Romney vs. Obama

[FJR1300]

I completely and totally disagree with you. As long as you've earned your money by honest means, I say to stick all of it under your mattress or burn it for warmth if you want. Is it wrong to give to the poor and the downtrodden? Certainly not. I would never knock anyone for doing so. It's certainly an admirable thing to do. No question there. I don't think there's a moral obligation there at all though.

Heck, I have more money than I absolutely need and chances are that if you're running around with a $100-200 smart phone you do do. Does that mean we should move into a studio apartment, sell our stuff, eat the store brand foods and give all of our surplus to the poor or it's immoral? Not at all. Neither one of us would advocate that I'm sure. So when does a person have "more money than they can spend"? Where's that cut off? I may already be there to be honest and I don't even make $40k a year. I prefer to live very simply though and I have no debt.

I'm not saying it's a moral obligation, I'm saying that it is moral, there's a difference.


You have more money than you need at less than $40k/yr? I don't think that you've thought that through. If you are stricken with cancer will you have enough money to deal with not being able to work, paying COBRA rates for health insurance (assuming you have HI) and the co-pays for treatment and meds? If you're involved in a serious accident, or a natural disaster destroys all of your possessions or you are wrongfully arrested and accused of a felony criminal act, etc, etc.

Unless you can easily handle any financial impact that life could possibly throw your way, you do not have more money than you need.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I didn't say you said it was bad. My point is, people, again not you specifically, have said we should rely on charity to help the less fortunate, and now folks are saying the rich have no moral obligation to give charity. Which is it? My personal belief is that every person on this planet has the moral obligation to help others in a way that is feasible for them. If they can afford to give money or goods they should. If they can't, they should give of their time.

To me it's both. In an ideal perfect world (which we obviously don't live in), charities would provide the safety net. They're simply far better qualified in most cases than governments are. They're more efficient and better connected to both their donors and the people they serve. But I don't see that the rich have any soft of moral obligation to give to said charities. Some will give quite generously and I applaud them. Some will not give at all and I don't condemn them for it. It's their money. They are free to spend or not spend it as they see fit.

You have more money than you need at less than $40k/yr? I don't think that you've thought that through. If you are stricken with cancer will you have enough money to deal with not being able to work, paying COBRA rates for health insurance (assuming you have HI) and the co-pays for treatment and meds? If you're involved in a serious accident, or a natural disaster destroys all of your possessions or you are wrongfully arrested and accused of a felony criminal act, etc, etc.

Unless you can easily handle any financial impact that life could possibly throw your way, you do not have more money than you need.

I believe I could. I have long term disability insurance that would cover any injury or disease that would keep me from working. I have no debt so my costs of keeping body/soul together are quite low. If I suffered a physical injury at work that would keep me from physically working, then an injury settlement of any substance at all could pay off my house.

If I came home today and found my house and everything in it burned to the ground, I could survive. I have a well funded rainy day fund. I could live for 6 months or more with no income at all off just my rainy day fund. I may be dead wrong on all of this, but I feel I have been blessed and have far more than I need.

"Honest means" sounds like "Fair share". If i can lower the prices of my products or services and drive my competition out of business, then as an exclusive employer in that area decide I want to lowball wages to prevent having to raise prices, thus keeping my employees at a certain standard of living, then decide that my efforts warrant a 6-7 figure salary that afford me a standard of living that is 10-20 times better than my average employee, then tell me again about this magical land where corporations are altruistic and everyone operates under "honest means". I bet they thought Bernie Madoff was an honest guy until they realized that he "Madoff" (see what I did there?) with all their money.

Madoff was breaking the law. Nothing you described is illegal or immoral for that matter. Corporations are not evil nor are they good. They are entities that exist for the sole reason of making money for their shareholders. That's it.

Animals will eat and drink what they need, and some will try to store small reserves, but they don't amass in excessive bulk. Most likely because the excess bulk will only make it easier for their predators.....

Can you come to my house and explain this to my beagle sometime? She doesn't get it.

 

[FJR1300]

I believe I could. I have long term disability insurance that would cover any injury or disease that would keep me from working. I have no debt so my costs of keeping body/soul together are quite low. If I suffered a physical injury at work that would keep me from physically working, then an injury settlement of any substance at all could pay off my house.

If I came home today and found my house and everything in it burned to the ground, I could survive. I have a well funded rainy day fund. I could live for 6 months or more with no income at all off just my rainy day fund. I may be dead wrong on all of this, but I feel I have been blessed and have far more than I need.

I believe that you are quite mistaken, for a number of reasons, the least of which being that settlements take years. I'm not going to detail all of the flaws in your reasoning, it's starting to stray way off topic and I don't believe that my advice would be heeded or wanted. You believe that you have any contingency well planned for and it's not really any of my business

 

[gamblor01]

Oh and last I heard, greed is immoral across most mainstream religions.

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since someone else opened the door...

I find this to be one of the funniest things about politics and religion. Everyone will selectively pick and choose what they want from their holy book to make it look like what they do is justified. In the US, this book is predominantly the bible. But the gospels all have similar accounts of Jesus telling a rich man (who wants to inherit eternal life):

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Of course, the rich man is not willing to do this to which Jesus replies:

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24)


Therefore (assuming you believe in the bible), stating that there is no moral imperative to give to the poor, or that keeping massive amounts of wealth for yourself is not evil is a complete farce. It's funny though, you will constantly hear the Republicans quoting the bible when it comes to gay rights (they'll quote Leviticus 18:22 -- stating that it's an abomination). Of course, you will fail to hear them claim anything like "What so ever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me." You'll never hear them talk about how Jesus said to love ALL people. Instead, you'll hear them HATE (and I mean hate) gay people, HATE people of other religions, ask why they need to give money to the poor, etc.. Why should they help someone else out and not just keep their money to themselves? Well...because the book that you claim to follow so dearly tells you to do exactly that!!!!

Obviously this isn't everyone out there but there are so many hypocrites that I think it's an embarrassment to Christianity. But then again, I believe the whole bible is full of contradictions, outdated ideas, and was written by men (who often had an agenda when they wrote the passages that they did). Don't get me wrong, I still think there are some excellent lessons that are taught, but after many years I can no longer agree that it is all the word of God.


P.S. I guess I never answered the topic directly but I haven't decided yet between voting for Obama or some 3rd party candidate. Whoever I vote for, it will not be Romney (or any other Republican candidate -- though it appears he has indeed locked up the nomination at this point).

 

[cmybliss]

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since someone else opened the door...

I find this to be one of the funniest things about politics and religion. Everyone will selectively pick and choose what they want from their holy book to make it look like what they do is justified. In the US, this book is predominantly the bible. But the gospels all have similar accounts of Jesus telling a rich man (who wants to inherit eternal life):

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Of course, the rich man is not willing to do this to which Jesus replies:

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24)


Therefore (assuming you believe in the bible), stating that there is no moral imperative to give to the poor, or that keeping massive amounts of wealth for yourself is not evil is a complete farce. It's funny though, you will constantly hear the Republicans quoting the bible when it comes to gay rights (they'll quote Leviticus 18:22 -- stating that it's an abomination). Of course, you will fail to hear them claim anything like "What so ever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me." You'll never hear them talk about how Jesus said to love ALL people. Instead, you'll hear them HATE (and I mean hate) gay people, HATE people of other religions, ask why they need to give money to the poor, etc.. Why should they help someone else out and not just keep their money to themselves? Well...because the book that you claim to follow so dearly tells you to do exactly that!!!!

Obviously this isn't everyone out there but there are so many hypocrites that I think it's an embarrassment to Christianity. But then again, I believe the whole bible is full of contradictions, outdated ideas, and was written by men (who often had an agenda when they wrote the passages that they did). Don't get me wrong, I still think there are some excellent lessons that are taught, but after many years I can no longer agree that it is all the word of God.


P.S. I guess I never answered the topic directly but I haven't decided yet between voting for Obama or some 3rd party candidate. Whoever I vote for, it will not be Romney (or any other Republican candidate -- though it appears he has indeed locked up the nomination at this point).

Thank you. I too was try to keep religion out of this discussion. There is nothing that makes me despise a politician more than hearing them proclaim from the highest mountain how very Christian they are, how much God means in their life, how they pray daily for guidance, and then hearing them say the sick don't deserve health care because it's their own fault they are sick. (Gotta love Santorum). Or extending unemployment benefits for those latex off during this recession is a bad idea because it encourages them to be lazy. Seriously? Everyone I know who has been latex off wants to find a new job, not just for the financial aspects, but for their self esteem. I could name numerous other examples, but I think everyone here is well enough informed to get where I'm heading.

As for Romney, I never know from day to day what his stance on any particular issue is. I could never vote for such an inconsistent candidate.

 

[FJR1300]

Completely agree with gamblor & cymbliss. I have nothing against people that choose to believe in whatever religion or higher power they choose. However, when religion is used in politics and business to give the impression that their ideology or service is somehow superior to people of a different faith (or none at all) due to their religious beliefs, I do take umbrage. Businesses and organizations lobby the politicians who in turn saddle us with unjust laws that have the ability to greatly impact our lives.

The effects of religion in politics cause a great many problems in this country. Unfortunately we can't change that until and if it becomes possible to elect unbiased politicians that will not take campaign contributions in exchange for pushing lobbyist agendas.

A vote for either Romney or Obama means accepting their pandering to the religious vote. Even Ron Paul has strong christian values, but he's the only candidate I'm aware of that has stated that issues such as abortion (which he's against) are none of the Federal government's business. He'd need to go a step further and declare that it is none of the State's business either, but then he'd completely alienate himself from the christian voters.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Politicians throw religion around solely because it gets them votes. Which is sad. Sadder is that if an atheist ran there are people who would refuse to vote for him regardless of how qualified he was or how much they agreed with him. You have to pander to the religious people in order to get elected sadly.

 

[cmybliss]

Politicians throw religion around solely because it gets them votes. Which is sad. Sadder is that if an atheist ran there are people who would refuse to vote for him regardless of how qualified he was or how much they agreed with him. You have to pander to the religious people in order to get elected sadly.

True and depressing. I often wonder how many of them actually believe all the nonsense they spout. I know there are a few that are legitimate religious wing nuts, but I imagine there are more that just use religion as a political tool.

 

[breadnatty08]

As an atheist myself, honestly I don't care. I don't care what religion the candidate holds. What I'm more concerned about is how their religious beliefs may affect policy changes. Say what you will about what the founding fathers intended, religion and politics just don't mix.

 

[TxGoat]

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since someone else opened the door...

I find this to be one of the funniest things about politics and religion. Everyone will selectively pick and choose what they want from their holy book to make it look like what they do is justified. In the US, this book is predominantly the bible. But the gospels all have similar accounts of Jesus telling a rich man (who wants to inherit eternal life):

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Of course, the rich man is not willing to do this to which Jesus replies:

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24)


Therefore (assuming you believe in the bible), stating that there is no moral imperative to give to the poor, or that keeping massive amounts of wealth for yourself is not evil is a complete farce. It's funny though, you will constantly hear the Republicans quoting the bible when it comes to gay rights (they'll quote Leviticus 18:22 -- stating that it's an abomination). Of course, you will fail to hear them claim anything like "What so ever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me." You'll never hear them talk about how Jesus said to love ALL people. Instead, you'll hear them HATE (and I mean hate) gay people, HATE people of other religions, ask why they need to give money to the poor, etc.. Why should they help someone else out and not just keep their money to themselves? Well...because the book that you claim to follow so dearly tells you to do exactly that!!!!

Obviously this isn't everyone out there but there are so many hypocrites that I think it's an embarrassment to Christianity. But then again, I believe the whole bible is full of contradictions, outdated ideas, and was written by men (who often had an agenda when they wrote the passages that they did). Don't get me wrong, I still think there are some excellent lessons that are taught, but after many years I can no longer agree that it is all the word of God.


P.S. I guess I never answered the topic directly but I haven't decided yet between voting for Obama or some 3rd party candidate. Whoever I vote for, it will not be Romney (or any other Republican candidate -- though it appears he has indeed locked up the nomination at this point).

I didn't open any door, I just pointed and said "Look a door!"

I was trying to demonstrate to A.Nonymous that his notion of a billionaire acquiring his/her wealth through "honest means" isn't an argument for someone paying their "fair share" if they do a lot of their dealings in shadow.

....but since you've gone ahead and kicked that door in I do find it a bit hypocritical of the religious right to vote for a party that encourages greed and claims to champion Darwinian style capitalism (granted, voting for the left wouldn't exactly align with their beliefs either). I say "claims to champion" because they don't care so much about a free capitalistic market, (as some people may be fooled to believe) but more about preserving the wealth of the special interests they serve.

 

[A.Nonymous]

True and depressing. I often wonder how many of them actually believe all the nonsense they spout. I know there are a few that are legitimate religious wing nuts, but I imagine there are more that just use religion as a political tool.

I wish I could disagree with you, but I can't. I think a lot of them wouldn't be nearly as religious if they weren't in public life.

 

[TxGoat]

Wal-Mart ensnared in Mexican bribery probe - Apr. 22, 2012

So much for "honest"....

 

[OutofDate1980]

As an atheist myself, honestly I don't care. I don't care what religion the candidate holds. What I'm more concerned about is how their religious beliefs may affect policy changes. Say what you will about what the founding fathers intended, religion and politics just don't mix.

Most "main stream" Christian religions do not believe LDS, a.ka. Mormans, are Christians.

 

[TxGoat]

It would be nice if religion was completely stripped from our political system. Religion seems to divide more than it unites. People twist it to suit their needs and to manipulate the masses. I personally find what religion a politician practices as helpful as what their favorite color is when it comes to doing their job. I've seen politicians that claim to be devout ________ (major publicly approved religion) only to find out that they've accepted bribes, cheated on their wives, or committed some other unethical act.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I think it would be nice if politicians were stripped from our political system. We've created a system that normal people don't want anything to do with. Thus we are left with a system run by the power hungry amongst us.

 

[cmybliss]

Most "main stream" Christian religions do not believe LDS, a.ka. Mormans, are Christians.

And they would be wrong. I was raised Mormon, and the majority of my family are practicing Mormons. I can unequivocally tell you that Mormons are Christians. They believe Christ was the son of God, that He was martyred for our sins, and that after 3 days, He rose from the dead.

Where they differ is in the belief that after His resurrection, Christ came to the New World and ministered to the people here. There are other small differences, and a few strange beliefs too, but nothing that would change the basic fact that they believe in Christ.

While I no longer identify myself as Mormon, it makes me angry when people with no understanding of the religion make theses claims. They forget the long bloody history of the Christian religion. They forget that every new faction was persecuted and railed against for not following the approved dogma. For that's all that makes the Christian factions different from one another, dogma. Talk about fragmentation!

 

[cmybliss]

I think it would be nice if politicians were stripped from our political system. We've created a system that normal people don't want anything to do with. Thus we are left with a system run by the power hungry amongst us.

The first bit made me laugh. The second bit made me sad. Nail on the head.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I confess that I'm completely down on the system to the point where I probably won't even vote this year for the first time in my life. I've lost any ideas I ever had that I could have any influence on the process at all. That goes for the local level as well.

I live in a solid red state. They'd vote for a head of lettuce if it had an R next to it's name. I see friends who are passionately pro-life and strongly support pro-life causes. Then they go out and vote for a pro-choice Republican just because the pro-life candidate he/she is running against happens to be a Democrat and it makes me want to cry. These are people I respect who are either selling out their most important beliefs in the name of a party or who can't be bothered to actually look at what candidates stand for because they're blinded by party politics. I don't know which is worse. I am 100% certain there are people in blue states who do the exact same thing for Democrats. Now I want to cry. And I'm just ranting. Someone tell me I'm wrong though. I really, really want to be proven wrong here. I miss the wild-eyed college freshman who thought he could change the world with the candidates he supported.

 

[FJR1300]

Nope, can't disagree...you're correct, the political system has been broken for a very long time and the only way to fix it is by revolution, either by force of all citizens or by a united citizenry that will vote in unison for what is best for us all. To me this means we vote out both parties and elect people with no party affiliation, that we know and trust to represent us and ignore the lobbyists and their money.

We need politicians whose primary goal is not to win re-election, but to really listen to what their constituents want and need.

 

[gamblor01]

I live in a solid red state. They'd vote for a head of lettuce if it had an R next to it's name..

This part made my smile...and then I was disturbed because that is probably true here in Texas (though not Austin, where I live). Sad how blinded people get by party lines but the politicians purposely polarized people like this because it helps get candidates from their party elected. And the more successful ones on "better" subcommittees, who get more donations are told by their party to raise money for the less successful ones to ensure that they win as well. It's all about the party and not logic.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... I can unequivocally tell you that Mormons are Christians....

Search on [Fill-In-Blank of a main stream religion] views on Mormonism.

I think the major difference in main stream religions views are they no longer murder LDS members or leaders.

 

[TxGoat]

I don't think Obama's campaign will attack Romney's religion. I'm guessing the percentage of voters that would have problems with Romney's Mormonism probably think Obama is a Muslim.

When you think about it, it's almost as if the GOP decided to clone a lighter shade of Obama as a candidate. Romney has Romney-care, is viewed more as centrist (by the GOP camp of course), and has suspicious religious ties.

I still think the GOP is going to have a hard time convincing the average U.S. citizen that they're not the party of the 1%, nor the party that wants to take away women's reproductive rights and gay/lesbian rights.

If the Democrats really want to keep the pressure on the GOP, they're going to have to start exposing GOP policies that are unfavorable with the majority of the U.S. population. I'm thinking the Warren Buffet rule vote was an attempt by the Democrats to excite their base and claim that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy despite the 99%. I can see other topics being addressed by the Democrats that will force the GOP to expose the issues the GOP stand for that are not favorable with the majority of the population (contraception, abortion, gay/lesbian rights, payroll tax --- if a long term solution hasn't already been made) before congress is due to leave session.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Why do I bother arguing with Paul fanboys? They are convinced that Paul is the ONLY candidate who could possibly beat Obama and the only reason people are not going to the polls and voting for him is because of a conspiracy involving the main stream media. I swear those guys are like cult members.

 

[TxGoat]

Why do I bother arguing with Paul fanboys? They are convinced that Paul is the ONLY candidate who could possibly beat Obama and the only reason people are not going to the polls and voting for him is because of a conspiracy involving the main stream media. I swear those guys are like cult members.

I think some people that have exptessed the same sentiments that you expressed earlier see him as anti-establishment and thus would like to see him get in. I think he's the 21st century version of Ross Perot where you want to welcome in new blood, but your senses kick in and tell you otherwise.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The fanboys on another forum I'm on are convinced that the main stream media is the only reason Paul isn't dominating. They claim his message is resonating with the masses and that the Republican base in general is a huge fan of his, but then they go to the polls and vote for someone else just because of the media. To them the fact that no one is voting for Paul has nothing to do with how much people like him and want him to win. It's maddening.