Romney's wealth - sinful?

There is no sin in wealth. But it is a sin to use the wealth in the way Obama's using it.

It would be nice if the big O would use his own wealth instead of ours for a change.

Personal wealth is fine. Who cares. But don't tell me you know my life when you don't have to juggle which bill to pay or where the next job is going to come from when your wealth is built on shipping jobs overseas.

Been there, Kiddo. Keep on trucking and hopefully in the next few months things will change for you.

Thanks so much...

I really don't care if one is wealthy or not... I meant and worked for a few millionaires... and as crazy as all of them have been, I've found none to be too sinful... LOL

I think you're on the right track there. Bad apples everywhere, not just the wealthy.

Giving to charity is just another way to avoid paying taxes. He's a crook. I'm not sure about sinful, but I guess he is, because greed is a sin and he's definitely greedy.

I wouldn't consider giving away the fortune left him by his father or giving 20 percent of his income as being greedy or a crook. Just saying...

He would have to hand it over anyway, only now he gets to look like he's a good person because he gave it to charity instead of paying his taxes.

He would not have to hand it over anyway. Where did you get that crazy idea? And he was under no obligation at all to give away the money his father left to him. By your reasoning, I take it that if you give to charity you do it because you'd have to fork it over anyway and it makes you look like a good guy and you don't have to pay it towards your taxes. Hello, Romney, Jr., Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mr. Obama, and hundreds and hundreds of others. Or maybe you don't give to charity so that you won't look like you're a good person and so you won't be able to write anything off on your taxes. Whatever works for you...

Actually, I don't give to charity because I know it will probably end up in the wrong hands anyway. Instead, I plan to go to the Horn of Africa myself someday to help the needy by building homes for them with my own hands.

Well, that's a lofty goal; however, what about the people around you in your community that could use some charity? How about the Salvation Army if you're concerned about too much of your dollar going to pay expenses and not enough going to the people. Salvation Army gives something like 95, 97 cents of every dollar I think to whatever "charity" they are helping. Why wait for some day? If you can't afford the dollars, and I know there are a lot of people today who can't afford to give up a dime, how about helping out somewhere with your talents, your strong arms, you back, your time, your intellect? I'm sure your community could use you somewhere and you could be contributing here while waiting to go to Africa to help them out.

Let's see a reputable source for your claims.

Check out the Salvation Army site.

There is nothing on the Salvation Army site about Romney giving them any money.

Why lie?

I never said Romney gave them any money. Go back and read the post. I do not lie, it's bad for one's health. I did, however, learn how to read and understand what is written. You might try that sometime.

Why did you want me to "Check out the Salvation Army site?"

What was the point?

"Well, that's a lofty goal; however, what about the people around you in your community that could use some charity? How about the Salvation Army if you're concerned about too much of your dollar going to pay expenses and not enough going to the people. Salvation Army gives something like 95, 97 cents of every dollar I think to whatever "charity" they are helping." This was in response to Syl and something she/he said.
You "Let's see a reputable source for your claims."
I told you to check out Salvation Army. I thought you were asking about my claim that they give, I don't remember, 95, 96, 97 cents out of every dollar to the person/group they are helping. You put Romney into the equation. My post to Syl had nothing to do with Romney. Syl is wanting to get the money together to go to Africa. Told her she could help out some here while getting money together to go there.
Am assuming that you just did a quick read here on the posts, otherwise I'm sure you would have understood what was going on.

Didn't you know? Only Democrats (and the more leftist the better) are allowed to be filthy rich without coming under attack for their money.

That sounds right to me. We're "mean" when rich and they're "good and kind" when they're rich. Another double standard.

What are you talking about.

You're mean when you're mean.

Double standard.

You mean like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two richest men in America who have given mulitple BILLIONS to various charities?

What's so filthy about that?

Not only that, but both men recognize the fact that they and other one percenters should rightfully be paying much more in Federal taxes.

Neither one are evil, nasty, greedy Right Wing types.

That's the difference.

Get it yet???

Warren Buffet, don't know about how much he gives away or has given away. Bill Gates wasn't giving anything until it was found out that he wasn't and he was shamed into giving. And who said anything about filthy giving? I didn't. You're the one trying to make a case against Romney because he gives a lot to charity not me. And, youngen' I'm pretty much through with you because your tone of "voice" is nasty and you can't "converse" without name-calling. So go be angry and nasty and call names with someone else.

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about.

. . . Ever heard of the Gates Foundation?

Look it up.

I don't have to. Gates took a big hit, geesh, in the late '80s, '90s because he wasn't giving to charity or not enough for what he was making. Since then he has been a big giver. Go away.

Do you have any sources to back up your claim?

Or is it something you just made up?

Why do Right Wingers feel so offended when asked to prove their claims?

I think i know. it's because they are embarrassed and ashamed that their claims can't be proven.

That's what happens when people just make stuff up.

No one feels offended. A source? Not right offhand. It was on the news years ago. Sorry. And why do left wringers always feel the need to swear and call names rather than converse? I think I know, it's because they are embarrassed and ashamed that their claims can't be proven and are questioned. That's what happens when people just make stuff up. Now, please, go away. You are becoming incredibly annoying. You want only to be obnoxious and you're doing a good job of it. You and I will never see eye to eye on politics so this is pointless and a waste of time for both of us.

You have found your comfort zone as an extremist. And it annoys extremists when good sense imposes itself.

I let you know that your position is untenable, and you resent it.

Too Bad . . . Facts are facts even if they are not compatible with your prejudices.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Dear God in Heaven, you are one big pain in the neck. Where did you get the stupid idea I was an extremist? Or is an extremist to you anyone who holds a view different than your own? Now, I have answered all your dumb attacks. I have told you we are never going to agree on politics and have asked you to move on. Once again, and nicely again, by the way, please move on. We will never, ever agree. That's okay, people are allowed to disagree. And the world would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything. So, Kiddo, have a good day, a good weekend, and a good week next week. Bye.

Any "one percentager" is welcome to give more in taxes than they owe at any time. There is a spot right on the tax return for people to check who want to give more. When Warren Buffet, et al., start voluntarily giving the amount they tell us is a millionaire and billionaires "fair share", I'll listen them them.

Works for me. I'd like to get to the spot where I pay the capital gains tax and not the tax on my income. I think life would be a lot easier for everyone if we all, poor, rich, and in between, paid just 15 percent.

Since when is being prosperous a sin? What? Are you serious? In the Land of Opportunity it is now sinful to amass wealth? I guess the Roosevelts and the Aristocrats who founded this country were sinful too? This is an absurd thought and name a politician who is not wealthy, Obama is wealthy too as are the Bush's, the Clintons, Reagan was not poor - none of them are coonsidered poor!

Hold on, I wasn't making a statement. All this came up a while back, all the talking heads were, and still are, down on Romney because he's rich, and using it to somehow foster the notion that he can't be a good pres because of it. So thought I'd post the question and see what kind of responses I received. I agree with you, his wealth means nothing in the political spectrum. What meant more to me awhile back was a man who voted present to more votes than not so he couldn't be caught in anything that be unfavorable, and a man who wanted to fundamentally change my country, and a man who had no kind of background whatsoever to qualify him for president. And as for wealthy politicians, if they aren't wealthy when they get there, they stick around long enough to become wealthy, don't they?

I understood the question it is the whole idea that wealthy is somehow sinful. I wasn't upset with you it is this whole notion somehow and I agree with you 100% they are all wealthy, but somehow the idea that because Romney is wealthy there is some sin to it makes me so angry what has our country come to? We all strive to do and be the best we can and to be as successful as we can and yes to earn money. Somehow that being sinful just hits me in my nerve center as wrong in this country!!! But please if you thought I was upset with you I am not at all it is just this idea that really hits me wrong. I also agree about the moron we have in there now who never even ran a snowball stand being considered able to runn this country and we all see where that got us.

I couldn't agree with you more. The idea that one can be successful is somehow wrong just doesn't sit right. We all understand there are rich jerks, but there are also middle-income jerks, low-income jerks and, yes, poor jerks. It has nothing to do with the money, does it? Just the kind of person you choose to be. :)

But really would we want someone in there who was unsuccessful? Obama fooled this country once but I just don't think he can bamboozle this country a second time. Before we yelled he has no experience now we can say but look at what he has done!!! A failure is not someone anyone with a brain votes for!!!

I agree, but he's the incumbent and he's also going to get a lot of votes from his base, not to mention those he's put on the dole since he came into office. And now he's come up with a deal where you can say you're going to create your own small business and get another nine months, I believe it is, of cash to keep you going. How can Romney fight against that? He can't. He can't be against people trying to start up their own businesses and put people to work. And we, the taxpayers, are once again out of dough, and dough with no discernible method of tracking.

I am not so sure his base will come out like they did in 2008. Really I think there is little enthusiasm on the mainstreet to support him.