Bitter ?

[Woody]

Have any of you noticed that the Demo race for president is getting a little "bitter" ?

He thinks that Christians are 'bitter' ... but does he think these 'bitter' voters will actually vote for him?

[Amelia]

Can you say "politics forum"? Yes, I knew you could.

[Woody]

Are you one of those 'bitter' Christians that Obama talks about?

IF so ... who are you voting for?

[cricket]

22So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

23And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.

24And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?

Whether a man or woman calls thee bitter, if thou are bitter and call thyself a Christian, what water then do thou offer to others who are in need of a drink of the living water?

Be ye in Christ and give us this water that we may live! Be not of the bitter kind spreading rumors and contention among the brethren. Rather, drink up of the well-spring of life and share it with others, blessing them even as ye are blessed!

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Exodus 15: 22-24

22So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

23And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.

24And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?

Whether a man or woman calls thee bitter, if thou are bitter and call thyself a Christian, what water then do thou offer to others who are in need of a drink of the living water?

Be ye in Christ and give us this water that we may live! Be not of the bitter kind spreading rumors and contention among the brethren. Rather, drink up of the well-spring of life and share it with others, blessing them even as ye are blessed!

Do I understand correctly then that you agree with Obama that Christians are 'bitter'?

[Bravus]

Christians are available in many flavours. Oddly (or perhaps not), exactly as many flavours as non-Christians. Are there some bitter ones in the pack? Sure. Lots of sweet ones too, though. Some sour, some salty - most delicious, though some are an acquired taste.

[Woody]

Too bad that Obama didn't put it as nicely as Bravus.

[cricket]

Redwood, my point (which seemed to be lost somehow) was that if you are a Christian, then please, share some of the sweet life-giving water that Christ gives us; and please, stop spreading contention among the brethren.

Where is Jesus in any of these discussions? I see Jesus in remarks made by Bravus, but I didn't see Jesus in the opening remarks in this thread. Rather, I only saw sarcasm and frankly, bitterness.

Somehow, someday, someway...Jesus has got to start showing up here in Club Adventist, or people will begin to look elsewhere. I will begin to look elsewhere. Not that anyone cares...

[Neil D]

Whether a man or woman calls thee bitter, if thou are bitter and call thyself a Christian, what water then do thou offer to others who are in need of a drink of the living water?

[Woody]

Redwood, my point (which seemed to be lost somehow) was that if you are a Christian, then please, share some of the sweet life-giving water that Christ gives us; and please, stop spreading contention among the brethren.

Where is Jesus in any of these discussions? I see Jesus in remarks made by Bravus, but I didn't see Jesus in the opening remarks in this thread. Rather, I only saw sarcasm and frankly, bitterness.

Somehow, someday, someway...Jesus has got to start showing up here in Club Adventist, or people will begin to look elsewhere. I will begin to look elsewhere. Not that anyone cares...

Cricket ... I am very honestly trying to understand your point. SO, forgive me if I miss it again. But are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss the fact that Obama called Christians bitter? IS this subject off the table for some reason? Stay with me. I am trying to understand where you are coming from. DO you feel that political discussion should not be discussed ... or just the negative ones made by Obama?

[Lil Star]

Quote:

Somehow, someday, someway...Jesus has got to start showing up here in Club Adventist, or people will begin to look elsewhere. I will begin to look elsewhere. Not that anyone cares...

Someone, somehow, someway will care that you left after the fact and then try to bring you back into the fold.

[cricket]

Cricket ... I am very honestly trying to understand your point. SO, forgive me if I miss it again. But are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss the fact that Obama called Christians bitter? IS this subject off the table for some reason? Stay with me. I am trying to understand where you are coming from. DO you feel that political discussion should not be discussed ... or just the negative ones made by Obama?

Any discussion made on a Christian board should be done with dignity and grace, and not succumbing to the very tactics one wishes to dispel in such discussion. Do you not see the sarcastic tone in your first post? Do you not see that you labeled a particular party "bitter" and in doing so, using words just as carelessly as the one who first labeled another party "bitter"?

[John317]

Have any of you noticed that the Demo race for president is getting a little "bitter" ?

He thinks that Christians are 'bitter' ... but does he think these 'bitter' voters will actually vote for him?

To say that those people in Pennsylvania small towns cling to their religious faith and to guns out of bitterness shows that he is out of touch with the average white middle class American. Mrs. Clinton is telling the truth there, even though if all the truth were told, she actually thinks the same as Obama does about it. Obama just told what he really feels and thinks. There was no reason for him to say something in that situation that he didn't actually mean. It was no mistake like he says it was.

His words mean that he thinks the people are too stupid to realize what is in their best interest. And saying the poor people there "cling" to religion is close to what Karl Marx taught about religion being the "opiate of the people."

If you analyze much of what Obama says, it becomes obvious that his philosophy and outlook are heavily influenced by Marxism. He dislikes the capitalist system and always has bad things to say about business owners and capitalists. This is not surprising when you take into consideration the kind of people he associates with: Jeremiah Wright, the former Black Muslim, who preaches Black Liberation Theology, which itself is based on a Marxist analysis of society; and Bill Ayers, who helped found the Weather Underground, and who bombed the Pentagon, police station, and the US Capital Building. Even Obama's own campaign committee describes the relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers as "friendly." Bill Ayers is not a repentant bomber; he has said very recently that he does not believe he bombed the US enough! And Obama and Ayers have shared the same speaking platform on a number of occasions.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Obama would say what he did about the small-town, middle-class people of Pennsylvania. It is in line with his fundamental leftist, socialistic philosophy.

America needs to learn the truth about who Obama is and what he stands for, before they vote for who should be their next president. Do we want a man who thinks he knows best how Americans should live and what we should think? What he said can only be interpreted to mean that we should vote for him but that we are too stupid and too attached to our religion and our guns to realize it. When he made the remark, he didn't seem aware of the fact that the people in small-towns in Pennsylvania have had the same faith in God and have had guns since before America was founded as a nation.

[Bravus]

To the extent that those people keep voting for the Republican governments that have sold them down the river to keep big business profits high, they *don't* know what's in their best interest.

I guess I'm another Marxist... but actually I'm not. I'm someone who came from a working class background and wants to see a fair balance of benefit between employer and employee. The approach that allows business to treat employees like disposable dirt to fatten bottom lines and executive bonuses sickens me. I believe capitalism can be fair and can be the engine of prosperity for a whole country. I have no hankering at all for communism. But what we've seen in the past couple of decades is an immoral travesty of capitalism... and that's what these small town Americans are depressed and frustrated and, yes, if you like, bitter about.

[Bravus]

BTW, Obama never said 'Christians are bitter' He said that people who are bitter cling to religion and guns, among other things. How do you feel about that characterisation of young Palestinian and Arab men who have the same lack of opportunities in life? Isn't that pretty much the default explanation of terrorism?

[John317]

To the extent that those people keep voting for the Republican governments that have sold them down the river to keep big business profits high, they *don't* know what's in their best interest.

That is assuming that you know better what is in the interest of Americans than they do. I think that would be rather arrogant for someone to say they know better what Americans want or what is in their best interest. Maybe Americans don't want the government interfering in their lives, and maybe they think the Democrats would involve the government more in their lives. I myself don't want the federal government telling me what to do. I don't want the government's help. I want the government to stay out of my life as much as it possibly can.

Speaking of republicans selling people down the river, it is true that both parties have sold a lot of people down the river, but no party in recent memory did that to more people than the Democratic party. Bill Clinton made all kinds of promises to blacks but when he left office most of his promises had never been realized. For instance, he did next to nothing to help blacks in the area of education. It is a well-known fact that the democratic party simply takes blacks for granted.

But Obama and Hillary Clinton think the government needs to be involved in practically everything, and so Obama thinks people are bitter because they feel the government is not involved in their lives enough. The only thing is, it's the other way around. The people he is talking about in those small towns want the federal government to butt out, not butt in. Those people don't need the federal government to do anything but get out of their lives. It's like Mrs. Clinton said the other day, the democratic party has for too long felt it had a right to tell Americans what they should think and how they should lead their lives. Apparently Obama doesn't want to protect Americans and protect and defend the U.S. Constitution so much he wants to give lectures to Americans about how they should be and how they should think.

A lot can be said about a politician by the friends he keeps, by his associations, and by the people who are supporting him. So far I see a lot of people who hate America supporting him, and that makes me very uneasy, to say the least. People like Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright, the New Black Panther Party. I wonder why. Bill Ayers knows Obama well, and what's more troubling, Obama is friendly with Bill Ayers-- a man who has said recently that he wishes he had bombed America more!!!

Quote:

I guess I'm another Marxist... but actually I'm not.

Of course you're not-- unless you either don't know what it is or unless you don't believe in God. (I don't mean to imply that you don't know this. I believe you do, because it is obvious to me that you are intelligent on these matters as well as on a lot of things I know nothing about.) A person doesn't really understand and accept Marxism as Marx taught it if he believes that Marxism can be made to support the idea of God. Marxist theory is based on dialectic materialism, and its foundation is that nothing exists except for material and that all things can be explained by an analysis of the material world. There is no room for God or for spiritual values. Jesus and God and the Bible are zeros in Marxist theory. Irrelevant and in fact harmful. That is why Leon Trotsky said, "I am a dialectical materialist and therefore a militant atheist."

Now if you want to add to that equation, God, religion, the Bible as truth or Christian values, you are free to do it but you should realize that the minute you do it, you are adding something that is opposed to the most fundamental doctrines of Marxism.

Marxism and Marxists are by no means a friend of faith in God. They hate it and only put up with it as long as they can take advantage of it, but Marx and his followers view Christians and people of faith to be stupid and ignorant. I know this because I studied it for years-- and still read and study it-- and was active in Marxist organizations, the Socialist Workers Party and the Young Socialist Alliance, which were founded in this country by Leon Trotsky.

It is no coincidence that all Marxist thought-leaders have been militant atheists and that all Marxist governments have been opposed to religion.

Quote:

I'm someone who came from a working class background and wants to see a fair balance of benefit between employer and employee. The approach that allows business to treat employees like disposable dirt to fatten bottom lines and executive bonuses sickens me. I believe capitalism can be fair and can be the engine of prosperity for a whole country. I have no hankering at all for communism.

I agree with this.

Quote:

But what we've seen in the past couple of decades is an immoral travesty of capitalism... and that's what these small town Americans are depressed and frustrated and, yes, if you like, bitter about.

Well, even if this is true-- and I don't believe it is-- it has nothing to do with their "clinging to their religion and to their guns," which is the main problem with what Obama said.

But besides, have you ever traveled though small towns of America and met those people and been in their homes and talked with them? I've hitch-hiked all through those places and lived in their homes and worked on their ranches. For one thing they are not depressed or bitter. Obama said that as an excuse as why they are not voting for him and will probably vote for his opponent. Obama would like them to be bitter and depressed. But they are not. If they are upset at anything at all in regards to the government, they are upset at the interference of the government in their lives. They want to government to stay out of their lives, not get more involved. They want fewer taxes, less regulation and more freedom. And they certainly don't want to have a president who is going to tell them what they should think or how they should live their lives, how they are "clinging to guns" and "religion" because of their bitterness. That is not going to win Obama the White House. Of course, he realizes this fact, and that is why he is having to back-track from something he really believes and which shows how he actually thinks.

[Bravus]

Good points all, John, and I think we're actually generally in agreement on many things. I'd really just respond to two points, recognising that we're in agreement on almost everything else.

1. I don't think I'm necessarily saying that I know better than these people what's good for them (hey, 'false consciousness' is a Marxist notion I heartily dislike!) But are you telling me that people never act against their own best interests? With drugs or whatever? Clearly people *do* act against their own best interests, for whatever reason. It's not a huge (nor a condescending) step from there to say that people sometimes also vote against their own best interest, at least in terms of some of their interests. For example, if someone votes on the sole issue of Roe v Wade, they are making a rational decision with their vote, but may still be voting against their own economic best interests in terms of who is likely to protect their job. This is just an example, but I hope you see the general point I was trying to make in the earlier post. It's not (I don't believe) an elitist argument.

2. I know it's an article of faith in America, but I'm not sure that 'Republicans = small government, Democrats = big government' really holds up to the test of empirical reality.

[Woody]

Cricket ... I called no one and no party bitter. Perhaps you should re-read my post. It was Obama that called people bitter.

Just for the record. I simply reported it to you. Take your complaint to Obama.

[cricket]

Have any of you noticed that the Demo race for president is getting a little "bitter" ?

[Woody]

The Race .... Not the people .... The Race.

Perhaps you haven't heard the latest from a Hillary campaigner (Johnson). He says that Ferraro was right ... and that the only reason that Obama is where he is .... is because he is black.

Now if that is not bitter ????

But again .... at no time have I said that any person is 'bitter' ... but their comments about race and classes of people ... ARE.

[John317]

Good points all, John, and I think we're actually generally in agreement on many things. I'd really just respond to two points, recognising that we're in agreement on almost everything else.

1. I don't think I'm necessarily saying that I know better than these people what's good for them (hey, 'false consciousness' is a Marxist notion I heartily dislike!) But are you telling me that people never act against their own best interests? With drugs or whatever? Clearly people *do* act against their own best interests, for whatever reason. It's not a huge (nor a condescending) step from there to say that people sometimes also vote against their own best interest, at least in terms of some of their interests. For example, if someone votes on the sole issue of Roe v Wade, they are making a rational decision with their vote, but may still be voting against their own economic best interests in terms of who is likely to protect their job. This is just an example, but I hope you see the general point I was trying to make in the earlier post. It's not (I don't believe) an elitist argument.

Yes, I do agree that many people act against their own interests. In fact, I think all people do at times. I know I have, but not so much in political matters as in matters of spirituality and health. So we are in general agreement on this.

I think the main problems with Obama's comments are twofold: he didn't tell the small-town people what he thought but instead told a group of wealthy supporters of his in San Francisco, and he said that these people were "clinging to their religion" and to their guns out of bitterness. And as Obama has admitted he was wrong on both those counts. There's nothing wrong with saying that if people know what's best for them, they'll vote a certain way, but to do it as Obama did makes him look like he's stabbing the good people in the back. And then of course, to say they "cling to their religion" and guns out of bitterness over the economy or politics makes it look like he doesn't know the people. That is not the way a man who claims to have faith should be talking about faith anyway.

But I do agree that people sometimes vote against their interests. The thing is, as far as Obama is concerned, it is not necessarily true that Obama or his policies represent their best interests. That has yet to be seen. For myself I am willing to accept as President anyone that the people of America elect. If the American people elect Obama, he'll certainly have my best wishes, because I will want him to do well in order to make America succeed. I respect the office, anyway, though I may not always agree with the man who occupies it.

(Bill was likable, for instance, but everyone knows he was a highly proficient liar and still is. Did you hear how he recently told people that his wife was tired at night when she told her story about the danger she faced in Bosnia? Where did he get that idea from? She told it several times but not late at night and she even wrote about it in a book.)

My beef with most people on the left is that they generally do not accept the decision of the American people in the elections. If you have been reading the leftist, and even many Democratic, journals, over the last 8 years, it's apparent that they have never accepted the Bush presidency. They felt like Bush was never a legitimate president because, for them, Bush "stole" it from Gore. In this they forget or ignore the system by which the U.S. elects its presidents: the electoral college system. A lot of people don't like it-- I used to favor abolishing it myself-- but until we get rid of it, we have to accept the presidents that are elected under it.

Quote:

2. I know it's an article of faith in America, but I'm not sure that 'Republicans = small government, Democrats = big government' really holds up to the test of empirical reality.

It's actually not just "Republican" but "conservative Republican" and even then it is only generally or relatively true. Bush is not a true conservative when it comes to some issues. McCain is not a true conservative either, but then that will probably help him in the general election get quite a few independents and even democrats.

[Woody]

Quote:

Did you hear how he recently told people that his wife was tired at night when she told her story about the danger she faced in Bosnia?

What happens if she gets that call at 2 or 3 in the morning?

[John317]

Quote:

Did you hear how he recently told people that his wife was tired at night when she told her story about the danger she faced in Bosnia?

What happens if she gets that call at 2 or 3 in the morning?

Good point. Most likely she'll be too tired and pass the phone to Bill if he's not too busy doing something else.

[Neil D]

Man, what a bunch of negative individuals who can't seem to see the best in anyone one....Thinking in the lowest common denominators....IOWs, thinking the worst of people...

For shame....

Now, John, let's look at your myopic view points that you have brought out-

That is assuming that you know better what is in the interest of Americans than they do. I think that would be rather arrogant for someone to say they know better what Americans want or what is in their best interest. Maybe Americans don't want the government interfering in their lives, and maybe they think the Democrats would involve the government more in their lives. I myself don't want the federal government telling me what to do. I don't want the government's help. I want the government to stay out of my life as much as it possibly can.

The assumption here is that democrates want goverment in the lives of all americans. This myth is perpertrated by deep seated belief that social systems are totally wrong and any sort/part/portion there of any social experiment is absolutely wrong.

The US constitution has created a social experiment that has been ongoing and is perpertrated by vigorious discussions like this and by a system of checks and balances inbued in the constitution.

Social security has been a boon for retiring people who were NOT able to save for retirement, for what ever reason. Not the best, but defineately a boon to the senior population.

And while much of the racial problems have continued in our fair nation, most of the resistance over time has come from the republicans who create programes to foster poor people....

Speaking of republicans selling people down the river, it is true that both parties have sold a lot of people down the river, but no party in recent memory did that to more people than the Democratic party. Bill Clinton made all kinds of promises to blacks but when he left office most of his promises had never been realized. For instance, he did next to nothing to help blacks in the area of education. It is a well-known fact that the democratic party simply takes blacks for granted.

It is also a well known fact that republicans do nothing to help blacks either when the oppertunities become available nor do they override the downward path that overtakes oppertunities...And Bill Clinton has a republican congress who just plain hated his ideas and shot down many of the ideas that would have helped blacks....ie universal health care. As it is, during his adminstration, the abortion rate dropped thru his policies of making them available AND used as little as possible thru some economic incentives to give hope to mothers with children.

But Obama and Hillary Clinton think the government needs to be involved in practically everything, and so Obama thinks people are bitter because they feel the government is not involved in their lives enough. The only thing is, it's the other way around. The people he is talking about in those small towns want the federal government to butt out, not butt in. Those people don't need the federal government to do anything but get out of their lives. It's like Mrs. Clinton said the other day, the democratic party has for too long felt it had a right to tell Americans what they should think and how they should lead their lives. Apparently Obama doesn't want to protect Americans and protect and defend the U.S. Constitution so much he wants to give lectures to Americans about how they should be and how they should think.

The reason that these small towns continue in their bitterness is that evangelical politicos with their ultra conservative talking heads have reduced issues to just bumper sticker slogans and tie them to the political myths [ie all democrats want to do with government is raise taxes] that it is hard to think any other way. If I remember correctly, before Bill Clinton, the last time a president raised taxes was Bush senior. And there is a long line of REPUBLICAN politicians who raise taxes before the dem did.

A lot can be said about a politician by the friends he keeps, by his associations, and by the people who are supporting him. So far I see a lot of people who hate America supporting him, and that makes me very uneasy, to say the least. People like Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright, the New Black Panther Party. I wonder why. Bill Ayers knows Obama well, and what's more troubling, Obama is friendly with Bill Ayers-- a man who has said recently that he wishes he had bombed America more!!!

You make it sound like these people are the inner circle of his friends...NOthing could be further from the truth. These are people who suppport Obama, but that is all. They have thier own agendas, sure, but they are not his inner circle. And if you want to talk about friends that politicans keep, I recently posted McCains pastor's personal viewpoint, where he wants to wipe out a whole culture....And the media is NOT picking up on that...Sounds like a bit of bias to me, don't you think?

As an American, I resent the fact that you are perpetuating myths as truths, and building upon your bias' as the ONLY solution.

You, my friend, are a sick puppy....

[John317]

Quote:

Man, what a bunch of negative individuals who can't seem to see the best in anyone one....Thinking in the lowest common denominators....IOWs, thinking the worst of people...

For shame....

Now, John, let's look at your myopic view points that you have brought out-

That is assuming that you know better what is in the interest of Americans than they do. I think that would be rather arrogant for someone to say they know better what Americans want or what is in their best interest. Maybe Americans don't want the government interfering in their lives, and maybe they think the Democrats would involve the government more in their lives. I myself don't want the federal government telling me what to do. I don't want the government's help. I want the government to stay out of my life as much as it possibly can.

The assumption here is that democrates want goverment in the lives of all americans. This myth is perpertrated by deep seated belief that social systems are totally wrong and any sort/part/portion there of any social experiment is absolutely wrong.

The US constitution has created a social experiment that has been ongoing and is perpertrated by vigorious discussions like this and by a system of checks and balances inbued in the constitution.

OK.

Quote:

Social security has been a boon for retiring people who were NOT able to save for retirement, for what ever reason. Not the best, but defineately a boon to the senior population.

OK.

Quote:

And while much of the racial problems have continued in our fair nation, most of the resistance over time has come from the republicans who create programes to foster poor people....

This sentence doesn't make sense as it is written.

What does "most of the resistance" refer to? As your sentence is structured one would usually assume that the "resistance" refers to resistance to the racial problems, but I am sure this is not your meaning. Could you explain what you mean so I don't have to guess?

What programs have the Republicans created that "foster poor people"?

What do you mean "foster"? Below is the definition of "foster". Please choose the definition of "foster" that you have reference to when you say that Republicans "create programs to foster poor people." Do you mean that they "promote the development" of poor people?

Quote:

FOSTER

encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good) : the teacher's task is to foster learning. See note at encourage .

• develop (a feeling or idea) in oneself : appropriate praise helps a child foster a sense of self-worth.

2 bring up (a child that is not one's own by birth).

adjective

denoting someone that has a specified family connection through fostering rather than birth : foster parent | foster child.

• involving or concerned with fostering a child : foster care | foster home.

If you mean that Republicans create programs that make people poor, please show documentary evidence in support of your conclusions.

Let's look at the Democratic party's position on government and the economy:

In recent decades, the party has adopted a centrist economic and more socially progressive agenda, with the voter base having shifted considerably. Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working class. Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy). The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the "Third Way".The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if such requires a larger role for government and progressive taxation.

Now the Republican Party:

Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They support the idea of individuals being economically responsible for their own actions and decisions. They favor a free-market, policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism but with higher spending on the military. A leading economic theory advocated by modern Republicans is supply-side economics. Some fiscal policies influenced by this theory were popularly known as "Reaganomics," a term popularized during the Presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan. This theory holds that reduced income tax rates increase GDP growth and thereby generate the same or more revenue for the government from the smaller tax on the extra growth. This belief is reflected, in part, by the party's long-term advocacy of tax cuts, a major Republican theme since the 1920s. Republicans believe that a series of income tax cuts since 2001 have bolstered the economy. Many Republicans consider the income tax system to be inherently inefficient and oppose graduated tax rates, which they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth. They believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending.

Most Republicans agree there should be a "safety net" to assist the less fortunate; however, they tend to believe the private sector is more effective in helping the poor than government is; as a result, Republicans support giving government grants to faith-based and other private charitable organizations to supplant welfare spending. Members of the GOP also believe that limits on eligibility and benefits must be in place to ensure the safety net is not abused. Republicans strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which was signed into law by President Clinton, and which limited eligibility for welfare and successfully led to many former welfare recipients finding jobs.

The party opposes a single-payer universal health care system, such as that found in all other developed countries, referring to it as "socialized medicine" and is in favor of the current personal or employer-based system of insurance, supplemented by Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. The GOP has a mixed record of supporting the historically popular Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs, all of which Republicans initially opposed. On the one hand, congressional Republicans and the Bush administration supported a reduction in Medicaid's growth rate. On the other hand, congressional Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting 2006.

Republicans are generally opposed by labor union management and members, and have supported various legislation on the state and federal levels, including right to work legislation and the Taft-Hartley Act which gives workers the right not to participate in unions, as opposed to a closed shop which prohibits workers from choosing not to join unions in workplaces. Republicans generally oppose increases in the minimum wage, believing that the minimum wage increases unfairly hit the poor, who have the least number of options when prices rise, or when services are cut.