• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats are the party of the rich in Congress

Logicman said:
The fact is that redistribution of wealth is a self-serving liberal scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people's money, rather than exercising personal initiative and responsibility and earning it themselves. The lack of personal initiative and responsibility are hallmarks of the liberal left, which is why they want a government nanny to take care of them.

Jesus said a man should reap what he sows, not what other people sow. And I stand by the rest of what was in the article.
Click to expand...
Matthew 25: 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”​

Keep telling yourself that you're doing the work of Jesus by teaching the poor about personal initiative and responsibility.
 
Mithros said:
Matthew 25: 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”​

Keep telling yourself that you're doing the work of Jesus by teaching the poor about personal initiative and responsibility.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

First, it's documented that conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

Second, and to address your quote above, never once did Jesus say giving to the poor had to first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government.
 
Logicman said:
Strawman.

First, it's documented that conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

Second, and to address your quote above, never once did Jesus say giving to the poor had to first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government.
Click to expand...

Strawman? You said that Jesus didn't believe in handouts for the poor. I just quoted Matthew. But I"m sure your line of reasoning will be fine come judgement day.
 
Mithros said:
Strawman? You said that Jesus didn't believe in handouts for the poor. I just quoted Matthew. But I"m sure your line of reasoning will be fine come judgement day.
Click to expand...

The Strawman was your thinking that the scripture in question supported the idea that charity to the poor had to first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government.
 
Mithros said:
Keep telling yourself that you're doing the work of Jesus by teaching the poor about personal initiative and responsibility.
Click to expand...

Quite right. We wouldn't want the poor to have initiative or any responsibilities. Jesus said so.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps the reason is that most Democrats are lawyers, which is also why there has not been any tort reform. John Edwards is a great example.
Click to expand...

Well, I have yet to see a "poor" politician. How about you?
 
It's no wonder.

If they're basing their theory on districts it's because Democratic areas are more appealing. San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York are more desirable places to live than rural Mississippi or South Carolina.
 
Konig said:
Lean: Socialist

Bookmarked for reference for the next time liberals are accused of being socialists and claim that they never identify as such and that the connection exists solely as a rhetorical ploy by conservatives.
Click to expand...

If you support the US military, Social Security or Medicare you support socialism.
 
Logicman said:
The fact is that redistribution of wealth is a self-serving liberal scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people's money, rather than exercising personal initiative and responsibility and earning it themselves. The lack of personal initiative and responsibility are hallmarks of the liberal left, which is why they want a government nanny to take care of them.

Jesus said a man should reap what he sows, not what other people sow. And I stand by the rest of what was in the article.
Click to expand...

This is priceless especially coming from someone whose moniker is 'Logicman' of all things.

Lets analyze the argument structure here:

the greed portion:
1. Democratic districts are typically richer.
2. Democrats typically attempt to raise taxes on the rich (themselves) to pay for welfare services (redistribution of wealth)
3. Therefore Democrats are greedy and self-serving

ergo by you're logic, 'Logicman':

The democrats are taxing themselves more to provide people other than themselves with assistance and are therefore somehow greedy and self-serving.

The logic doesn't follow and your moniker is woefully misplaced.

The logical conclusion of these two statements together negates the idea that this is either self-serving or greedy as they are willingly giving more of their own money (not greedy) to people other than themselves (as they're aren't the recipients of said money).

As for the 'covetousness of other people's money':

This is merely projection on the part of those people who habitually whine about having to actually contribute to and/or assist the society in which we live. The lack of personal initiative is a trait actually held by those that would rather do nothing about the poverty issue as opposed to those that are actually attempting something by trying to provide some form of economic stability to those in need. The mere idea of what you call redistribution of wealth (welfare services) is more about sustainable systems than anything else, welfare essential (from a macroeconomic level) is actually business welfare as those that receive it aren't hoarding it but spending it at local businesses thus providing economic activity where it wouldn't otherwise exist. This actually allows those industrious individuals who are attempting to take personal initiative by providing services to their communities to provide those services and hopefully thrive as well as providing basic nessesities to needy individuals. The vast majority of the poor grew up that way, basically without sufficient access to the resources that typically aids in successful assimilation into effective socio-economic activity. Welfare helps to alleviate that burden and attempts to provide the economic stability necessary to do such activities as attending college, trade schools or even perhaps taking that much acclaimed personal initiative and starting their own businesses which people like you claim to laud so fervently. The basic response of those that oppose this idea: 'Do nothing and let those without the ability to acquire the necessary resources fend for themselves'. If we were talking in terms of health care this basically amounts to: 'If you get sick suck it up no one is going help you.' Oddly enough the very same people are currently saying this as well. Ironically these people tend to claim to be Christian as well. Hell, I am an atheist and I am more Christian than those of you that belittle the poor are.

HINT: Your 'covetousness other people's money' is observed both by your desire to take more from the economy than you put in (typical business model) and your desire to attain the financial status of others rather than to only attain only that which you actually need. No system is sustainable if the idea is to take out more than one contributes. Every single 'Law of Nature' exemplifies the fact that systems set up like this (our economic model) cannot sustain themselves indefinitely and will eventually implode.

Essentially:

Greed is a desire to hold onto disposable income rather than to provide necessities those in need.
Self service is prioritizing one's own desires over the needs of others.
Personal initiative is actually taking action on recognized problems as opposed to doing nothing about them. (There can definitely be a discussion on what the appropriate action could be but currently there is only one side trying to take action.)
Responsibility is recognizing that we all need to work together and sometimes do things we don't want to do but have the ability to do.

In short sir, you have drank way too much of the cool aid that suits your desire for any sort of rationalization of your own faults. People like you are selfish, greedy, lazy, and irresponsible. I for one am glad that people like you are a dying breed and that the current trend shows that generations are becoming more liberal and that your kind will eventually cease to exist.
 
Swit said:
This is priceless especially coming from someone whose moniker is 'Logicman' of all things.

Lets analyze the argument structure here:

the greed portion:
1. Democratic districts are typically richer.
2. Democrats typically attempt to raise taxes on the rich (themselves) to pay for welfare services (redistribution of wealth)
3. Therefore Democrats are greedy and self-serving

ergo by you're logic, 'Logicman':

The democrats are taxing themselves more to provide people other than themselves with assistance and are therefore somehow greedy and self-serving.

The logic doesn't follow and your moniker is woefully misplaced.

The logical conclusion of these two statements together negates the idea that this is either self-serving or greedy as they are willingly giving more of their own money (not greedy) to people other than themselves (as they're aren't the recipients of said money).

As for the 'covetousness of other people's money':

This is merely projection on the part of those people who habitually whine about having to actually contribute to and/or assist the society in which we live. The lack of personal initiative is a trait actually held by those that would rather do nothing about the poverty issue as opposed to those that are actually attempting something by trying to provide some form of economic stability to those in need. The mere idea of what you call redistribution of wealth (welfare services) is more about sustainable systems than anything else, welfare essential (from a macroeconomic level) is actually business welfare as those that receive it aren't hoarding it but spending it at local businesses thus providing economic activity where it wouldn't otherwise exist. This actually allows those industrious individuals who are attempting to take personal initiative by providing services to their communities to provide those services and hopefully thrive as well as providing basic nessesities to needy individuals. The vast majority of the poor grew up that way, basically without sufficient access to the resources that typically aids in successful assimilation into effective socio-economic activity. Welfare helps to alleviate that burden and attempts to provide the economic stability necessary to do such activities as attending college, trade schools or even perhaps taking that much acclaimed personal initiative and starting their own businesses which people like you claim to laud so fervently. The basic response of those that oppose this idea: 'Do nothing and let those without the ability to acquire the necessary resources fend for themselves'. If we were talking in terms of health care this basically amounts to: 'If you get sick suck it up no one is going help you.' Oddly enough the very same people are currently saying this as well. Ironically these people tend to claim to be Christian as well. Hell, I am an atheist and I am more Christian than those of you that belittle the poor are.

HINT: Your 'covetousness other people's money' is observed both by your desire to take more from the economy than you put in (typical business model) and your desire to attain the financial status of others rather than to only attain only that which you actually need. No system is sustainable if the idea is to take out more than one contributes. Every single 'Law of Nature' exemplifies the fact that systems set up like this (our economic model) cannot sustain themselves indefinitely and will eventually implode.

Essentially:

Greed is a desire to hold onto disposable income rather than to provide necessities those in need.
Self service is prioritizing one's own desires over the needs of others.
Personal initiative is actually taking action on recognized problems as opposed to doing nothing about them. (There can definitely be a discussion on what the appropriate action could be but currently there is only one side trying to take action.)
Responsibility is recognizing that we all need to work together and sometimes do things we don't want to do but have the ability to do.

In short sir, you have drank way too much of the cool aid that suits your desire for any sort of rationalization of your own faults. People like you are selfish, greedy, lazy, and irresponsible. I for one am glad that people like you are a dying breed and that the current trend shows that generations are becoming more liberal and that your kind will eventually cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's you who's drinking the Kool Aid. As I've stated before conservatives give more to charity than do liberals. Plus they pay their taxes, etc. So if the conservatives want to hold on to the REST OF THEIR MONEY for whatever purpose, then it's no stinking business of the liberal left loons who year in and year out want more and more of their money.

Why don't you liberals all go in together and give all the money you want and leave the rest of us alone?

As for greed, who do you think votes for the liberal redistribution of wealth leaders? People who want free or cheap stuff. Greedy people. People who want a free education that they don't want to pay for themselves. People who want free or subsidized healthcare; who want food stamps, free condoms, and all the other cradle to grave entitlements. And I have no doubt that if they could vote to get other people's money they'd do that too.

So enjoy your Kool Aid.
 
Logicman said:
Nope, it's you who's drinking the Kool Aid. As I've stated before conservatives give more to charity than do liberals. Plus they pay their taxes, etc. So if the conservatives want to hold on to the REST OF THEIR MONEY for whatever purpose, then it's no stinking business of the liberal left loons who year in and year out want more and more of their money.

Why don't you liberals all go in together and give all the money you want and leave the rest of us alone?

As for greed, who do you think votes for the liberal redistribution of wealth leaders? People who want free or cheap stuff. Greedy people. People who want a free education that they don't want to pay for themselves. People who want free or subsidized healthcare; who want food stamps, free condoms, and all the other cradle to grave entitlements. And I have no doubt that if they could vote to get other people's money they'd do that too.

So enjoy your Kool Aid.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll bite.

Would you care to define Greed, Self service, Personal Initiative, and Responsibility in your own words? And could you please explain how your position doesn't exemplify greed, selfishness, laziness, and irresponsibility?
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
Okay. I'll bite.

Would you care to define Greed, Self service, Personal Initiative, and Responsibility in your own words? And could you please explain how your position doesn't exemplify greed, selfishness, laziness, and irresponsibility?
Click to expand...

It's easy to see why the large majority of the left are lawyers. They even had to ask the definition of "is".
 
Swit said:
Okay. I'll bite.

Would you care to define Greed, Self service, Personal Initiative, and Responsibility in your own words? And could you please explain how your position doesn't exemplify greed, selfishness, laziness, and irresponsibility?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to spend a half hour on that nonsense. I'll just leave you with this, which exemplifies your party:

Ineptocracy.jpg
 
Swit said:
yeah figured you wouldn't be able to. No original thoughts on the issue, no insights. Just a music box for noise machine set on loop.
Click to expand...

I can define all those terms but I'm not going to jump through your self-serving hoops and spend a half hour to an hour appeasing your folly. Liberalism doesn't work. And one of the reasons it doesn't work is their lack of godly wisdom and godly values.
 
Grant said:
It's easy to see why the large majority of the left are lawyers. They even had to ask the definition of "is".
Click to expand...

where the heck does this statistic come from? A large majority of the left are lawyers? How do you figure? Given the population of the U.S. and generally accepted ratio of right/center/left, and ignoring the 'large' modifier the left would have to have somewhere in the vicinity of 50 million lawyers. only metric I have been able come up with was a harvard law research report which estimates about 2 millions lawyers in the U.S in total. report

I mean you really have to have a brain the size of a peanut to have either bought into this or come up with it.
 
Swit said:
where the heck does this statistic come from? A large majority of the left are lawyers? How do you figure? Given the population of the U.S. and generally accepted ratio of right/center/left, and ignoring the 'large' modifier the left would have to have somewhere in the vicinity of 50 million lawyers. only metric I have been able come up with was a harvard law research report which estimates about 2 millions lawyers in the U.S in total. report

I mean you really have to have a brain the size of a peanut to have either bought into this or come up with it.
Click to expand...

Why not do more research on the subject before you make a post or use schoolyard taunts?

Articles: The Lawyers' Party

Kim Strassel: Trial Lawyers Mobilize for Democrats - WSJ.com

All you need do is Google and you'll get more that 8 million hits!
 
Kreton said:
Lol like there is a difference. Congress works for the rich. D or R doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

It seems to matter a great deal. Democrats prefer Ivy League lawyers rather than working class people and there is ample evidence of that..
 
Grant said:
It seems to matter a great deal. Democrats prefer Ivy League lawyers rather than working class people and there is ample evidence of that..
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that both parties are working for the rich. To condemn one party while ignoring the other who is doing the same thing seems kind of silly.
 
AJiveMan said:
Democrats are the party of the rich in Congress | Early & Often

So, people thought that republicans of congress, and that republicans in general were wealthy, not so, according to this report.
Click to expand...

Nobody would mistake the average Republican with being wealthy. They come from red states, which with key exceptions are economically under developed relative to blue states.

The article is empty rhetoric. Fiscal policies that benefit the country's largest industries are mostly region neutral. It doesn't matter where you come from, or in most cases which party you are in, because lobbyists buy their political connections by the bundle, through their influence on one or both of the two major parties. Rarely by the individual politician.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom