door for you? When was the last time you held the door for someone else? What we need is a leader who will inspire people to be better, who will inspire people to put down their hate and begin to love again. Obama surely isn't it and neither was Bush. Until we stop hating and demonizing the other side, and face it we do, nothing is going to get fixed.

Krista - posted on 10/06/2010

12,562

16

842

but in the grand scheme of things nobody in this country is really poor.

There are veterans living in cardboard boxes under overpasses, Christa.

Open your eyes.

Jenny - posted on 10/06/2010

4,426

16

126

Slavery is illegal Christa. You can not incarcerate a pregnant woman and that is truly the only way you could stop abortions from occurring. And really the only way you know a woman will abort is if she actually does. You can't go into thought crime territory and punish women for intent, how would you prove it?



I agreee North American poor are nowhere near the poor quality of life in other countries but are we racing to the bottom or the top here? Do you need to see little kids with pot bellies, covered in flies in Minnesota before you feel empowered to change the system? Not to mention the system is how it is because first world countries are exploiting those third world countries to get our high quality of life. Our sneakers and Ipods (and pretty much everything else we purchase at retail stores) come at the expense of foreign lives. So long as it's not (middle class or higher) American lives and noone raises your taxes slightly, who cares right? We're all good *shrug*

Christa - posted on 10/06/2010

3,876

14

209

Theresa, again I agree with you. I've never once said to abolish government or taxes. I just feel there is a limit and should be a limit to government power.

I also agree salvation is dependent on what you do, but the thing I don't understand is you say you speak out against abortion just as poverty and war, but why do you feel the bible calls you to legislate to help the poor but not to help the victims of abortion? That is what I do not understand about this conversation. I'll explain why I feel the reverse because abortion is taking away a life and should be legislated just like our murder, rape and assault laws. A direct attack on a person’s life should be against the law. Poverty isn't something you can make illegal and you can't force people to care.

Also if we really want to be picky nobody in this country is poor. Compared to Paris Hilton they are, but in the grand scheme of things nobody in this country is really poor. I watched a story last night on the news about people displaced in Afghanistan and there are like 70 families living in the same abandoned school with no water and no electricity and have been for like 8 months. THOSE people are poor. So perhaps, along your lines of thinking, no one in this country should be the recipients of our social programs but perhaps we all the donors to people like them in Afghanistan and other third world places be the recipients. Because in their eyes we are all rich. That's why I will stand firm that it is a individual responsibility to look inside yourself and see how you can help someone less fortunate then you, NOT the governments.

Pamela - posted on 10/06/2010

1,496

104

41

I Christa too. Because you make these posts interesting and challenging and I personally like that.

Pamela - posted on 10/06/2010

1,496

104

41

Wow. I Theresa. Well stated and I fully agree and concur with her post. You summed up pretty well my position.

Christa - posted on 10/05/2010

3,876

14

209

Pamela, again taking the money from the rich is not once advocated in the bible. And as a Christian you know that each person’s walk with the Lord is an individual one and we are not saved as a group but with each individual request. So while you could argue that it is written to a nation as a whole it still comes down to individual choices and actions. Not force. The ideals are in the right place but the execution is wrong.



I'm sorry but I can't buy this argument from the left wing about fighting social injustice by means of socialism yet turn a blind eye to the millions of innocent babies killed every year. Do you care about humans or not? I also don’t buy these “liberal elites” caring about the poor. Put your money where your mouth is. I wish I had the stats but something like 75% of the richest people in the US are well known liberals. So if they are so for leveling the playing field why not start with their own money? Why doesn’t Oprah give all but say a million of her money away to the poor? Why doesn’t Pelosi give away her millions? Why doesn’t Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt give one of their homes to the poor? No the democratic party is made up of either people waiting for a hand out or rich people who think they are smarter than everyone else and like to have control over the rest of us, with a few of you normal people in between.



To bring us full circle. . . I guess what’s being assumed and is incorrect is that the right doesn’t want to help or care about the poor. That’s not true. We prefer to help via churches and charities and to encourage people to rise from poverty and sustain a new higher found status in society through actual work not handouts. Like I said before we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If we could fix our spending problem you wouldn’t have to raise taxes on anyone. Here’s an example of 69 million wasted in CA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...



There a people across this country milking you “bleeding heart” liberals. And your “fearless leaders” are using you all as mindless sheep. You think Obama cares about the poor? He doesn’t even care about his own brother who lives in TRUE poverty in Kenya. The Democratic Party gets elected by the poor and if they ACTUALLY elevated the poor they would have no one left to elect them. It benefits them to keep people poor. So you may believe that you are doing the right thing, and I truly believe most of you do, but you are being deceived.

ME - posted on 10/05/2010

2,978

18

190

Pamela...I think you've confused "blah blah blah" with "brilliant"! I loved it...every word...well said!

Christa - posted on 10/05/2010

3,876

14

209

Ladies, I agree with you. The difference is I view those as words to individuals. We are all to model ourselves after the Lord's commands. That goes for the Bill Gates of the world too. BUT nowhere does it command us or the government to force the greedy to not be. THAT is where we have our difference. I believe we should help the poor voluntarily; we should come together and help our communities, out of our Love for God and each other. NOT by forcibly making the rich care. There is a BIG difference. Jesus spoke out and led by example, he didn't FORCE people to do anything, and he could have.

Instead of legislating ways to take other people’s money to take care of another, we all need to look at ourselves and those around us and find ways we can help each other. Are you doing all you can? Am I? There are good Christian like rich people you know? There are many that give and help the poor and less fortunate AND there are greedy bastards. We shouldn’t punish all for the sins of a few. Those who are greedy will answer to God, it is not our place to play judge and jury. The governments place is to protect our citizens God given right to life, and that is it.

[deleted account]

Pamela you have so eloquently described my personal purpose in Christ and the drive of many other Christians I know. Justice, justice, justice for all through love, compassion and servitude to those less fortunate than ourselves.



"He gave justice and help to the poor and needy and everything went well for him. Isn't that what it means to know me?, says the Lord (Jeremiah 22:16).



"This is what the Lord say: Judge fairly and show mercy and kindness to one another. Do not oppress widows, orphans, foriegners and the poor. And do not scheme against each other" (Zechariah 7:8)



"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 19:23).



"Whatever you give is acceptable if you give it eagerly. And give according to what you have, not what you don't have. Of course, I don't mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be equality. Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. (2 Corinthians 8:12-14).



I don't see anything in these scriptures about God promising a fair or rich life. But I do see him calling us to be a voice for the poor and needy against the powerful and greedy rich. "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4)



God gave me my rights. And I will do everything I can to make sure the government that represents "me" protect my rights and the rights of the poor and needy people of this country. "The rich and poor have this in common: The Lord made them both" (Proverbs 22:2),

Christa - posted on 10/04/2010

3,876

14

209

Theresa, sorry I can't respond quicker. .. . I don't want to get too much into the other things you mentioned because that would be way too confusing of an argument to have, it'd be like 5 debates in one. :) I do want to say that earmarks are not a Republican thing, D's are just as, if not more guilty, but yes they need to be stopped across the board. The no-bid contracts sound bad, but I don't know much on that topic so I'll reserve comment. And the outsourcing we'd need a new thread for, so. . . .

I did offer a solution that only you even touched on but still wouldn't really talk about. For some reason no one will talk about it. But we need to get gov't salaries and retirements in check. They are bankrupting us!

You are right. . .Business' sole purpose is to make money. BUT most can make more money when they do things that help the community as a whole. They know that, and they do what they can as long as they can still remain in business. Because if they aren’t in business then that’s bad for them AND society.

You all have mentioned "preventing injustice" and "ensuring equal opportunity", you know what that will NEVER happen. No two people will ever have the exact same opportunities and there's a lot more than money that factors into that. An old time actor recently died, and I wish I could remember his name, but I heard about him on Nightly News With Brian Williams and one of the things they said about him is that he grew up poor in NY (the Bronx I think) but he was very attractive and he used that to his advantage to make it in Hollywood. Is that fair?? Is it fair that his hypothetical poor neighbor with the same acting ability, but was ugly didn't get rich in Hollywood and ended up dying poor? No but like I've already said life isn't fair. Should we protect the lives of our people? Of course. But that doesn't mean everybody's going to live the good life. Some will get married and live happily ever after, others will get divorced. Some will have beautiful successful children other will have children that become criminals. Some will live into their 90's while others die in the 30's. Some will live in mansions others in shacks. Some will be beautiful some will be the “elephant man”. Some people deserve what they have/don't have others won't. It's just the way it is. Government is NEVER going to be able to really fix any of that. The only thing that has a chance of fixing any of that is if each of us do our part to take care of our family and neighbors. And encourage those around us to do the same. Focus on the Family (gasp) is running a campaign here in CO trying to make CO the first state to have no kids in the foster care system. They are illustrating that there are more churches in this state than there are children in foster care. So if just one family from each church adopts a child we will have none left in the system. Will this be effective, we will see. But this has a better chance of working then the state giving more money to people who don't really have an interest in these kids (I know that's not all foster parents). You can't just throw money at every problem and expect that to fix the problem. We have an entitlement problem in this country and the only way to fix that is to let people feel the ramifications of their choices. To learn that life won’t always be easy. Not to bail out every bad choice out. Because people begin to learn that there are no permanent consequences because someone will always be there to bail them out. That's why my grandparents were part of the "greatest generation" because they lived through a REAL depression and they had to rely on each other and work through it and it was HARD. They knew what it meant to fight for your country. And they knew that money wasn't everything and it could be gone in a flash, so they planned accordingly. Until the attitude in this country changes, it will not get better. And like with most things the night is darkest right before the dawn and I don't believe we are even close yet.

One last thing to Theresa. . . I know you are a Christian so I can speak to you on that level. God never promised us “quality of life”, so why do you think we can try and make that kind of promise to each other? He never promised we’d be happy, or healthy or rich or anything else. God gave us our rights, and that is the right to life. God gave them and ONLY God can take them away. If we allow the Government to give us our rights, then they too can take them away. And I do not want to live in a country where my rights are from anyone but God. But that's just me. . . . Oh, And the men who wrote our constitution. . . . .

[deleted account]

Sorry I haven't been able to respond, but my power has been out due to the storms. @Christa... we can do this "dance" for weeks. You think big government is the cause of the country's economic problems and I think big business is the cause of the country's economic problems. For every arguement you have, I could have a counter-arguement. It's the old, "what came first the chicken or the egg". Truth be told...we are probably both a little bit right. What I find missing from the whole discussion/debate from the Republicans and Tea Party Movement is the responsibility and accountabilty of "big business" to this country's current economic state. I mean if you're going to talk about Obama and the Democrats taking away our freedoms in the name of Healthcare Reform, surely you must include Bush and the Republican party and what they have done in the last 8 years in the name of National Security. If you're going to talk about unions and entitlement programs, surely you must also talk about outsourcing, earmarks and no-bid contracts. But I don't see that happening. Lots of yelling and screaming about how government doesn't work but no solutions on how to reduce government and still provide these very necessary programs.



I don't know any Democrat or Independent who believes that government is the answer to everything. We acknowledge that there is fraud, mismanagement and corruption within the government. But with millions of people losing their jobs and homes, you can't talk about how ineffective and wasteful government is and defend big business with all of the power and money they have and all their unfair business "loopholes" they practice. The goal any business is to not lose money. They could care less about what is best for the whole. They only care about what is best for them. Keeping the money they have and making more money is the their only concern. Government trying to ensure an equal opportunity for it's citizens to live with dignity and respect is not evil or taking anybody's freedom away. Why can't you get that? We are not trying to get blood out of a turnip. We are asking for the opportunity to eat the turnip, free of pesticides, grown in America, and at an affordable price.

Christa - posted on 10/01/2010

3,876

14

209

One more thing . . .

Theresa, the government can arbitrarily decide who's worth what because they wouldn't know a balanced budget if it smacked them in the face. Businesses can't do that, they actually have to come up with the money to pay these people these great salaries, without stealing it from somewhere else. Our government is bankrupt, they have to quit making promises they can't keep. You should know as a teacher, that most to the teacher retirement funds are bankrupt, they can't pay retiring teachers what they promised. Well who's suffering, not the teachers, the taxpayers who are now trying to save for their own retirements AND paying for the "poor teachers". Look at GM and Chrysler, their promised retirement accounts are a big reason they went bankrupt too and if you read that article GM still may fall apart. Most companies switched to defined contributions a long time ago, because defined benefits aren’t a good business practice. Our government needs to follow suit. If you read in that article I posted about this, private pays about 10K of benefits while the government pays 4X that. I know you all will be quick to say, "well the private should keep up", but the government is bankrupt. What don't you all understand about that? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Christa - posted on 10/01/2010

3,876

14

209

Krista, Anti-sodomy laws, really? Those have all been repealed or over ruled in the US and nobody I know is looking to bring them back So. . . . Minimum wage laws are not something I'm against, I think most conservatives are ok with basic standards in business to keep the workplace safe and positive.

"That's the type of thing I'm talking about. The right legislates morality to prevent people from screwing each other. The left legislates morality in order to prevent people from being screwed."
I know this was a tongue and cheek comment, but it doesn't make sense. Most of the liberal agenda "screws" the rich/business owners, under the illusion of "helping the poor". What I meant be the greedy will always be greedy is, you can make all kinds of rules, but they will find a way around them. They will move locations, find loopholes, do something illegal, sell their business and walk away with their "pile of money", etc. It's not going to help, in fact it will and is hurting all of us.

Theresa, there's no Kool-aid, just fact. I work in HR and am very familiar with the hoops required to get a new position approved. People are re-filling existing positions, but nobody is creating new ones. That is the problem, they were forced to cut millions of jobs at the height of the recession, but they aren't re-creating them right now, because they are unsure of the future and have done just fine without them over the last 2 years. They aren't going to take a risk and expand when they don't know the whole picture. It's an economic fact. Also they only hire when they have a need, not because they could put an extra person on the pay roll. These are businesses not charities. If you aren't familiar with Nash's economic theory you should look into it. Very simply it states that the best outcome is the one that is best for both all players and the group as a whole. With liberal agenda it doesn't take into account the businesses. To really fix the economy you have to take into account the unemployed, employed and the employers. You have to come up with a solution that benefits all players. Otherwise some players stop playing.

Obama has done nothing but reward bad decisions and punish good decisions since he took office. His mortgage bailouts, only help if you are at least 90 days late on your payments. Then you get an unheard of deal to lower you payments, but those of us who are responsible and pay on time, don't get jack. Not a very good incentive to pay your mortgage, huh? The major bailouts, again reward companies who were greedy and made poor choices by giving them money to bail them out. Not only that, but they made different deals for different employees within a single company (GM) that benefited the unions (surprise surprise) and hurt non-union employees. http://www.detnews.com/article/20100928/...
They also passed/or tried to pass (I'm not sure) an incentive for companies to hire people who had been out of work for 6+ months. What about the poor Joe who's been out for 3 months, why is he being punished?

All the liberal agenda does is take from one to give to another. That doesn't help anyone. The only way to truly help our economy and those suffering the effects is to find a way to get back to prosperity and into an environment that helps everyone, including the businesses. I've already said but I'll say it again, if hiring people is going to add value to the business then they will do it, and they'll do it immediately. Forcing them will only make them do the minimum they have to without getting into trouble. Clearly regulating the crap out of everybody has done ZERO good. Thankfully the majority agrees and we will get a change in November and then I can then prove that I'm right. :-P

[deleted account]

I agree Laura?...companies would save a lot more money manufacturing their products in America (with American workers and following health and safety standards), then losing money when they have to have a massive recall because of a high lead content, poisonous dyes and choking hazards, etc. Duh!!! Lol!

ME - posted on 10/01/2010

2,978

18

190

you're depressing me now Laura...but, you're totally right...

We tried to get a law like that passed in Boulder, CO. while I lived there...couldn't do it because the University wouldn't go along with it, because they had a contract with Nike or something...Boulder is probably the most liberal city in the country...if it couldn't get done there, not gonna happen...Corporations own this country...which is FAR FAR scarier to me than allowing the government some control/regulation...

Isobel - posted on 10/01/2010

9,849

0

282

and I'll tell you how to fix that one...make it illegal to sell any goods in America that would have been illegal to produce IN America (no goods from sweat shops, no goods from factories with substandard safety protocols, no goods built by children)

It'll never happen though, and you know why? cause Walmart owns America

Isobel - posted on 10/01/2010

9,849

0

282

Truth be known...they're not hiring in America because it is illegal to pay people cents per day and force them to work 32 hour shifts...check out Apple's latest problems...their workers are committing suicide...and their answer was to have them sign a contract when they start working that they won't harm themselves...yeah...good answer.

NOTHING to do with Obama...you are being hoodwinked.

[deleted account]

Wow! Look who's drinking the kool aid now! I can't believe that some people are actually falling for the lie that businesses are not hiring because they don't know what their taxes are going to be or don't know how much Obamacare will cost them...really??



They can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign donations and lobbyists every year, but they can't create a job, hire someone, and pay them a decent salary?? That's the biggest BS story I ever heard!



Big business is throwing a tantrum right now. They are sitting on jobs and refusing to hire as a way of pressuring their Senators and Representatives to give them what they want (extention of the Bush tax cuts and no penalties for shipping jobs overseas, etc)! They don't want anyone, not even the government, telling them what to do! It's unconstitutional remember?? And so are taxes (which is why they want to pay little or none). Taxes are the government's way of imposing their "power" over you, remember??



Oh! And by the way...federal jobs pay more money for the same position in the private secor job, because of something called a "values scale". It is the recommended consideration that all companies use when deciding how much they are going to pay someone for a particular position. They look at a person's education, skill level, age, longevity at the job and cost of living (just to name a few) and pay them accordingly. A 60 year old man, who worked for a company for 30 years, who increased his training or obtained a degree, should be paid more than a 20 year old, who just started working. That sometimes costs a lot. Imagine if every company paid people what they were worth and showed appreciation for their dedication and loyalty!



Unfortunately, in the private sector, you don't have to follow the recommendations. You can decide, based on the position, what wage you want to pay. You can even phase out a job, ship a job overseas or downsize. You don't have to pay a yearly salary or pay into for costly medical benefits or expensive pensions. You save money.

Kelly - posted on 09/30/2010

700

16

37

Christa, great post! I have been gone for a while, my Hubby's company transferred him and we had to relocate (3rd time this year.....) but thank goodness it was back out West! Anyway, your posts on this thread are just freakin awsome :-) I agree with everything you stated and I probably wouldn't have been able to piece the thoughts together in such a coherent and gracious way. I can't add anything at the moment, I was testing the internet connection to make sure it was up and going. Be back I promise!

Krista - posted on 09/30/2010

12,562

16

842

You all are always accusing the right of "legislating morality", well that is EXACTLY what you all are trying to do with your economic policies. You can't legislate compassion, you can't legislate against greed.

Bit of a difference though, Christa.

Example: Anti-sodomy laws -- who do they HELP? Who has an actual, tangible benefit in their life due to sodomy being outlawed?
On the other hand, minimum wage laws -- who do they help? Who has an actual, tangible benefit in their life due to employers being made to pay their employees at least a certain amount?

That's the type of thing I'm talking about. The right legislates morality to prevent people from screwing each other. The left legislates morality in order to prevent people from being screwed. :)

Pamela - posted on 09/30/2010

1,496

104

41

No but we can attempt to prevent injustice through legislation. And I do agree with you that people's hearts need to change - but laws are designed to limit the greedy from taking advantage of those who have no to little voice. So actually, yes, we can legislate greed and we should legislate greed. The role of government is to keep things in check.

Christa - posted on 09/30/2010

3,876

14

209

One more thought . . . You all are always accusing the right of "legislating morality", well that is EXACTLY what you all are trying to do with your economic policies. You can't legislate compassion, you can't legislate against greed. If you regulate a greedy person they will still find ways to be greedy. You have to change people’s hearts and laws will not do that, unfortunately.

Pamela - posted on 09/30/2010

1,496

104

41

You're right Christa, life definitely isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for injustice.

Krista - posted on 09/30/2010

12,562

16

842

Just to clarify, Christa, I didn't mean handouts...I meant things like job creation, skills upgrading, things like that.

Christa - posted on 09/30/2010

3,876

14

209

Sorry that was long. :)

One more thing, to Krista's comment about giving it to poor people. "If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish he will eat for life"
Giving money to the poor will not do anything long term. They will spend that money until it's gone and then be right back where they were, waiting for the next handout. You have to earn it. There's some stat, I don't have that exact numbers in front of me, something like 80% of inheritances are spent in the first year. Have you seen those "curse of the lottery" documentaries on E! or VH1 or something? They basically show how people's lives are destroyed when they win the lottery because they don't know what to responsibly do with that money and they get themselves into trouble and end up worse off. You have to help the poor elevate themselves; you can't just throw money at them. Whether that's actual cash or social programs it doesn't help in the long run. If someone doesn't earn something they take it for granted. I know some of you are college educators, I'm sure there is a noticeable difference in people who are paying their own way and people who are getting a free ride, via their parents or the government. I know there was when I was in school. If you're not invested in it, whatever it is, you don't care. That's a fact.

Christa - posted on 09/30/2010

3,876

14

209

Laura, you missed my point. I didn't say they were hurting, I said they were afraid of what's going to come, that they are afraid to make any major moves. They don't want to hire a bunch of people to grow their companies when they don't know what the real cost of those employees will be. The government has done the economy NO help by passing and changing all these bills/rules. They keep changing regulations and changing tax codes. They keep changing incentives. Who knows what will be 6 months from now. It's very hard to plan 6 months in advance if you have no idea what's going to be. If you are confident in what's coming you are more likely to make that major change. It's true for individuals and it's true for corporations. Until all of this settles and they can be sure what to expect in the next 6 months to 6 years they aren't going to do a damn thing. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. That's what will grow any economy, certainty (knowing that nothing is ever really certain). Look at Obamacare, they won’t know for sure what the impact and per employee cost of that will be until it’s completely rolled out in 3 years. No one’s going to do major hiring until they know what that effect will be. Hopefully we can repeal that piece of garbage and get something that might ACTUALLY fix the problem. Not just increase costs and feed more people into a broken system.

Also nobody doesn't care about the poor, I'm so sick of hearing that. But you can't force people to hire and you can't force people to give money. You get the best results when people want to do that for themselves. That's just simple human nature. If someone tries to force you to do anything what is your first instinct . . . . to push back. With your kids, if you want them to share a toy do you rip it from their hands and tell them they HAVE to share OR do you show them the benefits of sharing so they are more willing to do it on their own? We all know the answer with the best long term results. So why do we forget when it comes to adults? Adults are just big kids. We have the same childish impulses, while we control them better (most of us) they still control how we make decisions. When someone backs you in a corner and tells you what you MUST do, what do you do? You almost always tell them no way, even if you realize it probably is the best choice your initial reaction is to push back. The "big bad corporations" are not things, even though that's how they are talked about, they are people. Some run by good people and some run by bad people. There need to be some regulations to control behind the scenes things that the average consumer can't do anything about, but beyond that you have to let them be. Ultimately what’s good for a company is to grow and to grow you need people. You need people that add value to your company. You don’t hire just because Joe Schmoe needs a job. You hire because you have a need. Truly, what we need is more people who are willing to take that entrepreneur risk and start a new company. Take a chance and succeed. Then you will need people and hire people. That is how we became great and that is how we will be great again. But NOBODY in their right mind would start a business now with all the red tape Obama/Pelosi keep pushing through.

Do you want to know why the housing situation is not fixing itself? REGULATIONS! Granted some needed to be put to prevent this mess in the future but too many were added and now underwriting is so tight that even well qualified individuals can't get loans. I have a friend who is more than qualified and is trying to re-fi their house. It will save them $200/month and it's all hinging on their appraisal. They will probably be ok, but just barely. There are tons of people in their same situation that won't be able to take advantage of these low rates because their appraisals will be too low. These are people who have never been late, have excellent credit, plenty on income and just don't have the 20% equity because of the low housing prices. So people who could be saving hundreds of dollars a month that could then be spent elsewhere, thus boosting the economy for years to come, can't do it because underwriting is do damn strict now. There is a happy balance between not enough and too much.

Life's not fair. It never will be. There are going to be rich people and there are going to be poor people. Some will deserve where they are others are just lucky/unlucky. That is life, you can't make life fair. There are pretty people and ugly people, people with good health and people with bad health, people will plenty of kids and people who are infertile. Life is not fair. Why do you liberals keep trying to make it so on a wealth level? What's next everyone gets plastic surgery because it's proven that pretty people have more successful/easier lives? Are we going to give some of the Duggars/Goslin/Octomom (spelling?) etc kids to people who can't have any? Life isn't fair, Life is hard. All we can do is take care of each other and ourselves the best we can. BUT you can't FORCE people to do that. The more you try the more they will resist. It's basic human nature.

Pamela - posted on 09/30/2010

1,496

104

41

Beautiful. I couldn't a said it better. Especially the "pissing on our heads" part.

I "heart" Krista.

Krista - posted on 09/30/2010

12,562

16

842

I think they call it "trickle-down" because they piss on our heads but tell us it's raining.

Isobel - posted on 09/30/2010

9,849

0

282

they bought the line about "trickle down economics" ....awwwww you guys are so cute ♥

Pamela - posted on 09/30/2010

1,496

104

41

"It DOES take money to save money".



Every economist I've listened too - and the majority of economists lean conservative - have said that the Obama Administration wasn't BOLD enough - didn't infuse our economic system with ENOUGH money to really change the course this country is on the way it NEEDS to be CHANGED.



Let me ask this: what solar system is the average conservative (Tea Party or Republican) on when he/she supports and protects the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country (oh those poor rich people - so misunderstood)? Because they not only don't care about the poor, they don't care about the middle class. We are a means to an end and that end is their profit. That is our only value to them.



"Because to believe in the American Dream, you have to be asleep." George Carlin

Isobel - posted on 09/30/2010

9,849

0

282

For the record, big companies LOVE recessions. It gives them a chance to shed their dead weight without looking like the bad guy. Otherwise, when the economy got better they would hire the same amount of people back...but they don't, because they know they can make people work twice as hard for half the money until the economy gets better.

They're not hurting...their profits are going UP and their costs and taxes are DOWN, there is no reason for them not to be hiring...other than greed.

and the rules NEED to be changed...I can not for the life of me figure out WHY people would want the right back in control of the economy...they ran the ENTIRE planet into the ditch...for OUR sake, I wish people would vote Democrat.

I'm all for cutting the bureaucracies down...cut the waste, find the fraud and stop it, but that doesn't mean cut the actual programs that people need.

It DOES take money to save money...and if you know anybody who has experienced both poverty and middle-class life, they'll tell you that.

Christa - posted on 09/29/2010

3,876

14

209

Pamela, seeing how they are all in favor of murdering millions of babies, and have increased funding to do so, and are in favor of stealing money from the rich, I think even that definition fits. Anyway. . . . . .



No one has any comment on the irregularity in the salary of private vs public sector jobs? Or the impossible promises that are made to government employees via retirements?? This is a simple problem to solve and would save billions in the long term. Defined contributions not defined benefits.



Greed is NOT the reason companies aren't hiring right now, it's uncertainty. Obama tries to change or does change the rules every five minutes. They are afraid to hire because they don't know what the next month will bring. Imagine if your mortgage could go up unexpectedly without warning or your pay could get cut significantly without warning. You wouldn't be making any drastic changes in your finances or making any big purchases, in fact I bet you'd be saving every penny just in case. Many of us have been doing that for years now because we are afraid of one of those things from actually happening. So are businesses, they are afraid that the rules will change and they will be in big financial trouble. What needs to be done is the market needs to be able to stabilize and grow naturally. All the growth that has been seen isn't natural it’s been forced by one of the many crap bills that have been passed over the last 20 months. It’s forced and not long-term. They are still threatening with the Cap and Trade, businesses still have no idea what the cost of "Obamacare" will be on them etc so they will not do anything drastic. Hopefully when the R's take back the House and equalize the senate, businesses will be more confident that the floor isn't going to drop out from below them and we will start to see some real progress. Even if the R's can get nothing passed, just knowing that they are there to stop the crazy liberal agenda should be comfort enough.



As far as the social programs go, I don’t buy the “it takes money to save money”. Some of the inefficiencies can be solved by taking it out of the fed’s hands and back to the local (state or city) governments. It’s a lot easier to be efficient when you are closer to the problem and have a smaller piece. I’m sure I have more thoughts, but I’ve got to run my free time has expired. :-P

Pamela - posted on 09/29/2010

1,496

104

41

"To me a thug is a dishonest person that is bad for society". The dictionary definition of a "thug" is a murderer, robber, vicious and cruel super duper bad person. Thugs are bad for society. But as tempted as I might be to call John Boehner, Sarah Palin and co. "thugs", I will refrain from doing so as they don't fit the definition. I strongly disagree with them, I think they're not great for this country, they offer no real ideas on how to govern better, but, they are not thugs. Nor is Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. Just because you disagree doesn't make it so.;oP

Isobel - posted on 09/29/2010

9,849

0

282

you think lowering taxes will help the government fight fraud? nope, it'll only spread them even thinner so they have nobody who can find the fraudulent cases. And what does removing regulations from banking have to do with fraud (other than the fact that it will make it easier for the banks to commit it?)

[deleted account]

I think we can all agree that fraud is a massive problem in many of these government social programs. Having said that however, major businesses and corporations getting tax cuts or receiving tax incentives to create private sector jobs are perpectuating this problem and here's why:



When a corporation receives a tax cut or tax incentive, the expectation is that they will create jobs. People will get employed. People will receive benefits for their employment. People will receive a salary for their employment. People will buy the goods and services they need. People will pay their bills. The economy will improve.



That's not happening. These businesses and corporations are getting these tax cuts and incentives (from the government) and not creating long term jobs or permanant positions. These jobs are short term, part time and temporary. They offer no benefits. They offer no training, education or opportunity of advancement. They are usually wage based. The wage earned is not comprable to the current standard of living. People can barely pay their bills. People go further into debt. When the job is over they apply for government programs to help them get through until the next "job" is created. The economy suffers.



That's my frustration with big businesses and corporations. Their sole purpose is to not lose money. So if they don't want to create these long term, permanant jobs that are going to be beneficial to their employees, fine! But then stop whining about your taxes going up and your tax incentives being revoked. Use your own money for investments and job creation and let the "market" dictate whether your business fails or prospers! Isn't that what "capitalism" is all about?



You know...I never saw a person on unemployment or welfare get rich! But many of these wonderful companies that are making the Forbes 500 list, pay zero taxes and get billions of dollars in tax brakes. Hmmmmm.....and the Republicans and tea party people think THIS is ok?



We're all not like Christine O"Donnell, who can live off of campaign donations, when we fall on hard times!

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms