Are Conservative Values Inconsistent With Being a Christian?

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Possibly the only example of bi-partisanship during the Clinton administration, it was not, as some seem to believe, the creation of conservatives. The ideas contained therein were first presented by the Clinton campaign as a way "to end welfare as we know it." but viewers of Fox are seldom as exposed to history so the belief that it is a conservative invention can be forgiven as ignorance.
It is a fishing pole. The Democrats wanted to give more to the states in implementation funds but the GOP, as is their wont, tried to foist the whole cost onto the states, the sort of a fishing pole that is used to shove the boat full of welfare receiptiants away from the dock without giving them any oars (Education, training, health care insurance protection). Clinton did his best to achieve a middle ground, he must have because the left blasted him as loudly as the right.

School vouchers: hmmm, haven't heard too much about that little scam lately. Last I heard the GOP was asking Mr. Rove to think of another name to call them instead of the Resegregation Opportunity Act Vouchers. Are blacks still in favor? I'll have to look into that, meanwhile Bloomburg reforms the schools of New York City without a single mention of them from either himself or Gov. Pataki. Those crazy Republicans, they aren't even using 'the no child left behind ' arguments. Maybe they have come to believe that education is more than testing, that's what those extra rich union teachers who apparently have enough spare cash to fund opposition campaigns but not enough to raise their families, think.

Joe

sozobe said--
In terms of tax cuts, the conservative position seems to be, "Don't take my money from me to use it to help others -- I will make my own decisions about helping others." But then if the decision is to not help others...?
-------------------
sozobe-- The govt is taking money from people WHO NEED HELP THEMSELVES. Let them keep their own money and pay for their own insurance with it. Most uninsured are the working (and taxpaying) poor. The unemployed have Caid/Care. The tax break will help those struggling employed people afford their own insurance. They will still pay some taxes, but can get a credit for 90% of the cost of their family's insurance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wealth of assistance Christian charities distribute to the needy speaks to the issue of whether or not Christians, as a group, help others. The fact that they do so with great success is why Bush thought he should help out a system that is working so well.

Definitely, a Christian motive... the intent of the Faith-based initiative is another Christian value-based policy, whether it ever sees the light of day, or works, beside the point...

Joe said--
Drug companies are charging too much for their products as you said, but Conservatives can't, or won't, do anything about that because that would be anti-business and when it comes down to being pro-healthcare or pro-business the right picks pro-business. Not because they are bad people, they really think that by giving more power to the powerful, the powerful will then share.

If you are waiting on the powerful (business) to share, no wonder you're miffed. Our economy is based on Capitalism--no matter how some try to change that. This means we are reliant on the success of business. If businesses are successful, the people of this country can 1) Do well as business owners, or employees of strong companies. 2) Invest in companies, and profit. Repub policies are predicated on these beliefs. Strengthen business, hence strengthen America--citizen by citizen.

The Dem policies--moving money from the taxpayer to the government to the citizen-- IMO is in the end, more damaging to the taxpayer, the govt and the citizen... The small picture and short-sighted approach is to give the money directly to those, who can't seem to make it. The long-term solution, IMO, is to create an environment to enable people to take care of themselves. It is a given there are a small core percentage of unemployable people-- They are taken care of--

If you want to see how your preferred policies are working--take a look across the pond. Europe has the social policies you seem to prefer. I think they are on the cusp of some serious financial problems. They also have no military to speak of. These may be acceptable trade-offs for you-- I prefer our economy, our way of life. I believe if you keep handing out money, and enlarging the group who recieves these hand out, and bleed businesses for more and more concessions to help pay the people on the dole-- business will suffer-- business will be unable to employ-- creating larger rolls on the dole-- economic collapse. Where will you get your dole money, then?

I am interested to follow Europe. Their failures or successes are good lessons for us when we lean toward universal healthcare. Who wouldn't want it, if we thought it could work without bankrupting us... I strongly believe we cannot keep it solvent for long, and it would ruin us.

edit: spelling, grammatical errors, clarifications...

Sofia:

But there's also a lot of organization by PFAW and NAACP to show how vouchers will, like may "conservative" ideas only help a FEW.

I had plans for a series of articles on this issue for a page called "The Religious Liberty Network" (a blog dedicated to monitoring fundys!)


Maybe for Pentecost. . . .

Why Blacks Support Vouchers

By MICHAEL LEO OWENS

ATLANTA -- Urban black America favors school vouchers, but its leaders don't. Vouchers transfer authority over the use of a portion of government education funds from bureaucrats to parents, who then may use their grants to send their children to the schools, secular or religious, they believe will best educate their kids.

But we must be honest. If the Supreme Court rules in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the Cleveland voucher program is constitutional, the decision will help some families, but it will not expand the educational opportunities of all black children. Even so, such a result is likely to increase black support for vouchers. It will also show how far out of touch the black governmental class is with its black constituency.

A 1999 survey by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research group, found that 68 percent of blacks favor vouchers. A similar poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, showed that the percentage of blacks supporting school vouchers rose to 60 percent in 1999 from 48 percent in 1996.

Support is particularly strong among people in my age group, those between 26 and 35. And support exists broadly among women and men, liberals and conservatives, the poor and the prosperous.
----------------
I'll edit with the link later. Fuhgot aboud dit.

Paul Krugman Op-Ed, full text here:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/041703E.shtml

There are numerous sources that show that the proposed tax cut will disproportionately benefit rich people. Can dredge those up (was looking for that, in a Krugman column, when I found the above.)

sozobe--or anybody, I guess--
Still with generalities of mean-spirited tax cuts.
Do you know of any specific programs that are slated to be cut, which evidence mean-spiritedness?

I think alot of spin has ingrained the idea of 'cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor', but no one ever comes up with specifics.

(I hate asking. Now, I will have to be trawling around in the actual proposal, which is not my idea of enjoyable, Sunday afternoon reading-- but it is a good plan, IMO.)

Veterans scored a big win this week when Congressional Democrats and Republicans, in a show of support for our veterans, told Bush "no way" to his proposed $21 Billion cut in Veterans benefits. The budget amendment doesn't restore the entire amount the Bush budget cut from the VA, but it does restore $14.6 billion in veterans benefits. Those benefits will be primarily for disability and education.
This budget amendment was made possible by a reduction in Mr. Bush's "economic stimulus package," better known as the "no millionaire left behind" plan. The White House wanted $726 billion in tax cuts that would benefit primarily the wealthiest 1% of Americans. The Senate, however, cut that down to $350 billion. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said: " "I think what most senators are concerned about is the magnitude of the tax cut given the magnitude of the debt." Other Senators expressed concern over the wisdom of such large tax cut for such a small portion of the population when the costs of a war were running so high.

There were some hard-right Senators, like Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) who expressed doubts. Sen. Grassley said: "It's got nothing to do with the war. The people defeating it want to spend money. They ain't worried about paying for the war. They ain't worried about the deficit." Grow up, Senator. This isn't the 6th grade playground. You are in Government on the Federal level, you should be doing what's best for the country not just the richest 1%.

Once out of the Senate the budget went to a joint House-Senate budget committee where the veterans benefits were restored. Also restored to the budget were:




$94 billion cuts to Medicaid.
$2 billion cuts to State Children's Health Insurance Programs.
$62 billion to Medicare programs.

$9.4 billion cuts to education, school lunches, and student loans.

$61.5 billion cuts in aid to working families and the disabled, specifically, Unemployment Insurance and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

$18.6 billion cuts to agriculture programs that help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities and Food Stamps that help low-income families.

This is the kind of stuff that irritates me to no end. I read the Bush plan, and some of the very things you say were destined to be cut by Bush, are included in his budget, and some are scheduled for increases.

I don't know how sources get away with all the conflicting facts.

Take the VA. I heard Bush was going to make a cut. I was furious. Then, I saw where this was refuted and the numbers shared by several sources--AND Bush's budget. People are playing fast and loose with the facts. Wouldn't Bush's actual budget be the accurate source? I don't pretend to know the truth about all these items, but I am going to try to find out.

Sofia:

http://www.pva.org/NEWPVASITE/newsroom/PR2003/pr03018.htm

http://www.legion.org/pub_relations/2003_releases/pr_nr_031703_budgetcuts.htm

Excerpt from the second:

Vermont Congressional Delegation
Asks President To Reverse
New Cutoff Of VA Health Benefits

(Thur., Jan. 23) - The Vermont Congressional Delegation Thursday asked President Bush to reverse a recent Administration decision to cut off almost 164,000 veterans across the nation from the veterans health care system.(Oh! That's sounds terrible....)

The decision, announced last week by the Department of Veterans Affairs, bars further enrollment of so-called Category 8 veterans, which the VA defines as "high-income" veterans without any service-connected health conditions. (Oh, that doesn't sound so terrible. It's the rich veterans AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM, accepting money from the VA, when they are travelling the world and driving caddies... THEY DON'T NEED IT!!! My Father in law served admirably, was shot 5 x, but was healthy enough to become a very successful atty. He gets a couple thou from the VA monthly-- and it is chump change to him.)

VA's action came after veterans hospitals across the country have experienced difficulty handling an influx of veterans in recent years and after repeated steps by the Administration over the last two years to block adequate VA funding increases.

In their Jan. 23, 2003, letter, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Jim Jeffords and Representative Bernie Sanders denounce the cutoff and ask the President to reverse it on several grounds. They point out that the Administration failed to explore alternative ways to provide care for all veterans, including adequate VA funding and innovative reimbursement methods through Medicare. The White House has killed funding increases for VA over the last two years. The Vermont delegation members said that many veterans who fall into the VA's "high-income"category are actually not wealthy and would be hard-pressed to afford health insurance on their own. They also cite particular concern about the removal of this part of the health insurance safety net during the current economic downturn.

Leahy, Jeffords and Sanders ask the President to support adequate funding for veterans' health care and to explore innovative arrangements for covering the care of all veterans.

# # # # #
If this is the VA cut, is doesn't affect the average Joe. I thought liberals liked stickin in to the rich...

I looked for more info (cite?) and that seems to be something else, something that happened in January and is not about the proposed budget cuts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/860397.asp

that was prior to the current Bush budget tax cut proposal.

Sofia:

But what if they had the FACTS.

http://www.everychildcounts.org/

Also, remeber--private schools can "Filter Out" students, and I'm sure there are limits to how many students these schools can accept.

Why do I see a three-tiered system coming from any kind of wide-spread voucher plan.

And where were all these conservatives when these COMMUNITIES that these schools were in were losing capital?

If I am not mistaken, the category 8 Verterans are defined as "high-income" if their total income (not just earnings) comes to $14,000 per year or higher.

I'm pretty sure that was the figure quoted -- but I am willing to be corrected. It may be as high as $15,000.

In any case, hardly the kind of stuff that would be described as "rich" or "world travellers" or "driving Cadillacs."

Sophia: I feel for you, I really do, trying to figure out what is being proposed for cuts, and by whom, especially this year. The administration is doing their best to make it seem like what they are proposing will stimulate the economy, but most economists, even at the WSJ are beginning to see a recovery with or WITHOUT the second set of tax cuts. (See Greenspan's most recent comments.) So whattya gunna do?

When you posted that thing about Bush proposing the tax credit for Medical Insurance I almost cried, I did, I almost cried, because I think they have you believing the crap they put out is real. They are proposing these tax credits at the same time as they are meat-axing health benefits
to the children of the very poor. I don't use the term mean spirited, but how do you describe such a cut. Reasoned and deliberate? At the same time as they now announce they have restarted production of plutonium at a cost of 6 billion dollars a year.

Since we are trying to reference Christian principles here I offer this:
]"Whatsoever you do unto the least of these you have done unto me".

I have always tried to keep up with current policies and programs-- and have found it hard to keep up lately. Proposals are on top of proposals, and an increase here may be due to a decrease there-- You almost have to be a rocket scientist to keep it straight.

I don't trust either side, and feel the need to verify everything before making a judgement.

Can you tell me exactly what portion of the children's program is said to be destined for a cut?

Frank-- Checking out the definition of Section 8....

Agree with ehBeth re: What is the evidence that conservatives show us to how to fish? The first part is true--they tend to be against supplying the fish. But the next step tends to be a tax cut for the boat owners...

I understand where you are coming from in this comment, Sofia, but if I may (and of course, I may) I would like to offer another perspective on "welfare reform."

While you may see it as "teaching people to fish" -- some of us see it (especially as originally proposed) as suggesting that we kick unfortunates in the ass hard and often -- and eventually the kicking will somehow convince them (and the rest of us) that the poor cause themselves to be poor -- that the poor are to blame for poverty.

In any case, I'm not sure you will want to handle my follow-up question for reasons which, I think, will be obvious:

Just what, Sofia, did Jesus ever say that would cause you to suppose he would want people to withhold of their charity toward the poor until it was established beyond a doubt that no one not truly deserving gets a bit of it?

Do you suppose, from what you've read of the teachings of Jesus, that he would be more inclined to err on the side of providing help for those who need it even if a few freeloaders managed to take advantage -- or more inclined to err on the side of safety against any freeloaders, even if it meant leaving some truly deserving people without the help they need?

Frank i do believe that same premise might apply to the Bush favored use of capitol punishment as is 'so what if some innocent get fried as long as some guilty get burned'

Right you are, cys.