General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRomney's Giant Blunder
...
For conservative Christian groups that work with the poor, federal anti-poverty efforts are seen as a way of secularizing the poor, just as federal education standards are seen as taking God out of education. This battle has been at the heart of the conservative movement since it started to take shape in the 1950's. It's why you see such a growth in home-schoolers today. And it's part of why secular anti-poverty groups like ACORN come under such withering attack.
...
The GOP is an uneasy alliance between people who are tax-averse because of their high incomes and people who are government-averse because of the competition government provides to their faith-traditions. But the result of this alliance is that poor people overwhelmingly support the Democrats. And that makes Republicans care even less about using the government to help the poor than would otherwise be the case. They don't want to do it anyway, but they won't get any credit for it even if they do.
So, the idea becomes to disavow government efforts to help the poor, even to the point of denying people the unemployment insurance they paid for. All government assistance is suspect and likely counterproductive. And Mitt Romney stepped all over that by suggesting that the country's social welfare programs are just fine the way they are. He missed the point. It's okay to not want to offer any government assistance to the poor, but it's not okay to say that you don't give a shit about the poor because they're doing just fine. It's okay to say that you want to focus on the middle class, but not okay to say that federal welfare programs are working great.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/2/2/105012/8652
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Anyway, here's mine.
I stopped reading this when I hit this line:
"..and with trying to save troubled people's souls by offering them unconditional forgiveness and a second chance through the grace of their Savior, Jesus Christ."
I want my politics and their religion completely separated. Period. Always. Forever.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)he simultaneously upset liberals (for all the reasons we know and love) and also conservatives because he framed his argument in a way that implied that the social safety net was working, and (worse) that he'd "fix" it if it was broken. As opposed to saying he'd dismantle it, I assume.
This is the thesis of the OP -- there's obviously not just one way of assessing such things.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Initiatives.
Tax exempt organizations are allowed to control TAX FINANCED resources. Though I find that kind of creepy, really, too circular for me (creating jobs out of public money, the purpose of which jobs is to create jobs out of public money), the remedy could be in public accountability and public standards that mitigate Faith Based/Tax-Exempt CONTROL. However, any tax exempt organization that is FAITH-based can drill holes in those accountability processes and public standards, can't they?