Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (138) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 195904  
Subject: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 1:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/04/wdean04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/01/04/ixportal.html

Excerpt:

In a striking shift in strategy on the stump, Democratic presidential candidates are attempting to enlist God on their side to counter President George W Bush's overwhelming popularity among religious voters.

Howard Dean, the Democratic frontrunner, is the latest to try the tactic. Despite previously sticking to his pledge to keep "God and guns" out of politics, he all but recruited Jesus Christ as a liberal Democrat in an interview over the Christmas period.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104460 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 2:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
No Jesus is the King, the Lord of Hosts. It is a Theocracy, neither democracy or republic.

You can become part of his kingdom, bu if you reject Him it does not lessen Him, it lessens you.

God + me, 2 votes and already a majority. Of course God all by himself is still an absolute victory.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104464 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 9:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
No. :)

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104475 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
ShelbyBoy,

In a striking shift in strategy on the stump, Democratic presidential candidates are attempting to enlist God on their side to counter President George W Bush's overwhelming popularity among religious voters.

Howard Dean, the Democratic frontrunner, is the latest to try the tactic. Despite previously sticking to his pledge to keep "God and guns" out of politics, he all but recruited Jesus Christ as a liberal Democrat in an interview over the Christmas period.


I'm not persuaded that Jesus is a member of either political party.

I am, however, persuaded that Jesus is not a fraud.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104477 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5

No. :)


Hi CC,

Interesting timing on this thread--I read an article by Cal 'I AM holier than you' Thomas, just a day or so ago.

BIG BLURB:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031229.shtml

"..............In an interview with the Boston Globe (Dec. 25), Dean announced that he is a "committed believer in Jesus Christ." He told writer Sarah Schweitzer that he plans to include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he campaigns down South. That's the land of Confederate battle flags and pickup trucks Dean so recently disparaged. In the Globe interview, he said Southerners understand religious talk better than his fellow New Englanders. Yes, that "vast Unitarian wasteland of the Northeast," as Charles Colson has jokingly called it, is the latest target of Dean's regional stereotyping.

Dean is from a Congregationalist background, a liberal denomination that does not believe in ministerial authority or church hierarchy. Each Congregationalist believes he is in direct contact with God and is entitled to sort out truth for himself. Dean's wife is Jewish and his two children are being raised Jewish, which is strange at best, considering the two faiths take a distinctly different view of Jesus.

What exactly does Dean believe about Jesus, and how is it relevant to his presidential candidacy? "Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised," he told the Globe, "people who were left behind." Dean makes it sound as if He might have been a Democrat. "He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything," the candidate continued. "He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2,000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."..................."


So, at this point, I have to ask the other half of the question----- "Is Jesus a Republican?"

Personally, I don't see Jesus as political. He said to pay your taxes and to pray for them and to not get in trouble with them unless it is absolutely necessary. He surely has opinions about when something is right or wrong. But you can find both in either party. It is a silly question and in Cal's case--he is causing division and judging another believer. The way I see it, Dean is a "Protestant" so he knows Christ is God. But in a political campaign--to get totally honest would turn most CHRISTIANs against him! Silly.

If you guys have followed all Dean's speeches and debates, as I have, you would know he is one of those people who feels his religious beliefs are very personal and is not used to talking about them. I know LOTS of people like that.

His life experiences tell me he cares for all people and doesn't expect them to be just like him. He wants the world to be a better place when he leaves it and his programs in Vermont are VERY impressive. Having been abused as a child and knowing the lifetime problems it causes, I was wishing I'd grown up in Vermont when he was Governor.

Child abuse went DOWN 40+% and child SEXUAL abuse went DOWN 70%!!!! Teen pregnancies DOWN 50%. And the list goes on. PLUS, he balanced the budget in a State on the verge of bankruptcy. OH, he also has given 98% of the population healthcare WITH prescription drugs. AND BALANCED THE BUDGET! I don't see any reason to insult him for whatever he said or didn't say about Jesus. He was a Christian his whole life. Didn't just join a church to compete with Bush.<sigh>

Nuff said. Becky


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104480 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5

So, at this point, I have to ask the other half of the question----- "Is Jesus a Republican?"


Jesus is a team to himself, so the question should be stated as if the Democrats or Republicans are on Jesus' team.

Personally, I don't see Jesus as political. He said to pay your taxes and to pray for them and to not get in trouble with them unless it is absolutely necessary. He surely has opinions about when something is right or wrong. But you can find both in either party.

Jesus did not have opinions as to what is right and wrong, he defines what is right and wrong. Any other definition is incorrect.

It is a silly question and in Cal's case--he is causing division and judging another believer.

Um have you read any of Paul? Those same charges could be leveled at him.
A Christian must be willing to openly oppose that which is unscriptural, no matter who says it.

The way I see it, Dean is a "Protestant" so he knows Christ is God. But in a political campaign--to get totally honest would turn most CHRISTIANs against him! Silly.

So what you are saying is that he is a better Christian than most Christians? I will keep that in mind.

If you guys have followed all Dean's speeches and debates, as I have, you would know he is one of those people who feels his religious beliefs are very personal and is not used to talking about them. I know LOTS of people like that.

Jesus spoke about this thing called the Great Commission. Which goes into saying things should as going around and preaching the gospel and making disciples of the nations. I really am unclear on how one can do this while keeping everything personal and not talking about Jesus to others.

Also it seems that you saying that Dean's actions of keeping his faith secret are okay because many others do the same? Do you really want to say such?


His life experiences tell me he cares for all people and doesn't expect them to be just like him.


So other "candidates" life experiences tell you that they do care a lick about anyone else? Also do those other "lesser" Christians expect people to be just like them? I personally wish people to be just like Jesus? Since I am trying to do the same thing, I expect others to behave similarly to me.

He wants the world to be a better place when he leaves it and his programs in Vermont are VERY impressive. Having been abused as a child and knowing the lifetime problems it causes, I was wishing I'd grown up in Vermont when he was Governor.

Other people do not want the world to be a better place?

Child abuse went DOWN 40+% and child SEXUAL abuse went DOWN 70%!!!! Teen pregnancies DOWN 50%.

These are all really good things. However before we make Dean out to be a patron saint, it would be nice to figure out how these things came to be. Did Dean write some new legislations that fixed these things or did someone else do so and Dean is claiming credit? Also does someone need to show such numbers before someone can say that they are serious about such issues. Someone can really be aggressive in fighting abuse but be buffetted by other forces (courts, legislatures etc.).

And the list goes on. PLUS, he balanced the budget in a State on the verge of bankruptcy.

On this case, one needs to look at how he balanced the budget. Did he somehow shrink government down to "proper":) size and make due with the funds that his predessor had to deal with. Or did he have the strong wind at his back called a stock market bubble? With stock market gains exploding, people tend to pay more taxes on gains than when it is not going up at a breakneck pace. If it was the stock market then he did nothing special besides cash the tax checks. (Unless you believe he had a hand in seeing the stock market increase).

OH, he also has given 98% of the population healthcare WITH prescription drugs. AND BALANCED THE BUDGET!

Um so he had several hundred million dollars in a bank account somewhere and decided to share it with friends? Or more likely did he play robin hood, and went to those who pay taxes and basically said that if you do not agree to give some of your wealth to those who are poor then I will have you thrown in jail.(tax example) When did Jesus ever show such an example?

I don't see any reason to insult him for whatever he said or didn't say about Jesus. He was a Christian his whole life. Didn't just join a church to compete with Bush.<sigh>

Nuff said. Becky


Yep Nuff said.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104482 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<
I'm not persuaded that Jesus is a member of either political party.

I am, however, persuaded that Jesus is not a fraud.

Norm.
>>

It is obvious that neither party bears a stamp of rightiousness. In the past decade we had a Democratic president and a Republican speaker of the house bothe guilty of adultery.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104483 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
I'm not persuaded that Jesus is a member of either political party.

I am, however, persuaded that Jesus is not a fraud.

Norm.
>>


It is obvious that neither party bears a stamp of rightiousness. In the past decade we had a Democratic president and a Republican speaker of the house bothe guilty of adultery.

To be fair however, I do not think either party has adultery as a platform issue. In other words, do you think the adultery was due to those who committed such being democrat or republican? I think it was just because they thought they could get away with it.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104485 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<To be fair however, I do not think either party has adultery as a platform issue. In other words, do you think the adultery was due to those who committed such being democrat or republican? I think it was just because they thought they could get away with it.

CT >>

There are many living sinful lives that belong to both parties and far too few hungering and thirsting for rightiousness in either party! Jesus would tell both parties to repent if he spoke to them at all, if either would even listen to him if he did!
Both parties listen to money and votes not to TRUTH.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104486 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 3:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
His life experiences tell me he cares for all people and doesn't expect them to be just like him.


According to an article that appeared in the NY Times, his mother explained how the family cared for people. For example, they didn't treat their servants like servants and they made a special bedroom for the live-in nurse.

http://libertyblog.com/archives/003464.html

Excerpt:

...Explaining that every time she had a baby, the dining room would serve as a bedroom for the newborn and his nurse, she concluded, “I don't think we could even keep up with the Bushes.”

...Mrs. Dean sees her son's unpretentiousness as something he learned at home, pointing out that her own parents taught her to treat people in an egalitarian way.

“When I was growing up,” she said, “we didn't even treat the servants like servants.”


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104489 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Lawrence,

It is obvious that neither party bears a stamp of rightiousness. In the past decade we had a Democratic president and a Republican speaker of the house bothe guilty of adultery.

Unfortunately, there's a heavy mist around the fifth or so of the iceberg that's above water so you're seeing very little of it....

OTOH, there's a big legal difference between involvement with a willing partner who is not a direct subordinate and a situation in which the relationship either (1) is involuntary (that is, rape) or (2) involves a subordinate on the official payroll.

There have been a few instances in the halls of Congress in which the "direct subordinate" in the relationship was a page who was under age, too. Such cases should have resulted in expulsion of the member from the respective house of the Congress by 2/3 vote of that house, as provided in Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104490 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<OTOH, there's a big legal difference between involvement with a willing partner who is not a direct subordinate and a situation in which the relationship either (1) is involuntary (that is, rape) or (2) involves a subordinate on the official payroll.>>

Both cases were involved with those on the payroll unless interns are not paid?
The Speaker's mistress was on his staff, but I think they are married now.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104491 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Becky wrote:

Dean's wife is Jewish and his two children are being raised Jewish, which is strange at best, considering the two faiths take a distinctly different view of Jesus.

It's even stranger still, given his positions on the Middle East.

He wants the world to be a better place when he leaves it and his programs in Vermont are VERY impressive.

If they are so impressive why is he keeping a whole bunch of the records concerning his governorship of the State of Vermont under seal? What's he hiding?

I'm not a Dean fan. He looked positively depressed when Saddam was captured. I think that's because he bet on the wrong "pony".

I'm really glad that Dean made better lives for Vermonters. If true, that's a good thing. But what about the lives of ordinary Iraqis? I guess they didn't count because the UN said they didn't count? Which, quite frankly, calls Dean's morals into question AFAIC. I don't want my morality dictated to me by the UN. The reasons for that should be obvious.

Just in case it isn't, an organization that has a significant percentage of its membership composed of dictatorships which are given equal weight with democracies, and which elects countries with horrible human rights records, such as Libya and Sudan, to the UN Human Rights Commission, or Saddam's Iraq, to the UN Disarmament Commission, or which allows countries such as Rwanda to be a member of the Security Council (as Rwanda was in 1994) while it was slaughtering millions of its Tutsis, fails to convince me of its moral superiority.

So, at this point, I have to ask the other half of the question----- "Is Jesus a Republican?"

No. ;)

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104492 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Lawerence,

Both cases were involved with those on the payroll unless interns are not paid?

Yes, interns are paid (albeit minimally).

The Speaker's mistress was on his staff....

In that case, it constitutes serious abuse of office, probable sexual harassment in the workplace, and probable misuse of public funds.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104493 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/5/2004 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Child abuse went DOWN 40+% and child SEXUAL abuse went DOWN 70%!!!! Teen pregnancies DOWN 50%. And the list goes on.

Regardless of which candidate you like or dislike, it's very important to take statistics you read during the campaign season with a grain of salt.

For example, deanforamerica.org states that teen pregnancies were reduced by 49% during Dean's tenure. But no references or footnotes are provided. The reader is left to take their word for it or to go off on a fact-checking exercise.

It's also important to have a comparison. If during Dean's tenure, teen pregnancy rates in the remainder of the U.S. only decreased 25% and Vermont achieved a 49% decrease, that would be impressive. But if the remainder of the U.S. achieved a 75% decrease, that wouldn't seem to make Vermont's number look too impressive.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, indicates that of the 1200 or so teen pregnancies in Vermont each year, 50% end up in live births and 36% end up in abortions. Those numbers alone don't tell you how Vermont compares to the rest of the nation.

The Institute also states that from 1992-1996 (Dean took office in 1991) the teen pregnancy rate in Vermont fell 15% while it fell 13% in the U.S. as a whole during that time. If the teen pregnancy rate in Vermont fell 49% during his tenure, it must have happened primarily after 1996, because 15% is a long ways from 49%.

Americans United for Life (aul.org), a pro-life organization, is going to release a report later this month on abortion laws in the U.S. It has already named Vermont as the most dangerous in the country based on parental notification provisions, required counseling provisions, etc.

When the Democrats select a candidate, there will be websites touting all sorts of favorable statistics for the candidate. Likewise, with Bush as the Republican candidate, there will be websites touting all sorts of favorable statistics for Bush.

IMHO, any person who repeats those statistics without first verifying them risks being labeled a "kool-aid drinker." I believe the term is derived from the Jim Jones incident in Africa.

ShelbyBoy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104520 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/6/2004 9:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9

Jesus is a team to himself, so the question should be stated as if the Democrats or Republicans are on Jesus' team.

OK.

Jesus did not have opinions as to what is right and wrong, he defines what is right and wrong. Any other definition is incorrect.

I stand corrected. He's GOD! I wasn't meaning to make a 'definition'. And didn't mean to be irreverent.

Um have you read any of Paul?

That is sarcasm, I take it. I don't respond to sarcasm unless pushed passed my mental limits. Not there yet!

Those same charges could be leveled at him.
A Christian must be willing to openly oppose that which is unscriptural, no matter who says it.


Paul ALSO said he was all things to all people to preach Christ.

And, when was the last time any Presidential hopeful OR President stood up and recited the Church creeds? Silly.

God said, Skip the sacrifices and long prayers---seek justice, help the poor, pay the workers, etc. I take that to mean DO RIGHT to your neighbor. Dean's theme of community is something Ralph Nador has been 'preaching' for 40 years. And in a country that USED to be a Christian majority--getting together as a community is a great idea. We have to get along in spite of religious differences.

Me:
The way I see it, Dean is a "Protestant" so he knows Christ is God. But in a political campaign--to get totally honest would turn most Christians against him! Silly.

You:
So what you are saying is that he is a better Christian than most Christians? I will keep that in mind.


Sarcasm AND reading my mind now, huh?

I don't know WHAT KIND of Christian he is--I've never met the guy! I'm listening and 'looking' for his heart. As far as Cal goes, I think my opinion of him is very clear. I don't back ANY party to the point I have to be an idiot to defend it. I had HOPED he'd choke on his words--but at least SAY them anyway when Jane Fonda came to Christ! But he sacked her past, as usual. PRIDE is all I see in him, and judgment. God HATES pride. So I think I should, too. And for ALL Commentators? Anyone, who agrees with EVERYTHING one party does--has serious problems.

I knew for sure when Pat Robertson, AFTER seeing and hearing the "terminator" admit to 'ORGIES' in his past--backed him up and downplayed past sins. If that had been a Democrat? Come on!! I totally lost respect for that man. I never liked his timing. But now I KNOW immorality in the Republican party is OK with Pat. Even the news guy, Chris Matthews, was in shock! Arnold did not say a word about being sorry or that it was even wrong. Pat is a hypocrite. No doubt about it. He is a man who is 'supposed' to speak for Christians.

Jesus spoke about this thing called the Great Commission. Which goes into saying things should as going around and preaching the gospel and making disciples of the nations. I really am unclear on how one can do this while keeping everything personal and not talking about Jesus to others.
Also it seems that you saying that Dean's actions of keeping his faith secret are okay because many others do the same? Do you really want to say such?


Do YOU mean to say that every Christian in the limelight for what ever reason, should EVANGELIZE in every news briefing?? I go to a church that evangelizes everywhere! No one who has talked to me for a few minutes doesn't know I love Jesus. But that is me. Do YOU look up and shout, "THANK YOU JESUS!" whenever and WHERE ever you are when you receive good news? I'm sure you thank God for good news--but not necessarily like I do. I don't expect ANYONE to talk 'religion' in a public place when the topic is something political or whatever. And I know many devout Christians who Don't talk about their beliefs. I was raised that way. I DIDN'T raise my children that way. Gov. Dean is a big boy and can make his own decisions. I'm surprised, but glad he is talking about it a bit. It is GOOD for him. :) I judge him by his works because I don't know his heart.


So other "candidates" life experiences tell you that they do? care a lick about anyone else? Also do those other "lesser" Christians expect people to be just like them? I personally wish people to be just like Jesus? Since I am trying to do the same thing, I expect others to behave similarly to me.

Well, I'm ignoring your 'stupid' comments--you know better. CAL was acting like HE is a BETTER Christian, as usual. I'm obviously talking about HIM and sticking up for Howard, who couldn't say anything Cal would approve of. So, get off it already!
Also, I disagree that Jesus would be a Democrat. Dumb question.


Other people do not want the world to be a better place?

Their 'records' don't show it.


These are all really good things. However before we make Dean out to be a patron saint, it would be nice to figure out how these things came to be. Did Dean write some new legislation that fixed these things or did someone else do so and Dean is claiming credit? Also does someone need to show such numbers before someone can say that they are serious about such issues. Someone can really be aggressive in fighting abuse but be buffeted by other forces (courts, legislatures etc.).

His program is called "Success by Six" and he came up with it when he kept hearing that any good Kindergarten teacher can point out the one or two kids who will end up in prison. He decided to start EARLIER. Visit every new mom in the hospital and ask if they would like a home visit in 2 weeks. Most do. Then the home visit is about all the problems that can come up and that just because you believe you could never hurt your child--if you were hurt, chances are high that you will. Classes are offered and most go. The vast majority don't need help. But those who do are told every 'program', 'class', etc. that the State offers--right down to house cleaning.
My daughter, a FAAAAR Right Republican <sigh> is a social worker and said this is the cheapest way to go. And, that most states have hospital visitation but go no further.
As far as the budget goes, he had to cut EVERYTHING to get spending down and fought his own party to do it. The Health care also wasn't done overnight. He began with the children and kept adding as funding became available. He got Large business' and wealthy people to help with things they cared about---the environment (where they lived) was a biggie. Then those funds could go to other things.

And the list goes on. PLUS, he balanced the budget in a State on the verge of bankruptcy.

On this case, one needs to look at how he balanced the budget. Did he somehow shrink government down to "proper":) size and make due with the funds that his predecessor had to deal with. Or did he have the strong wind at his back called a stock market bubble? With stock market gains exploding, people tend to pay more taxes on gains than when it is not going up at a breakneck pace. If it was the stock market then he did nothing special besides cash the tax checks. (Unless you believe he had a hand in seeing the stock market increase).

Aren't you the septic! And, getting a bit irritating, I have to say.

Can't stand to think a Democrat can balance a budget without raising taxes? He did the first thing you said--'cut' it down to it's "proper size" He did, later, increase cigarette taxes--they are still half of Michigan's. I don't know about the stock stuff. Don't know when he finished his 3rd term.

OH, he also has given 98% of the population healthcare WITH prescription drugs. AND BALANCED THE BUDGET!

Um so he had several hundred million dollars in a bank account somewhere and decided to share it with friends? Or more likely did he play robin hood, and went to those who pay taxes and basically said that if you do not agree to give some of your wealth to those who are poor then I will have you thrown in jail.(tax example) When did Jesus ever show such an example?

*LOL* Keep Robin Hood OUT of this! I happen to like the guy. See above for this info.

As far as Jesus goes, you will have a hard time showing He spent any money on non-necessities and the rest was given to the poor (or supposed to be). The N.T. verse on how a thief should steal no more--rather get a job. WHY??? To help others. A verse that should give us ALL pause. I have so much stuff I don't 'need' it is ridiculous. I give much, but still live pretty well considering Christ's example. Just read Amos or Hosea or even Isaiah! The Jews were living in luxury and NOT helping the poor. God was VERY DISGUSTED. Called the women, "Cows of Bashan?" And, as I have said a zillion times--He didn't CARE that they had lots of money! He CARED that the poor were crying out to HIM!

I have 3 more replies to go--wish my more important posts got this kind of a response. Politics---&^^%$#@@^*(_)_**^. Fight fight fight.

Give me Jesus!

Becky




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: freakydeac Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104545 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/6/2004 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
IMHO, Jesus would condemn the Republicans' position and practices - but then I'm not Repub or protestant. St John Chrisostom's sermons on Wealth and Poverty, in print from St Vladimir's Press (i think) demolish any idea that Christianity can be compatible with free-market, manchester, or Randroid economics. This is the heart of the current Repub movement, chiefly in the forms of free trade [tho Demos have moved this way] and tax reduction on the rich.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104548 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/6/2004 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
deac,

St John Chrisostom's sermons on Wealth and Poverty, in print from St Vladimir's Press (i think) demolish any idea that Christianity can be compatible with free-market, manchester, or Randroid economics.

Since I do not have this book, could you summarize why free-market is incompatible with Jesus?

and tax reduction on the rich.

Why would Jesus oppose a tax reduction for the tax payer, whether he be rich or not?

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104561 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jesus did not have opinions as to what is right and wrong, he defines what is right and wrong. Any other definition is incorrect.

I stand corrected. He's GOD! I wasn't meaning to make a 'definition'. And didn't mean to be irreverent.


The only problem that I was pointing out was that to use the "term" opinion implies that its just someone's thoughts on the issue that can then be accepted or rejected as one sees fit. This is not the case with the Words of Jesus.

Um have you read any of Paul?

That is sarcasm, I take it. I don't respond to sarcasm unless pushed passed my mental limits. Not there yet!

We shall see if you are pushed by the end of this post.

Those same charges could be leveled at him.
A Christian must be willing to openly oppose that which is unscriptural, no matter who says it.



Paul ALSO said he was all things to all people to preach Christ.


And how is this a response to those who say that Paul was a divider? It really does nothing because the claim is that if was not so emphatic and calling distortings of the Gospel "another Gospel" and excommunicating folks, could he not have done a better job of being all things to all people?

And, when was the last time any Presidential hopeful OR President stood up and recited the Church creeds? Silly.


Um is quoting the church creeds the way that most people show Jesus in word and deed? Actually its sounds a like a Pharisee thing. "I can memorize it better than you can."


God said, Skip the sacrifices and long prayers---seek justice, help the poor, pay the workers, etc. I take that to mean DO RIGHT to your neighbor. Dean's theme of community is something Ralph Nador has been 'preaching' for 40 years. And in a country that USED to be a Christian majority--getting together as a community is a great idea. We have to get along in spite of religious differences.


God never said skip the sacrifices. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice so any sacrifices after him implies that he was not enough.

We do need to be peaceable with our neighbors. That is one thing that is a mark of a Christian. However coming back to our friend Paul. Would it not have been more "Christ-life" for him to just gloss over the differences? In other words, being agreeable does not mean swallowing everything another "Christian" says.

Me:
The way I see it, Dean is a "Protestant" so he knows Christ is God. But in a political campaign--to get totally honest would turn most Christians against him! Silly.

You:
So what you are saying is that he is a better Christian than most Christians? I will keep that in mind.



Sarcasm AND reading my mind now, huh?


Not reading your mind, just reading between the lines. In your previous statement you imply that Dean can't really say what is the truth for (at least one of the reasons) "Christians" can't handle it.

I don't know WHAT KIND of Christian he is--I've never met the guy! I'm listening and 'looking' for his heart. As far as Cal goes, I think my opinion of him is very clear. I don't back ANY party to the point I have to be an idiot to defend it. I had HOPED he'd choke on his words--but at least SAY them anyway when Jane Fonda came to Christ! But he sacked her past, as usual. PRIDE is all I see in him, and judgment. God HATES pride. So I think I should, too. And for ALL Commentators? Anyone, who agrees with EVERYTHING one party does--has serious problems.

Um I do not see how pride is anywhere in this. Unless Cal said something about Jane Fonda was too bad a person for Jesus to save, then I do not see a case of wrongdoing. With a person with as nasty a past as Fonda, one would do well to see some "proof" of salvation before wholesale endorsement. Once one sees "proof" by a change in lifestyle then one should embrace the new Christian. The same thing happened with our friend Paul. No where are the people who did not believe he was a true convert accused of pride. Once you have been hurt, it takes time to build trust. But after one is shown the change, one should embrace.

I also do not see Cal as backing "his party" to the point of being an idiot. I have my disagreements with Cal primarily on the justice of Desert Storm and the current war, but I think he is just genuinely wrong and not just a party party person.

And before we go off base, when did all these commentators get into our conversation. I thought it was just Dean, Cal, you and I?

I knew for sure when Pat Robertson, AFTER seeing and hearing the "terminator" admit to 'ORGIES' in his past--backed him up and downplayed past sins. If that had been a Democrat? Come on!! I totally lost respect for that man. I never liked his timing. But now I KNOW immorality in the Republican party is OK with Pat. Even the news guy, Chris Matthews, was in shock! Arnold did not say a word about being sorry or that it was even wrong. Pat is a hypocrite. No doubt about it. He is a man who is 'supposed' to speak for Christians.

Pat was wrong. But what does that have to do with Howard Dean or anything which I have stated?

Jesus spoke about this thing called the Great Commission. Which goes into saying things should as going around and preaching the gospel and making disciples of the nations. I really am unclear on how one can do this while keeping everything personal and not talking about Jesus to others.
Also it seems that you saying that Dean's actions of keeping his faith secret are okay because many others do the same? Do you really want to say such?


Do YOU mean to say that every Christian in the limelight for what ever reason, should EVANGELIZE in every news briefing?? I go to a church that evangelizes everywhere! No one who has talked to me for a few minutes doesn't know I love Jesus. But that is me. Do YOU look up and shout, "THANK YOU JESUS!" whenever and WHERE ever you are when you receive good news? I'm sure you thank God for good news--but not necessarily like I do. I don't expect ANYONE to talk 'religion' in a public place when the topic is something political or whatever. And I know many devout Christians who Don't talk about their beliefs. I was raised that way. I DIDN'T raise my children that way. Gov. Dean is a big boy and can make his own decisions. I'm surprised, but glad he is talking about it a bit. It is GOOD for him. :) I judge him by his works because I don't know his heart.

Um it seems that you are now equivocating. I never faulted Dean with not saying the Word Jesus, God, Holy Spirit etc. every other word of his speech. Your original claim was that a person could just keep their religious views personal. The implication is that when one has an opportunity to say something, one will not because it is personal.

I would ask many "devout" Christians that you know if they are actually upholding the Great Commission that Jesus gave to us. In this case it still seems that you are holding up "other Christians" as some standard.

I also have no problem with Dean speaking about his beliefs. (How one handles the Bible makes it easier to see how one looks at the world and will deal with other issues down the line. The biggest problem is that it seems that Dean was all secret about his beliefs until its time to head down South. Is Jesus not in New York? Is Jesus not in Cali? Please do not bring up Jesus only when it can get you votes, bring him up when you can lose some as well.

So other "candidates" life experiences tell you that they do? care a lick about anyone else? Also do those other "lesser" Christians expect people to be just like them? I personally wish people to be just like Jesus? Since I am trying to do the same thing, I expect others to behave similarly to me.


Well, I'm ignoring your 'stupid' comments--you know better. CAL was acting like HE is a BETTER Christian, as usual. I'm obviously talking about HIM and sticking up for Howard, who couldn't say anything Cal would approve of. So, get off it already!
Also, I disagree that Jesus would be a Democrat. Dumb question.


Um if my repeating of you is a stupid comment, then the "stupidness" was there when you said it in the first place. From the quote of Cal that you gave, it seems like all he said was that Dean was getting old time religion in the South. If he is not then, we should see Dean talk about Jesus where it can lose him votes.

Other people do not want the world to be a better place?

Their 'records' don't show it.

So in fact, you now validate what you said I was stupid for saying!!!! No one else gives a lick but Dean.


These are all really good things. However before we make Dean out to be a patron saint, it would be nice to figure out how these things came to be. Did Dean write some new legislation that fixed these things or did someone else do so and Dean is claiming credit? Also does someone need to show such numbers before someone can say that they are serious about such issues. Someone can really be aggressive in fighting abuse but be buffeted by other forces (courts, legislatures etc.).


His program is called "Success by Six" and he came up with it when he kept hearing that any good Kindergarten teacher can point out the one or two kids who will end up in prison. He decided to start EARLIER. Visit every new mom in the hospital and ask if they would like a home visit in 2 weeks. Most do. Then the home visit is about all the problems that can come up and that just because you believe you could never hurt your child--if you were hurt, chances are high that you will. Classes are offered and most go. The vast majority don't need help. But those who do are told every 'program', 'class', etc. that the State offers--right down to house cleaning.

First off the state has no money. All money the state has is due to taxes paid by individuals who do actual work. Now where in the world does the state get off being Robin Hood? If people think that a program would be neat, then let them pay for it (This program seems neat). Where is the Biblical mandate to take money from people with the threat of Jail to do good works? The Bible is not socialistic.


My daughter, a FAAAAR Right Republican <sigh> is a social worker and said this is the cheapest way to go. And, that most states have hospital visitation but go no further.
As far as the budget goes, he had to cut EVERYTHING to get spending down and fought his own party to do it. The Health care also wasn't done overnight. He began with the children and kept adding as funding became available. He got Large business' and wealthy people to help with things they cared about---the environment (where they lived) was a biggie. Then those funds could go to other things.


So as tax receipts increased, he became Robin Hood. Instead of refunding the tax overpayment, he decided to do neat things with the money. encouraging wealthy people to give to certain things is absolutely cool. But I doubt that he was able to do health care with voluntary contributions.


On this case, one needs to look at how he balanced the budget. Did he somehow shrink government down to "proper":) size and make due with the funds that his predecessor had to deal with. Or did he have the strong wind at his back called a stock market bubble? With stock market gains exploding, people tend to pay more taxes on gains than when it is not going up at a breakneck pace. If it was the stock market then he did nothing special besides cash the tax checks. (Unless you believe he had a hand in seeing the stock market increase).



Aren't you the septic! And, getting a bit irritating, I have to say.

Can't stand to think a Democrat can balance a budget without raising taxes? He did the first thing you said--'cut' it down to it's "proper size" He did, later, increase cigarette taxes--they are still half of Michigan's. I don't know about the stock stuff. Don't know when he finished his 3rd term.


Never said anything about raising taxes. I only spoke about when economies are doing well, people work more. In turn they pay more taxes. If he was getting more tax income then his precedessor, then his balancing the budget becomes less of a big deal.

OH, he also has given 98% of the population healthcare WITH prescription drugs. AND BALANCED THE BUDGET!

Um so he had several hundred million dollars in a bank account somewhere and decided to share it with friends? Or more likely did he play robin hood, and went to those who pay taxes and basically said that if you do not agree to give some of your wealth to those who are poor then I will have you thrown in jail.(tax example) When did Jesus ever show such an example?


*LOL* Keep Robin Hood OUT of this! I happen to like the guy. See above for this info.


I see you like the guy, but I am still trying to figure out why.

As far as Jesus goes, you will have a hard time showing He spent any money on non-necessities and the rest was given to the poor (or supposed to be). The N.T. verse on how a thief should steal no more--rather get a job. WHY??? To help others. A verse that should give us ALL pause. I have so much stuff I don't 'need' it is ridiculous. I give much, but still live pretty well considering Christ's example. Just read Amos or Hosea or even Isaiah! The Jews were living in luxury and NOT helping the poor. God was VERY DISGUSTED. Called the women, "Cows of Bashan?" And, as I have said a zillion times--He didn't CARE that they had lots of money! He CARED that the poor were crying out to HIM!

Christians waste money. Okay. Your point please? What does that have to do with stealing money from the rich in order to redistribute to the poor? God never gave the state the right to do so. If he did, then you would have seen Paul preaching to the state that they are not taking care of the poor properly. Instead you see Paul preaching to the people give to help the poor.

I have 3 more replies to go--wish my more important posts got this kind of a response. Politics---&^^%$#@@^*(_)_**^. Fight fight fight.

Give me Jesus!

Becky


Jesus can be found in every aspect of life. If we want him then we should be willing to apply the Bible to every aspect of life including politics. The issue is that sometimes we are not willing to do so.

CT


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: freakydeac Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104565 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
'could you summarize why free-market is incompatible with Jesus?'

Big task. The book is a series of sermons from the 4th century, given in the rich and powerful city of Constantinople. Essentially meditations on Lazarus and Dives. The rich man is condemned, as must be familiar to you, for lack of active benevolence. He believes that he owes nothing to the poor man and stands on his 'rights' to his property. He is the example of the man who, because he has broken no law and has legal title to his property, thinks he is free of obligations. St John does not, to my recollection, go into how the wealth was gotten, but the background of the illegitimacy of great wealth goes back to the Prophets. It was commonly understood in the Church that great wealth was necessarily founded on avarice, exploitation, or theft/conquest.

I infer from how you frame your question that you have some idea of property rights as essential or fundamental. Neither St John nor Christ would accept this premise.

We are not owners, but leaseholders of life [as the Anglosaxons alliterate it] and all our goods are Another's. We do not own ourselves, we are bought with a great price. We are in debt to God and our neighbor from birth and baptism, and our goods, beyond our sufficiency, are *owed* to those in need. [what is a proper sufficiency? is a difficult question that I struggle with. certainly food clothes and shelter, probably a modest farm or house and bank account, maybe a retirement account; less likely investments and luxuries]

We are a body and a people; we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. This cannot be done while selling at whatever the market will bear, paying the least possible wages, treating the worker as a fungible commodity, buying and consuming the capital of the earth which is our common inheritance, and offering the shoddiest goods passable. All these are hostile and avaricious actions inconsistent with love; they are also the principles of capitalism as currently imagined.

In a fallen world, there is no easy answer. Commerce as such is not forbidden. Men may certainly band together and make provision for the poor; we do it by government and taxation. Since we do not absolutely own our money, and need is a valid claim on us, we are right to tax excess and offer relief.

Current tax cuts return excess to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I do not think this is even in question; the Rebpubs appear to believe that the poor, although losers in the short run, will ultimately benefit from the consequences of the action. I do not believe this, and am disgusted with Repub willingness to let *someone else* take the certain losses and burdens now, and get the uncertain and indefinite benefits later. Unless, when they materialize, the rich need them first.

I hope this very brief sketch at least makes clear my position. As far as I am able, I base it on the Gospel and Traditions of the Church.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104566 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Very well said, freaky.

I have also struggled with this issue wrt my finances. One consideration about investments: What if you are investing for the purpose of giving *more*? For example, having an investment earmarked for a church or charity. Or investing so that you can retire early and become a missionary?

I think the motivation for saving and investing is more important than anything. Money is not the root of all evil, but the LOVE of money is.

However, I think saving and investing should be accompanied by plenty of giving in the here and now. After all, if one doesn't get into the habit of giving, it will be hard to turn loose of that nest egg when the time comes.

Andrea


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104567 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Current tax cuts return excess to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I do not think this is even in question; the Rebpubs appear to believe that the poor, although losers in the short run, will ultimately benefit from the consequences of the action. I do not believe this, and am disgusted with Repub willingness to let *someone else* take the certain losses and burdens now, and get the uncertain and indefinite benefits later. Unless, when they materialize, the rich need them first.

I agree with your exegesis, not your hermaneutics, nor your facts.

Fact 1 is that there were tax cuts and unemployment is consequently going down after a typical delay, just like happened after the Reagan tax cut.

Fact 2 is that we are in the classical argument of percentages versus absolute amounts. My taxes were cut 100%, to zero. Sounds pretty good to me. The Repubs couldn't do much better, short of transferring wealth by legal fiat.

The hermaneutics are that the passages you cite mostly relate to individual responsibility and concern for the poor. The OT prophets did critique the society as a whole, but the society in question was a theocracy. So you can apply the prophetic writings to a group of Christians or Jews, such as a church or denomination, but not to the US government.

Indeed, abdicating individual responsibility through enacting coercive wealth transfer measures is a cop out by guilt-ridden leftists, not a carrying out of a Biblical agenda. If their intent is to carry out a prophetic agenda, then they are guilty of violating church and state separation.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104568 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
CT - The Bible is not socialistic? Consider Acts Chap.4-

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."
________________________________
I would not label Jesus with any political party label, but certainly the apostles were far to the left of the Democratic party as it exists here and now.

Actually, as a Democrat, Jesus wouldn't have done too well at getting the union vote, not after the parable about the workers in the vineyard. Guys who work eight hours still want more than the guys who work one. And they like seniority, too.

But He did say, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". It often amazes me how so many people who think they have to take Genesis literally, including the 6-day creation, just assume He was exaggerating when He said that. (Or hoping).

Jesus didn't have to say about secular politics. But he certainly wasn't a capitalist.

Bill





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104569 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5

ME:
His life experiences tell me he cares for all people and doesn't expect them to be just like him.

YOU:
According to an article that appeared in the NY Times, his mother explained how the family cared for people. For example, they didn't treat their servants like servants and they made a special bedroom for the live-in nurse.

http://libertyblog.com/archives/003464.html



Lovely. His father was a Doctor and they ARE wealthy.

What do you read these sites for? My comment was on Gov. Dean's life experiences, not his mother. If this is all you heard about him and what he has done in his teen years? to now---you know NOTHING.

And you know what? I love you and Norm (who makes me 'mad', I tell you 'MAD'! when we talk politics. And, I'm sure the feeling is mutual. But, you guys make me nutty. Want to know about Howard Dean or any of the 9 candidates? Go to 'C-span.org' and see all the interviews and debates they have access to OR go to a Dean site and hear what he has to say.

Until then, spare me. His record in Vermont stands for itself. NO ONE sees those stats and isn't impressed. No ONE! And that was just 12 years out of 54. What else do you know?

http://beta.deanforamerica.com/ Will give you all the info you need.

.....................................................................
http://beta.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=about_biography

"Blurb for the last reply I made":
"A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn. Hmmmm.

During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created, the state's minimum wage has climbed twice (Odd, I thought it would put everyone out of business?), incentive programs have expanded to help downtown's attract new businesses, and tax incentives were created to attract and keep new companies.

If fiscal management is Governor Dean's trademark, improving the lives of Vermont's children is his passion. A physician, Governor Dean strengthened the Dr. Dynasaur program to guarantee health coverage to virtually every child in Vermont age 18 and under. Vermont has one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country and one of the highest rates of immunized children. Governor Dean has expanded programs to help seniors afford prescription drugs, and he signed into law one of the toughest managed-care consumer protections in the United States." (But, Vermont is just a 'small' state?)

I will repeat my being 'Bi-Polar' to explain the emotion. That's who I am. No excuses, just a fact. I'm a work in progress.

Your sister--like-it-or-not! :)
Becky

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104570 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Deac,

(warning, rather longish, I'm afraid)

While I'll state upfront that I hold differeing views on most of what you say, I do not hold a different view as to the underlying reasons you hold these views. In other words, I too am against hoarding wealth, do not believe in "right of ownership", and think that we are responsible for caring for the less fortunate. I respect your point of view and hope that my reply does not appear condescending.

The rich man is condemned, as must be familiar to you, for lack of active benevolence. He believes that he owes nothing to the poor man and stands on his 'rights' to his property. He is the example of the man who, because he has broken no law and has legal title to his property, thinks he is free of obligations. St John does not, to my recollection, go into how the wealth was gotten, but the background of the illegitimacy of great wealth goes back to the Prophets. It was commonly understood in the Church that great wealth was necessarily founded on avarice, exploitation, or theft/conquest.

The rich man is not sinful for being rich, and I think you and I agree on that. The lesson learned is that a rich man can end up relying on his wealth or can begin to love his money over all else. In the old testament there were many upstanding men, even among the patriarchs, who held vast amounts of wealth. They were not reviled for possessing that wealth. I think it is very dangerous to automatically assume that "great wealth was necessarily founded on avarice, exploitation, or theft/conquest." Even if it were the Church tradition, it is not supported Biblically as far as I know, and holding such a view creates risks of class warfare and strife. I don't think you intend that result. If a person holds great wealth, one must look at each individual case to determine the method or source of accumulation.

I infer from how you frame your question that you have some idea of property rights as essential or fundamental. Neither St John nor Christ would accept this premise.

Actually I don't. My query was to honestly find out if there were points of view that I have not considered for my current point of view.

We are not owners, but leaseholders of life [as the Anglosaxons alliterate it] and all our goods are Another's. We do not own ourselves, we are bought with a great price. We are in debt to God and our neighbor from birth and baptism, and our goods, beyond our sufficiency, are *owed* to those in need.

I am in total agreement here.

[what is a proper sufficiency? is a difficult question that I struggle with. certainly food clothes and shelter, probably a modest farm or house and bank account, maybe a retirement account; less likely investments and luxuries]

Here we get into some very sticky territory. How one defines necessity determines a lot. May I be so bold as to suggest that the average American today would make Zaccheus seem middle class. An annual income of $47,500 places one in the top 1% of all the world's population! While that is hardly a statistic to support tax breaks for the rich, it is a sobering thought for those who don't consider that they have found they enemy (the rich) and they are us! Even the poverty level in the US (about $10,000) places a person in the top 14% of the world's population. So, before we start pointing out specs in our brother's eyes, we need to see to the log in our own. An American has no more or less right to food, shelter, and clothing than anyone else in the world, so I wonder at all our hand wringing regarding social programs for the wealthy (though less so than you or I) in the US when we so patently ignore those in real need across the world. I am being deliberately provocotive, so bear with me as I try and pull this all together. What do you REALLY need to live on? How big should your house be? How much land do you really need? How fancy should your food be? How fancy is your mode of transportation? What kind of entertainment do you use and how expensive is it? If you are really honest about denying yourself and helping the poor, you might want to re-evaluate those assumptions. (I'm using you in ther general sense, not the personal)

We are a body and a people; we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. This cannot be done while selling at whatever the market will bear, paying the least possible wages, treating the worker as a fungible commodity, buying and consuming the capital of the earth which is our common inheritance, and offering the shoddiest goods passable. All these are hostile and avaricious actions inconsistent with love; they are also the principles of capitalism as currently imagined.

I disagree that the description above are "the principles of capitalism as currently imagined." While it may be what is practiced by some and often seems to the cynical to be the universally true, capitalism is not based on those principles. While I could go into a long discussion of Capitalism in its ideal in comparison to its practice and the various options for regulating and correcting abberations, I have neither the talent, or the education to do so. I will instead suggest that there are many self-correcting features of capitalism that help reign in the excesses of the avericious, but the avericious will exploit any system that they can. No economic system has been immune to the exploitation of those who will take what they do not earn. Capitalism has both good and bad attributes. I would suggest that it improves the quality of life for everyone even though it does not make everyone equal. Those systems that have attempted to make things equal for everyone have failed to improve the quality of life, and at times have lessened that quality. But that is not the crux of the argument. The crux is whether the capitalistic ideal is anti-Christian. I think it is not. I think that the way individuals have exploited the system for their gain is anti-Christian. And it is with the individual and not the "system" that Jesus was concerend. He did not speak about abolishing the class system, or the tax system or any other goverenment process, he talked to individuals and got them to be convicted about what is right. More on that later.

In a fallen world, there is no easy answer. Commerce as such is not forbidden. Men may certainly band together and make provision for the poor; we do it by government and taxation. Since we do not absolutely own our money, and need is a valid claim on us, we are right to tax excess and offer relief.

In Jesus' day, government did not fulfill that role, the individuals did. Or maybe partly supported by the Jewish religious authority. Jesus exhorted people to give sacrificially as an expression of both faith in and love of God. He did not advocate enforced charity. Jesus was concerend with the heart, not the money. To give out of obligation is of no "value" to God. What virtue are we really displaying when we manage to take someone else's money to feed the poor? I contend that God wants YOU to sacrificially feed the poor, not make someone who is richer than you feed the poor. And while I'm up on my soap box, let me just add that charity should be MUCH more personal than we live it today. Letting the government pass out money to those in need does nothing to meet their REAL needs. Personal charity means getting involved, letting Christ be the source of the gift so that He is glorified in the giving. Can't do that with taxes. Do we have a right to tax excess simply because it is excess? Should we then not have a world government so that those in the US making $10,000 can be taxed $9,150 a year (the median income is about $850) to help those who are less fortunate?

Current tax cuts return excess to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I do not think this is even in question; the Rebpubs appear to believe that the poor, although losers in the short run, will ultimately benefit from the consequences of the action. I do not believe this, and am disgusted with Repub willingness to let *someone else* take the certain losses and burdens now, and get the uncertain and indefinite benefits later. Unless, when they materialize, the rich need them first.

Unfortunately, this speaks of class warfare and is very disturbing to me. When one talks of the poor in Ameirca or the rich in America, they are talking statistical groups rather than real people. Who is rich, who is poor? Is the college student working 30 hours a week at the pizza shop a poor person? Statistically she is. Is the apprentice auto mechanic a lower class person? Statistically, he is. However, both of these people are temporarily in that state and will move up to higher status as their careers develop. Eventually, they may marry and work on thier careers becoming rich as their combined income tops $110,000. However, they then decide to have kids and one of the parents will stay home to care for the children. The other one will work, so now you have a family (after a few years) of 5 or so with an income of about $60,000. Clearly a middle class family. (Unfortuately, tax wise, this is a family listed as upper income, top 25%, the ones that people want to tax more heavily.) This is life, and these portriats never make it into the "statistics". I do not have my numbers handy, but if one looks at the recurring tax returns from year to year of individuals, you will find that those in the poor catagory rarely stay there for a very long time. Those in the rich category also move in and out of that category as their circumstances change.

When it comes to government and politics, I am not certain that I want them to be in charge of welfare of the poor anyway. Government's role will never be about the welfare of those who are less fortunate. Government's role is for the welfare of the state. It will always need to balance the needs of the underclasss witht he power of the rich, the develoment and the consuming of resources, and the securtity from inside and ouside influences that threaten the state. Government programs are about the average person and to meet their basic physical needs. Real cahrity is about acountability, responsibility, personal connection. Charity begins within the family, then within the body then outside the body. It is from the heart and not legislated. I think Jesus showed us how to do it: one individual at a time. I could go on, but I think I have alreay out worn my welcome on this post.


Added info just because I have it handy...
Some other statisitcal data:

2001 tax data:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 33.9% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 64.9% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 96.1% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 3.9%

This is after the first Bush tax cut.

In 1990 the numbers looked like this:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 25.13% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 43.64% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 94.19% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 6.81%

As you can see, the rich have been paying more and more taxes already. The tax cut doesn't even come close to bringing the levels back down to even 1990.

It's kind of interesting that nearly half of the tax filers pay virtually no taxes. One, it is hard to give them a tax cut, and two, isn't this a case of representation without taxation?

Ron.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104571 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Becky wrote:
Dean's wife is Jewish and his two children are being raised Jewish, which is strange at best, considering the two faiths take a distinctly different view of Jesus.


Hi CC,

Actually,this was written by "Cal 'I AM holier than you' Thomas"


It's even stranger still, given his positions on the Middle East.

And, those would be??


If they are so impressive why is he keeping a whole bunch of the records concerning his governorship of the State of Vermont under seal? What's he hiding?

No idea. But, you don't want to tit-for-tat on a comparison of the "Secret-ocy" of Bush and Cheney, do you?

I'm not a Dean fan.

That's a surprise! :)

He looked positively depressed when Saddam was captured. I think that's because he bet on the wrong "pony".

I don't know what his 'look' meant. I DO know he SAID it was a day to celebrate.

I'm really glad that Dean made better lives for Vermonters. If true, that's a good thing.

If only you would be so cynical of YOUR candidate. If true? Look it up! Don't say "if true" if you don't know. I guarantee you if this info was false, FOX would be shouting it from the rooftops.

But what about the lives of ordinary Iraqis? I guess they didn't count because the UN said they didn't count? Which, quite frankly, calls Dean's morals into question AFAIC. I don't want my morality dictated to me by the UN. The reasons for that should be obvious.

"should be obvious?" What else IS there? Are we supposed to keep losing good men and women every DAY until-----well, WHEN?

If the Iraqui's are in trouble--and they are--Dean isn't responsible! He was against this war from the START!

What do YOU suggest we do?


Just in case it isn't, an organization that has a significant percentage of its membership composed of dictatorships which are given equal weight with democracies, and which elects countries with horrible human rights records, such as Libya and Sudan, to the UN Human Rights Commission, or Saddam's Iraq, to the UN Disarmament Commission, or which allows countries such as Rwanda to be a member of the Security Council (as Rwanda was in 1994) while it was slaughtering millions of its Tutsis, fails to convince me of its moral superiority.

OK. So, what DO we do? I'm sure everyone but Bush is open to suggestion.

Becky


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104572 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Added info just because I have it handy...
Some other statisitcal data:

2001 tax data:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 33.9% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 64.9% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 96.1% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 3.9%

This is after the first Bush tax cut.

In 1990 the numbers looked like this:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 25.13% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 43.64% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 94.19% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 6.81%

As you can see, the rich have been paying more and more taxes already. The tax cut doesn't even come close to bringing the levels back down to even 1990.


I have a problem with those numbers (not their accuracy, but their interpretation):

I can only assume that those percentages represent the percentage of the aggregrate dollar income tax revenue for that year. If that is the case (and I can't see how it is otherwise), then the numbers don't necessarily mean that a tax break has been felt in the bottom 50%, or, conversly, that there has been a raise in taxes for the top 50%. All it means is that the top 50% has paid more taxes. Because income taxes are figured as a percentage of income, it seems reasonable to me to interpret these numbers to mean that the rich got richer - which, even at a lower tax rate might cause them to pay more aggregate dollars - and the poor got poorer - same reasoning the other way around.

While I don't have enough information to really discuss the Bush tax cut, I do know that those statistics are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. They can, I believe, be reasonably interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what you intend them to mean - as evidence that the gulf between the rich and the poor has gotten wider and wider under the Bush administration.

Matthew
-just sayin'

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104573 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All it means is that the top 50% has paid more taxes.

I meant to say paid more dollars, not taxes. Should've proofed it first.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104575 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104576 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But he certainly wasn't a capitalist.

He wasn't anti-capitalism.

Some of his friends, family, and disciples were capitalists.

Zee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104577 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Matthew,

While I don't have enough information to really discuss the Bush tax cut, I do know that those statistics are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. They can, I believe, be reasonably interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what you intend them to mean - as evidence that the gulf between the rich and the poor has gotten wider and wider under the Bush administration.

That is a fair observation. One should always be on the lookout for misleading statistics. I had no intention to mislead, but it is possible that I could have missed an important aspect of this issue. For brevity (HA!, Like I'm ever brief, but in this case I didn't want to keep belaboring the point) sake, I had not gone into all the nuances of the issue that I could have.

It is true that the income level grew, as it did for all income groups, but we have a prgressive tax system, so as income levels grow (even if it were just COLA), percentage of income paid in taxes will grow out of necessity.

Here is the other data that might fill in some of the gaps:

2001 1990
Income group % of AGI % of AGI
Paid in taxes Paid in taxes
Top 1% 27.5% 23.25%
Top 10% 23.68% 20.46%
Top 50% 15.85% 14.36%

As you can see, each catagory paid more as a percent of AGI. A person making a certain income in 1990 might be paying a marginal tax rate of 15%, but after yearly COLAs, that same person could be bumped up to a 23% bracket by 2000 when all he managed was to keep up with inflation. In a sense, his disposable income DECREASED by the exact amout his taxes INCREASED simply due to the progressive tax system. Under a progressive tax system, the Governemnt wins two ways. As the economy grows, the government income grows accordingly, but as incomes rise due to the growth of the economy, the government gains additional revenue on that income growth. To keep government from growing faster than the economy, it is REQUIRED that the government roll bax tax rates periodically. Even JFK did it, and his roll backs were as sharp as Reagan's.

So, while income rose for the top 1% by 127%, taxes increased by 169%, for the top 10% it was income: +101%, taxes: +133%, and the top 50% it was income: 83%, taxes: 102%. In all cases taxes increased faster than income. And this is AFTER the the first tax rollback.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: freakydeac Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104578 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Eyago,

I will take the time to read and respond to the whole post, but for now, just let me reply to the last point: the filers who pay 'virtually no' taxes *do* pay payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.

A cut in Payroll tax, if tax cuts were needed, might well have relieved the neediest, who would spend the money, without tipping the benefits toward the affluent. cutting it from the employers' side as well might have helped businesses, although I have not worked it out in detail.

naming class inequities and the ways the rich [relative to first world society] are advantaged by the system is not class warfare; neither is remedying the problem.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104579 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.

Apples and oranges. Payroll taxes are a differnt entity. If people are so concerned with supposed disparities in that system, why do they never talk about rolling back taxes in SSN? Partly because the amount you get for retirement is BASED on how much you contribute. Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement. If you cut back the lower income earner's SSN taxes, he will have nothing for retirement.

Sales taxes are regressive, and that should be a state by state issue, not a federal income tax issue.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104580 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sales taxes are regressive, and that should be a state by state issue, not a federal income tax issue.


I'd have to agree - as badly as I dislike the regressive nature of sales taxes, it is not a Federal issue at all.

Brings me to a question that I think takes this a little closer to the subject of the thread again -

In Arkansas, we are having a serious debate on whether food and other necessary, staple-type items should be subject to the sales tax. (They are currently taxed at the same rate as everything else.) From a moral standpoint - from a Biblical perspective - is taxing people for these necessities morally permissable? Is this the kind of "submit to authority" thing that Jesus and Paul taught?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104581 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Deac,

First, I'd like to apologize if I came across to stridently on the class warfare issue. I don't mean to accuse you of that in any way, and I agree that it is important to address the issues caused by disparity in wealth. I have not given any serious thought to the issue, though I do hold an opinion or two on it anyway. :-)

will take the time to read and respond to the whole post, but for now, just let me reply to the last point: the filers who pay 'virtually no' taxes *do* pay payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.

See my earlier post in reply to lhaseldon. Payroll taxes are more of a zero sum or insurance program rather than a governemnt "running" tax. Sales and property taxes are local government and do not affect the Federal system. The only real tax that non-income tax payers pay to run the federal government are exise(sp?) taxes such as for cigarettes and gasoline and such. That is a very regressive tax and I would have no objection to taking that into consideration within federal tax policy.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104582 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 4:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.

Apples and oranges. Payroll taxes are a differnt entity. If people are so concerned with supposed disparities in that system, why do they never talk about rolling back taxes in SSN? Partly because the amount you get for retirement is BASED on how much you contribute. Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement. If you cut back the lower income earner's SSN taxes, he will have nothing for retirement.

Sales taxes are regressive, and that should be a state by state issue, not a federal income tax issue.

Ron >>

We were discussing fairness and taxation, you can make the comparisons absurd by leaving out a large part of taxes that the poor pay.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104583 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Payroll taxes are more of a zero sum or insurance program rather than a governemnt "running" tax. >>

The Bush taxcuts for the wealthiest americans are being "financed" by the current surplus in social security taxes! If we allow those tax cuts to become permanent then social security will be in even more trouble than it would have been otherwise.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104584 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We were discussing fairness and taxation, you can make the comparisons absurd by leaving out a large part of taxes that the poor pay.

I think I addressed the issues. Since the discussion originally referenced the tax cut for the rich, which was specifically relating to income taxes, I addressed the income tax issue. However, I did not "ignore" the other taxes but kept them out of the discussion based on the point and counter point involved. However, I think that I also addressed the framework for which we can include other taxes. We cannot simply lump them all together and then castigate the governemnt for one type of tax reform without understanding how all the taxes relate.

Let's look at the basic tax situation:

Income tax: Used to run the governemnt. Includes thousands of programs including welfare, schools, incentives, military, arts, the cost of running the government, etc. The government is run based on these taxes.

Payroll taxes: Primarily social security and medicare, but there are some others as well. These taxes are specifically for specific programs. Workers pay into the system and workers are paid out of the system. Income taxes do not go to pay SSN benefits, and payroll taxes do not run the government (debt servicing not withstanding, but that is not a tax issue.) Since workers receive benefits based on contributions, changes to the payroll tax would require one of two things to happen (there may be other options, but I'll keep it to generalities). First option is to lower the payroll taxes without changing the payout plan. Doing this will force all the low income retirees in the future to go on welfare because they paid no payroll taxes and thus have no social security benefits. The other option would be to rewrite the social security plan so that pay outs have no connection to contributions. This way, a person who never worked a day in his life wold receive the same benefits as the person who worked his entire life. I do not see how you can reform social security without turning it into a wealth redistribution system or a welfare system. If you have answers, please share them.

Property and sales taxes: These are state issues and it seems unfair to me to blame the federal government for state and local tax issues. One needs to hold the state and local governments accountable.

When one talks about the FEDERAL government's programs for taxation and bemoan the "tax cuts for the rich", one has to ask themselves, where the tax cuts for the poor are going to come from. Why do the anti-tax cut for the rich crowd never tell you where the tax cuts for the poor are going to come from? How do you cut income taxes from a person who pays no income taxes? If the income taxes for the government are higher than they need to be, then the ONLY people who can get a tax break are those that PAY income taxes.

Remember, the tax revenues go to different accounts. It isn't one big pot o gold that the goverenment can freely draw from to pay for whatever they want. They have to keep the funds separate (at least on an accounting level) because the law does not allow them to pay for military expenditures with your social security payment (thank goodness.)

So, how do you propose it be done?

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104585 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 5:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<So, how do you propose it be done?>>

The tax cut last year was around 500 Billion and the Federal Governemnt borrowed around 500 billion. I propose the tax cut be rescinded until the Budget is balanced. I understand that a short term stimulus was needed to get us out of the recession but when the government has to borrow to finance the tax cuts then it is increasing the tax burden on our children.
I would like to see the national debt being reduced rather than growing at an unprecidented rate!




Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104586 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How do you cut income taxes from a person who pays no income taxes? If the income taxes for the government are higher than they need to be, then the ONLY people who can get a tax break are those that PAY income taxes.

Reminds me of this summer (?) when some were getting income tax refunds and some were complaining that they didn't get an income tax refund, even though they didn't pay income taxes!

Zee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104587 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 6:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The tax cut last year was around 500 Billion and the Federal Governemnt borrowed around 500 billion. I propose the tax cut be rescinded until the Budget is balanced. I understand that a short term stimulus was needed to get us out of the recession but when the government has to borrow to finance the tax cuts then it is increasing the tax burden on our children.
I would like to see the national debt being reduced rather than growing at an unprecidented rate!


Now we are talking economic theory and policy which is a whole other ball of wax. Whether the theory of economic stimulation is a sound one or not will very hard to measure. Did the economy recover due to the tax incentive or was that coincidence? Would the long term effect on the debt be improved or made worsen by a longer and slower economic growth? That is the question. I'm not sure I want to get into that debate.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104588 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 6:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Do you want us to remain a debtor nation. I do not necessarily mind the money we owe ourselves, but I do question the Billions in US treasuries that the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Sauds are holding.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104589 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
'could you summarize why free-market is incompatible with Jesus?'

Big task. The book is a series of sermons from the 4th century, given in the rich and powerful city of Constantinople. Essentially meditations on Lazarus and Dives. The rich man is condemned, as must be familiar to you, for lack of active benevolence. He believes that he owes nothing to the poor man and stands on his 'rights' to his property. He is the example of the man who, because he has broken no law and has legal title to his property, thinks he is free of obligations. St John does not, to my recollection, go into how the wealth was gotten, but the background of the illegitimacy of great wealth goes back to the Prophets. It was commonly understood in the Church that great wealth was necessarily founded on avarice, exploitation, or theft/conquest.

Um concerning the Church understanding that wealth is founded on exploitation etc., I would have to say that this was definitely after the Bible was completed, because the Bible says nothing about wealth only being due to exploitation. Now wealth can be due to such, but such is not the only path to wealth. Who did Abraham steal from or exploit?

Another problem is that you seem to be attempting to make church history infallible. The only thing infallible that we have is the Bible. Any teaching that is outside of the Bible is open to debate.

I infer from how you frame your question that you have some idea of property rights as essential or fundamental. Neither St John nor Christ would accept this premise.

I would love to see you back such a claim up.


We are not owners, but leaseholders of life [as the Anglosaxons alliterate it] and all our goods are Another's. We do not own ourselves, we are bought with a great price. We are in debt to God and our neighbor from birth and baptism, and our goods, beyond our sufficiency, are *owed* to those in need. [what is a proper sufficiency? is a difficult question that I struggle with. certainly food clothes and shelter, probably a modest farm or house and bank account, maybe a retirement account; less likely investments and luxuries]


Um where does the Bible say that we are in debt to our neighbor by birth? Remember we are to owe no man nothing but to love them. (Romans 13:8). Next if we did actually "owe" any "excess" goods to our neighbor, then why did Jesus not tell the people to take the "wealth" of the rich young ruler. If you remember the story, he went away sad, not poor. So the issue become one of jurisdiction. Where did God institute the right for the poor to steal from the rich?

We are a body and a people; we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. This cannot be done while selling at whatever the market will bear, paying the least possible wages, treating the worker as a fungible commodity, buying and consuming the capital of the earth which is our common inheritance, and offering the shoddiest goods passable. All these are hostile and avaricious actions inconsistent with love; they are also the principles of capitalism as currently imagined.

You are just defining love as however you see fit. We have left Biblical exegesis a few miles back at this point. Next, people do not determine the market price by flippant will. The market price is determined by demand for a good. If the price is high, then more producers will enter the market to get the high price and will eventually even out the demand to supply, lowering prices. If the prices are low (with respect to production cost) then producers will find more useful things to do with their time, until the price rises to the point where it is profitable to produce a good. If an company produces a product and the market price drops below production cost, are you for bailing them out? Or is it tough luck for the immoral employers?

Next, you seem to be under the impression that employers are the only ones who sell their services. Workers do the same thing to employers. For example, lets say that I have some very good skill that in high demand. There will be quite a few employers that want to higher me because I can help their bottom line. There will be a number of employers who will not be able to afford me. Do you feel sorry for these employers that do not have the funds to compete or are they all just evil to you? It is easy for a worker to make more money; just gain a skill that is more useful for employers and employers will be glad to pay higher wages.

Next to consumption. The United States consumes a lot of goods per year. More than most other countries even some continents. But you know what you fail to mention. We also produce a lot more than other countries. Also as far as natural resources go there are other places that have far more natural resources but they just waste and are not attempting to convert it to wealth. (India anyone?)

Lastly, shoddy workmanship. That is definitely not a capitalistic problem but comes out far more in any other system where one cannot easily choose to buy from other folks who produce quality things. For example, some of the car companies tend to make substandard cars on the quality front. What is the answer, buy from someone who is committed to quality such as toyota:) Try finding high quality goods in socialistic societies.

In a fallen world, there is no easy answer. Commerce as such is not forbidden. Men may certainly band together and make provision for the poor; we do it by government and taxation. Since we do not absolutely own our money, and need is a valid claim on us, we are right to tax excess and offer relief.

Um where does the Bible ever show an example of caring for the poor by government. Remember stealing does not stop being stealing if a majority of people vote for it to happen. Also you are misusing the lease from God point. Where do you get the right to terminate my lease from God? If I do not give "enough" away, then the Bible says to take it from me by force? I really have failed to ever see that scripture. Hopefully you can point it out to me.

Current tax cuts return excess to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I do not think this is even in question; the Rebpubs appear to believe that the poor, although losers in the short run, will ultimately benefit from the consequences of the action. I do not believe this, and am disgusted with Repub willingness to let *someone else* take the certain losses and burdens now, and get the uncertain and indefinite benefits later. Unless, when they materialize, the rich need them first.

So I guess you are the one who defines excess right and how much to take ,right?

Also it seems that you are just running with the belief that wealth can only be obtained by immoral means. If it can be obtained by moral (at the least morally neutral means) then your right to theft basically falls apart.

The republicans are correct that the poor are those who benefit the most by employers keeping more of their earned money. If a person is allowed to keep more of their earnings, then the risk of new factories, plants, investing in new ideas goes down. This is due to the fact that one needs to make less money to make the idea profitable. When more jobs are created, those who are unemployed (poor) tend to have more opportunity to leave the poor class and move up into a richer class.

Also who is taking the losses due to the tax cut. The workers pay into the system. Those who pay into the system get money out. If you do not pay in, then how can you justify being given money out. Where does God give the right to redistribute the wealth or play Robin Hood.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104590 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Regardless of which candidate you like or dislike, it's very important to take statistics you read during the campaign season with a grain of salt.

For example...


I will say this ONE MORE TIME. If those stats are wrong--in ANY DETAIL---FOX NEWS would have it on 24/7!!

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, indicates that of the 1200 or so teen pregnancies in Vermont each year, 50% end up in live births and 36% end up in abortions. Those numbers alone don't tell you how Vermont compares to the rest of the nation.

Don't tell me! Call FOX! E-mail em. THEY could and WOULD LOVE to find out what you are saying is true. If they haven't already checked it out, they may pay you for the tip!

Americans United for Life (aul.org), a pro-life organization, is going to release a report later this month on abortion laws in the U.S. It has already named Vermont as the most dangerous in the country based on parental notification provisions, required counseling provisions, etc.

I was a Republican, born and raised and "active" in the Pro-Life movement for many, many years. Even 10 years ago I 'embarrassed' my daughter by calling her friend "Pro-Death". Then things changed. The Right isn't IMO "RIGHT" anymore. Nixon passed all the Environmental Laws that Bush is shredding now. Welfare was aprogram most people could live with. Food, not Food Stamps. Bills paid, not checks sent to pay them which my mother said would end up getting cashed at the bar. ETC. By cutting their budget, the people who went to the home and taught the people how to bake bread with the flour and make meals with the canned meat and taught them how to keep the house clean and be better parents were let go. Then the Social workers were cut and have so many clients they don't even know most of them. Soon welfare WAS a mess. So, did they try to fix it? Heck NO! That would cost more money! So, lets get rid of them--set limits. And with no training or help with the problems that put them in poverty--they get thrown out on the street in 3-5 years and are helpless to take care of themselves! They can't do a budget, use a checkbook and without a bank account their paycheck is cut by up to a third? higher? to pay the Check cashing place. They can't afford car insurance so they get tickets they can't pay if they drive to work. I could go on for pages!! God hears the cries of the poor!!! He wants to know why we don't share. We have SO MUCH and can't afford to help the poor? Deut 15 has His plan to have zero poverty in Israel--but makes laws because He knows they won't do what He asks. Other than worshipping idols, ignoring the poor has GOT to be the #2 topic He talks about. WHY? Haven't I given you everything? What MORE can I give? He PLEADS with His people to CARE!! He pleads today. I hear HIM everytime I see kids with nothing. Hopeless parents in dead-end jobs.
What did God say to them about horses and chariots? DON'T get them! I, I will protect you!! Do YOU believe that? I do. But I will never know, because we have the biggest guns on the block. No one can come close. And, now that the Nuke question has been OKed--the world is afraid. They will build nukes to protect themselves from US!
Our corporations are taking over the WATER in countries and the crumbling pipes on the street for the poor are being capped. They have to PAY for water! Ghana. Check it out. And that isn't all, it the one I've read most about because they FOUGHT IT!! Won a year? Then lost.

When the Democrats select a candidate, there will be websites touting all sorts of favorable statistics for the candidate. Likewise, with Bush as the Republican candidate, there will be websites touting all sorts of favorable statistics for Bush.

And don't forget your "Freedom" site. Plenty of trashing. No 'fair and balanced' there. I have one for you to keep things fair and balanced--"The Daily Mislead"--everything bad about Bush. Nothing good. I don't read it.

IMHO, any person who repeats those statistics without first verifying them risks being labeled a "kool-aid drinker." I believe the term is derived from the Jim Jones incident in Africa.

Guess I'm just a stupid ignorant person. I don't believe the "H" in your IMHO one bit. Humble is something I'm not seeing here. I'm also not seeing much about Jesus. He has plenty to say on these things and all I'm hearing is BANNING Abortion. Unless you have had to make a decision between someone you love and a baby--don't talk, you have nothing 'real' to say. BANNING will kill mothers. I don't see that as a better option.

Becky--getting tired of this nonsense



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104591 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
CT - The Bible is not socialistic? Consider Acts Chap.4-

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."


Um I do not understand how this passage is socialistic. For it to be socialistic, then some government or government ordained group would have to make those who decide not to give to others, forfeit their money. On its face, the passage fits right in with capitalism. Work hard, make money and share with the other believers. How do you explain how they people got the money and the property that they shared? They earned it.

Also an interesting issue, is the wording of "other believers". This seems to mean that Biblically you could decide who is worthy of your money. People who do not believe have no reason to be looking for handouts.

I would not label Jesus with any political party label, but certainly the apostles were far to the left of the Democratic party as it exists here and now.

Disagree completely, the far left is for government mandated theft, and we see no such thing here.

Actually, as a Democrat, Jesus wouldn't have done too well at getting the union vote, not after the parable about the workers in the vineyard. Guys who work eight hours still want more than the guys who work one. And they like seniority, too.

Amen.

But He did say, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". It often amazes me how so many people who think they have to take Genesis literally, including the 6-day creation, just assume He was exaggerating when He said that. (Or hoping).

I do not have to disagree with Jesus here to say that he never gave anyone or any government to redistribute wealth by force.


Jesus didn't have to say about secular politics. But he certainly wasn't a capitalist.

Bill


The vineyard example, looks mighty capitalistic to me. The vineyard owner paying market prices in the beginning, then paying higher than market prices because you did not have time to haggle. Other system would not allow him to pay different prices as his personal "demand" changes.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104592 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Added info just because I have it handy...
Some other statisitcal data:

2001 tax data:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 33.9% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 64.9% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 96.1% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 3.9%

This is after the first Bush tax cut.

In 1990 the numbers looked like this:

Top 1% of all tax filers paid 25.13% of all US income tax
Top 10% of all tax filers paid 43.64% of all US income tax
Top 50% of all tax filers paid 94.19% of all US income tax
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 6.81%

As you can see, the rich have been paying more and more taxes already. The tax cut doesn't even come close to bringing the levels back down to even 1990.



I have a problem with those numbers (not their accuracy, but their interpretation):

I can only assume that those percentages represent the percentage of the aggregrate dollar income tax revenue for that year. If that is the case (and I can't see how it is otherwise), then the numbers don't necessarily mean that a tax break has been felt in the bottom 50%, or, conversly, that there has been a raise in taxes for the top 50%. All it means is that the top 50% has paid more taxes. Because income taxes are figured as a percentage of income, it seems reasonable to me to interpret these numbers to mean that the rich got richer - which, even at a lower tax rate might cause them to pay more aggregate dollars - and the poor got poorer - same reasoning the other way around.


The tax break has to be felt in the bottom 50% because their tax rate was lowered. (Everyone's tax rate was lowered.)If a person did not receive a tax break meant that they did not pay any taxes (or taxes affected by the tax break).

Also Biblical where does a government find the mandate to try to shrink the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Because the rich are getting wealthier does not imply the necessity for the poor to be getting poorer.


While I don't have enough information to really discuss the Bush tax cut, I do know that those statistics are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. They can, I believe, be reasonably interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what you intend them to mean - as evidence that the gulf between the rich and the poor has gotten wider and wider under the Bush administration.

Matthew
-just sayin'


So? The only problem with such a gap is one of covetousness. If someone getting richer faster than you are catching up to them is a problem for you, then you have a simple problem of jealousy.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104593 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.


Okay and the problem with paying a higher percentage of their income into social security and in sales taxes is what again? They could fix this, by gaining more skills and making more money, and then the percentage goes down.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104594 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sales taxes are regressive, and that should be a state by state issue, not a federal income tax issue.

I'd have to agree - as badly as I dislike the regressive nature of sales taxes, it is not a Federal issue at all.

Why do you dislike the regressive nature of sales tax? Working hard and making more money than other folks mean that you should pay more for shirts and shoes?

Brings me to a question that I think takes this a little closer to the subject of the thread again -

In Arkansas, we are having a serious debate on whether food and other necessary, staple-type items should be subject to the sales tax. (They are currently taxed at the same rate as everything else.) From a moral standpoint - from a Biblical perspective - is taxing people for these necessities morally permissable? Is this the kind of "submit to authority" thing that Jesus and Paul taught?


I do not think that this is necessarily a moral issue. Meaning that I do not think you can say that tax on food is a sin and those who say that it should stay are in the midst of sinning. I would say that it is a prudency issue.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104595 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

<<
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.

Apples and oranges. Payroll taxes are a differnt entity. If people are so concerned with supposed disparities in that system, why do they never talk about rolling back taxes in SSN? Partly because the amount you get for retirement is BASED on how much you contribute. Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement. If you cut back the lower income earner's SSN taxes, he will have nothing for retirement.

Sales taxes are regressive, and that should be a state by state issue, not a federal income tax issue.

Ron >>


We were discussing fairness and taxation, you can make the comparisons absurd by leaving out a large part of taxes that the poor pay.

I would object to even calling SSN a tax, because you get all the money back plus interest at the end. It is just a forced savings program.

If the poor want out of SSN taxes then they should be willing to forfeit SSN at retirement. It is just straight Robin Hood to have the taxpayer pay for someone else's retirement, under threat of jail.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104596 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 7:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Payroll taxes are more of a zero sum or insurance program rather than a governemnt "running" tax. >>

The Bush taxcuts for the wealthiest americans are being "financed" by the current surplus in social security taxes! If we allow those tax cuts to become permanent then social security will be in even more trouble than it would have been otherwise.

His taxcuts are for the people who pay the most taxes. Some of the wealthiest do not pay much tax and therefore get little to no benefit from these income tax cuts. Think of the equivalent of you going to the store to pay for a Christmas present and the store deciding to give your change to someone else. You would be irate. Then you should be irate when the government does it as well.

Next, you are ignoring the growth benefits of lower taxes that I explained about six or seven posts ago. Now growth is not going to finance the whole tax cut. Some government programs should be eliminated or cut. There are no free lunches.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104598 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So? The only problem with such a gap is one of covetousness. If someone getting richer faster than you are catching up to them is a problem for you, then you have a simple problem of jealousy.

Tsk. Tsk. There is that mean streak, again. Rearing its ugly head. I don't think there was enough information in the post to determine where woodymw stands on the financial totem pole. He might be a billionaire, on the same lines as Warren Buffet, who says that the 'rich' should pay more taxes. I didn't see any jealousy or covetousness in the post.

I'm trying to picture Jesus running a sweat shop, so that he may produce more items at a lower price. I picture him playing the stock market..... leveraged out the wazoo. I see him in a corporate boardroom (Armani double breasted pinstripe suit, Gucci loafers and suspenders)laying off several thousand workers so shareholders can get a bigger dividend. I see Senator Jesus (R-Texas), pushing defense bills, bloated with pork for his constituency, at the expense of social programs, while proclaiming he is a compassionate-conservative. At the end of the day, he jumps in his Ford Excursion (he's earned every dime he's made so why not enjoy some of it..... and dag-nabbit, why do so many people want his money) and drives past the homeless people lined in the streets.... on his way to a political fundraiser.......

No way Jesus could be a democrat.

cliff


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104601 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 9:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
"The Bible is not socialistic? Consider Acts Chap.4-"

Not everything the apostles did or the early church did was fom God. Nowhere do the Scriptures record the Father or Jesus telling the apostles to do this just as they were not told to select a 12th apostle. In the latter case Jesus chose his own 12th apostle, Paul. And in the former case this profligacy ruined the Jerusalem church members economically to the extent that Paul spent a considerable amount of time and energy raising relief funds for the now impoverished Jerusalem saints.

But even if the Jerusalem church's actions *were* ordained by God you miss the essential difference that this was a voluntary association while socialism is imposed by force. That is a huge difference that is at the heart of the reason that there is no justification in the Bible for the modern social welfare state. If I give money to help a poor person that is compassion. If you take my money at the point of a gun to help some third party there is no compassion. I was not compassionate because I was forced into give the money. You were not compassionate because you can't be compassionate with someone else's money. The whole transaction is completely void of any real virtue. Virtue is shown when someone voluntarily helps another. Governmental social welfare has noting to do with that.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104602 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 9:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%"

And their Social Security benefits are a much higher percentage of their income than that top 5%.

"they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable. "

I'm not so sure about that considering that a much higher percentage of their income is spent on things like food and shelter which are typically not subject to sales tax.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104603 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Cliff,

I'm trying to picture Jesus running a sweat shop, so that he may produce more items at a lower price. I picture him playing the stock market..... leveraged out the wazoo. I see him in a corporate boardroom (Armani double breasted pinstripe suit, Gucci loafers and suspenders)laying off several thousand workers so shareholders can get a bigger dividend. I see Senator Jesus (R-Texas), pushing defense bills, bloated with pork for his constituency, at the expense of social programs, while proclaiming he is a compassionate-conservative. At the end of the day, he jumps in his Ford Excursion (he's earned every dime he's made so why not enjoy some of it..... and dag-nabbit, why do so many people want his money) and drives past the homeless people lined in the streets.... on his way to a political fundraiser.......

I was going to reply to the points you made but then I decided that this type of inflamatory reply belongs more in the PA then here. None of your points are representative of normal American republicans and this type of sensationalist rhetoric does not move the debate forward.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104604 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 9:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

So? The only problem with such a gap is one of covetousness. If someone getting richer faster than you are catching up to them is a problem for you, then you have a simple problem of jealousy.


Tsk. Tsk. There is that mean streak, again. Rearing its ugly head. I don't think there was enough information in the post to determine where woodymw stands on the financial totem pole. He might be a billionaire, on the same lines as Warren Buffet, who says that the 'rich' should pay more taxes. I didn't see any jealousy or covetousness in the post.

Did you actually read what I said or did you just decide to reply by just skimming. I specifically said that if he (or anyone else for that matter) was upset because someone was getting richer faster than he could catch up with them then it was a simple problem of jealousy. I did not just say that he had a problem with jealousy.

Also if he was as rich as Warren Buffet and just said that the rich should pay more in taxes, then my if would not describe him and therefore my then would not be applicable to him.

Also for the record, I don't remember saying that Jesus was a Republican, Green or Libertarian. If someone has evidence of me saying such, then I wish for them to produce it and remind me.

Okay lets go through this.


I'm trying to picture Jesus running a sweat shop, so that he may produce more items at a lower price.


My definition of a sweat shop is someone breaks the law by paying below the minimum wage. This is usually done to illegal aliens. If you have a different definition then I would be willing to address it. Jesus would not be breaking the law for the reason of monitary gain.


I picture him playing the stock market..... leveraged out the wazoo.

Playing the stock market seems to imply a disregard to whether one will actually make money or not. We are told to be good stewards of our money so I cannot see this as being in accordance with the Bible. Then leveraged out the wazoo seems to have negative connotations. However if the leverage (loan) is looked at as a business loan, then I would see no problem with such.

I see him in a corporate boardroom (Armani double breasted pinstripe suit, Gucci loafers and suspenders)laying off several thousand workers so shareholders can get a bigger dividend.


I take it you dont like Armani or Gucci? Depending on the situation, one could look at such as a business expense, a certain look will allow you to make more deals etc. (I am a Hugo Boss person, myself but you can roll however you want to roll).

Next laying off workers that are an asset to the company beyond their salary, in order to inflate a quarterly dividend will hurt profits in the long run. For example if they are actually producing in proportion to their salary then the people left will not be able to fill the former workers gap. In this case, the comany is tying a noose around their own necks. This all with the assumption that there is no contract between worker and employer. If there is then breaking of the contract would be immoral.

One must also remember that workers can be offered more money to work somewhere else. Are people expected to stay working at their same job because they have been at a job for a certain length of time?

I see Senator Jesus (R-Texas), pushing defense bills, bloated with pork for his constituency,


If someone is pushing, instead of seeing a need for a certain defense initiative then that would be a form of Robin Hood, robbing from one group (national taxpayers) to give to another group (ones own constituency?). Not good at all.

at the expense of social programs,


You mean the "good" kind of Robin Hood plans?

while proclaiming he is a compassionate-conservative.

You mean a compassionate-socialist? As opposed to evil-socialist


At the end of the day, he jumps in his Ford Excursion (he's earned every dime he's made so why not enjoy some of it..... and dag-nabbit, why do so many people want his money)


An Excursion???? That big out of fashion thing that no one wants (hence it has been discountinued?) It can't even go off road. Now if you said H2.... Then we would be talking. Concerning Senator Jesus spending his money on cool vehicles:
1 Tim. 5:18
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."


and drives past the homeless people lined in the streets....

I thought Jesus of the Bible (not the Senator). Said that the poor would always be with us?(No matter how much is given, there will still be poor on the streets) Also are you to believe that Senator Jesus does not give away money to the poor? I don't believe it.

on his way to a political fundraiser.......


This is completely Biblical. No one is forced to give, instead people give because they believe that Senator Jesus is the best Senator of all time and will continue to do a good job if re-elected.


No way Jesus could be a democrat.

cliff


Amen brother, you are coming along slowly, but still coming along.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104605 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 9:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"Partly because the amount you get for retirement is BASED on how much you contribute. Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement. "

No, that is not how SS works. The benefit is based on a benefit formula, not on amount of taxes paid. That said, the tax part of SS is extremely regressive but the benefit portion of SS is extremely progressive. It is not at all clear whether the overall system is progressive or progressive.

"Sales taxes are regressive,

Not necessarily, since low income people typically spend a very large percentage of their income on necessities of life such as food and shelter that are typically not subject to sales tax.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104606 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 10:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
None of your points are representative of 'normal' American republicans and this type of sensationalist rhetoric does not move the debate forward.

What are 'normal' american republicans? Would this be equivalent to the term 'true' christian? I'm a registered republican. Am I a normal american republican (you really don't have to answer)? I doubt it. Does it move the debate forward to refer to liberals as those who give away other peoples money? Class Warfare?

Sometimes sensationalism is good. It is easy to test the boundaries of an ideas by stretching it to absurdity. In reading this thread, I tried to imagine the person of Jesus actually doing things that people claim are 'good', either directly or implicitly. Deficit spending to the tune of a few hundred billion dollars (hence the jesus as stockbroker analogy.....leveraged out the wazoo); is this biblical? You may look at it as inflammatory rhetoric, but does it fly? Does any of it ring true? Are the things that are being espoused in the thread really reflect the teachings of Jesus? Would he really do some of those things?

cliff






Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104607 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 10:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Did you actually read what I said or did you just decide to reply by just skimming.

I'm crushed, CT. I always read your posts TWICE, thoroughly, before I respond. I made myself start quite a long time ago.

If someone getting richer faster than you are catching up to them is a problem for you, then you have a simple problem of jealousy.

It's the *you* in the statements that bother me..... If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I liked the rest of your response.... very nice tongue in cheek.

I am a Hugo Boss person
Uggghh. You probably like their ads in GQ and Esquire, too.

regards
cliff





Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104608 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 10:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
cliff,

Sometimes sensationalism is good. It is easy to test the boundaries of an ideas by stretching it to absurdity.

Well, I did use the class warfare line, so you have one on me there, but mostly I was warning of its implication rather than making an accusation.

In reading this thread, I tried to imagine the person of Jesus actually doing things that people claim are 'good', either directly or implicitly. Deficit spending to the tune of a few hundred billion dollars (hence the jesus as stockbroker analogy.....leveraged out the wazoo); is this biblical? You may look at it as inflammatory rhetoric, but does it fly? Does any of it ring true? Are the things that are being espoused in the thread really reflect the teachings of Jesus? Would he really do some of those things?

I have to admit that maybe I lost your point somewhere in there. I'm still not sure what you are trying to get at. I thought your caraciture of Jesus as republican was to show how all republicans were off their rocker and had no moral ground to stand on. However, your reply seems to suggest otherwise. Maybe Rich read it right, I don't know, so maybe I should have gone with my first inclination and not replied at all. Would have looked less foolish that way. :-)

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104609 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 10:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I thought your caraciture of Jesus as republican was to show how all republicans were off their rocker and had no moral ground to stand on. However, your reply seems to suggest otherwise.

It was clear to me! But then again, my thoughts always seem clear to me.

Rereading my post, I can see the republican bashing. However, democrats and republicans are both 'pork' kings. I can present some analogies of a democratic Jesus if you would like.

so maybe I should have gone with my first inclination and not replied at all. Would have looked less foolish that way. :-)

NO! I wouldn't have known about the communications issue if you had not posted. You would think that I was on a polical rant, and I wouldn't have seen your point of view.

I don't think you have to worry about looking foolish....

except maybe your screen name.....

thump....thump....A G O.....thump....thump.....A G O

cliff




Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104612 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/7/2004 11:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
That is a huge difference that is at the heart of the reason that there is no justification in the Bible for the modern social welfare state. If I give money to help a poor person that is compassion. If you take my money at the point of a gun to help some third party there is no compassion. I was not compassionate because I was forced into give the money. You were not compassionate because you can't be compassionate with someone else's money. The whole transaction is completely void of any real virtue. Virtue is shown when someone voluntarily helps another. Governmental social welfare has noting to do with that.

Rich,

Would that prevent you from supporting faith based initiatives, ie govt giving tax dollars to religious affiliations for social programs?

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104613 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That is a huge difference that is at the heart of the reason that there is no justification in the Bible for the modern social welfare state. If I give money to help a poor person that is compassion. If you take my money at the point of a gun to help some third party there is no compassion. I was not compassionate because I was forced into give the money. You were not compassionate because you can't be compassionate with someone else's money. The whole transaction is completely void of any real virtue. Virtue is shown when someone voluntarily helps another. Governmental social welfare has noting to do with that.


Rich,

Would that prevent you from supporting faith based initiatives, ie govt giving tax dollars to religious affiliations for social programs?

cliff


I am not, Rich (hehe), but I do oppose faith based initiatives. One reason, if money is not going to place I want it to go, then I cannot do anything with such an initiative. If I am giving to my church or other organization to distribute food and teach the poor skills, and they are wasting it, then no more money for them.

Also it still goes with the unbiblical Robin Hood theme.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104614 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"Would that prevent you from supporting faith based initiatives, ie govt giving tax dollars to religious affiliations for social programs?"

Yes.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104620 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 10:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
So? The only problem with such a gap is one of covetousness. If someone getting richer faster than you are catching up to them is a problem for you, then you have a simple problem of jealousy.


It would be easy to take that personally, and - though I did at first -I'm not gonna.

But, I am going to disagree with the premise. While, on an individual basis, chasing wealth like that does show a problem with jealousy and covetousness (you cannot serve God and mammon) - I think as a societal trend, a widening gulf between the classes, resulting in a reduced to decimated middle class, is a problem. Don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of socialist economic equality, etc. However, if our government's social and tax policies serve to help the wealthiest grow wealth at the same time that they make it more difficult for the poorest to do the same, then I consider that an economic, social, and moral problem. The widening of that gulf, in a macro sense, is not a problem solely of covetousness.

And, for the record, that was neither the point nor the product of my post. My post was intended to show the statistics inadequate for the point made in the previous point.

Matthew

Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104621 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Tsk. Tsk. There is that mean streak, again. Rearing its ugly head. I don't think there was enough information in the post to determine where woodymw stands on the financial totem pole. He might be a billionaire, on the same lines as Warren Buffet, who says that the 'rich' should pay more taxes. I didn't see any jealousy or covetousness in the post.


I might be a billionaire......



.....but, I'm not. Just a working stiff trying to stay ahead of the game.

Thanks, though, for the defense....I don't consider myself jealous or covetous, and I hope that I don't come across that way.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104639 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 1:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

While I don't have enough information to really discuss the Bush tax cut, I do know that those statistics are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. They can, I believe, be reasonably interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what you intend them to mean - as evidence that the gulf between the rich and the poor has gotten wider and wider under the Bush administration.


Hi Matthew!

:) :) :) :)

I'm Becky, nice to meet you!


Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104642 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi Matthew!

:) :) :) :)

I'm Becky, nice to meet you!


And hello, Becky - interesting in here lately, isn't it?

Did we ever answer the question posed in the subject of this post?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104646 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their incomes to the Social Security than the top 5%, they pay a much higher percentage in sales taxes in the states where it is applicable.


Hi Lawrence!

This CAN'T be right. Bush said they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes.

Thank you for speaking the WHOLE truth, as usual, Lawrence. In your usual non-emotional, kind way. I love you, my sweet brother!!

Becky--struggling to be more like you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104649 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 2:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This CAN'T be right. Bush said they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes.

They didn't get an income tax refund because they didn't pay any income taxes.


Zee



Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104659 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 3:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Jesus can be found in every aspect of life. If we want him then we should be willing to apply the Bible to every aspect of life including politics. The issue is that sometimes we are not willing to do so.


CT,

I can't respond to this post. Obviously, you aren't 'getting' what I'm saying. Others have problems with my posts, too. But, your responses show that either you are misunderstanding me or just trying to upset me and cause a rucus.

I have written posts in the past I wish I could take back and don't want to write another one now. We disagree. You don't want to be taxed for social programs--I don't want to be taxed for more and more weapons or bailing out big corporations who mis-manage their money and don't care for their workers or their community.

You are wrong about sacrificing. I'll get back to you on that, with scripture. Hopefully, you won't argue with me on that.

Becky---<sigh> Nevermind.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104663 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

But He did say, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". It often amazes me how so many people who think they have to take Genesis literally, including the 6-day creation, just assume He was exaggerating when He said that. (Or hoping).


Hi Bill,

Nice to meet you!

This is such wisdom! Thank you! I keep wishing I could make a point with less words--not to be, it seems. :) But, this is so good! Thank you.

The Acts verse is more 'communistic' than socialistic, IMO. Not the Russian kind--the kind like 'nuns' or a commune?

Becky

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104727 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 11:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Bush said they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes. "

You get very upset, Becky, when people say things that you feel are politically dishonest. I challenge you to find any place where the President said what you claim he said. You emphasized the word any with caps so I must insist that your source at least include the notion that Bush claimed the poor did not pay *any* taxes. I don't think you can. And if not, then your misreresentation of Bush is no different than what you perceive as misrepresentations of Dean.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104728 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 11:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
rbednarski:

"The Bible is not socialistic? Consider Acts Chap.4-"

" . . .

But even if the Jerusalem church's actions *were* ordained by God you miss the essential difference that this was a voluntary association while socialism is imposed by force."


Depends how you define force. Seems to me that they were imposed by Congress, whose members are voted into office by those eligible voters who decide to vote in a particular election.

By the standard you appear to describe, every government action (local, state or federal) is impsoed by force, at least on those who disagree. If one does not want to pay SS tax, one can leave the USA and not have US earned income.

>That is a huge difference that is at the heart of the reason that there is no justification in the Bible for the modern social welfare state."

I fail to see how you distinguish one society from another. One can always vote with one's feet and leave for another society. Not leaving, is a voluntary choice.

Regards, JAFO
(who notes that USA taxes its citizens for FIT on worldwide income and that he is aware the forfeiting USA citizenship is not quite as easy as it once was)





Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104729 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/8/2004 11:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You get very upset, Becky, when people say things that you feel are politically dishonest. I challenge you to find any place where the President said what you claim he said. You emphasized the word any with caps so I must insist that your source at least include the notion that Bush claimed the poor did not pay *any* taxes. I don't think you can. And if not, then your misreresentation of Bush is no different than what you perceive as misrepresentations of Dean.


I'm not trying to respond for someone else, if Bush said this I would also like to see a reference. I doubt he did say it.

However, there have been a number of talk-show hosts, pundits, etc. who have said this. The statements are usually made after someone complains that "the rich are getting most of the tax cut." Thus, the given is that the discussion is about federal income taxes.

Since the bottom 50% of income earners only pay about 5% of the total federal individual income tax burden, the statement about people in the botton 50% not paying any taxes is accurate in a relative sense.

In some cases, such as those who receive Earned Income Tax Credit checks that equal or exceed the amount of federal income tax they pay, the statement that they don't pay any taxes is not just accurate in a relative sense, it is literally accurate.


ShelbyBoy


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104730 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 12:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
rbednarski:

<<<<"Partly because the amount you get for retirement is BASED on how much you contribute. Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement.">>>>

"No, that is not how SS works."

Yes it is.

"The benefit is based on a benefit formula, not on amount of taxes paid."

The benefit formula uses SS taxed income in its calculation, and clearly SS taxes paid are based on SS taxed income, so it seems to be some odd semantic argument to claim that the amount of SS you get in retirment is unrelated to how much you contributed.

"That said, the tax part of SS is extremely regressive but the benefit portion of SS is extremely progressive."

Agreed.

" It is not at all clear whether the overall system is progressive or progressive."

Disagree. As long as their is a maximum amount of earned income that is taxed, it is clearly regressive.

Assume Shaq is erning $5M dollars this year from the Lakers; he will still not pay anymore SS taxes (not the meidcaid portion) than the Sr. VP executive earning $250,000, and both will pay no more than the guy who earns right at the SS taxable limit ($87,700 for 2004, IIRC, but callit 90k to make the math easier for me.

Thus the all pay (direclty and indirectly through employer payment $5,580 (being 6.2% of 90k) x 2 = $11,160
but effective rate varies from

$11,160/90,000 (or 95,580, if you prefer) = 12.4% (11.68%)

$11,160/250,000 (or 255,580) = 4.46% (4.37%)

$11,160/5,000,000 (or 5,005,580) = .22% (.22%)

This is the classic definition of a regressive tax. Note that although each paid the same dollar ammount, the lower of these three people paid at a rate that was 56.36 (53.09) times higher than the highest income in the example.

Regards, JAFO



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104732 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 12:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
rbednarski:

"The Bible is not socialistic? Consider Acts Chap.4-"

" . . .

But even if the Jerusalem church's actions *were* ordained by God you miss the essential difference that this was a voluntary association while socialism is imposed by force."


Depends how you define force. Seems to me that they were imposed by Congress, whose members are voted into office by those eligible voters who decide to vote in a particular election.

It would still be force, because it is not voluntary. The use of force is not necessarily evil. It is only evil when one uses force in an unbiblical fashion. Using force to take money from someone who earned it to then transfer it to someone who is poor, is an unbiblical use of force. Does it cease to become theft if I with a group of other people vote that the government should take your car from you and give it to us?


By the standard you appear to describe, every government action (local, state or federal) is impsoed by force, at least on those who disagree. If one does not want to pay SS tax, one can leave the USA and not have US earned income.


There are forceful actions that government can undertake. Paul did say that the government was God's minister to use the sword (violence). The Bible however does not give the state a blank check to just do whatever it pleases.

Also it is true that if I do not leave then I am allowing the state to do certain "wrong" things to me. That however does not make what it does any more correct.

>That is a huge difference that is at the heart of the reason that there is no justification in the Bible for the modern social welfare state."


I fail to see how you distinguish one society from another. One can always vote with one's feet and leave for another society. Not leaving, is a voluntary choice.

Regards, JAFO
(who notes that USA taxes its citizens for FIT on worldwide income and that he is aware the forfeiting USA citizenship is not quite as easy as it once was)


One can vote with their feet, however the justice or injustice of an action remains.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104733 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 12:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ShelbyBoy,
The original quote was about Bush saying that everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. So to make it true, the people of the bottom 50% who paid federal taxes must have a tax cut. Those who did not pay any taxes received no guarantee of anything. Bush never said the "poor" which can mean a lot do not pay taxes. Just that if they did then they received benefit from the tax cuts.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104734 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 12:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"The benefit formula uses SS taxed income in its calculation, and clearly SS taxes paid are based on SS taxed income, so it seems to be some odd semantic argument to claim that the amount of SS you get in retirment is unrelated to how much you contributed."

Did I say unrelated? I don't think so. But you cannot take the amount of taxes paid and compute the benefit, which is how I interpreted "Your contributions determine your payout rate at retirement". It is a lot more complicated than that and it is possible for two people to be age 65, have paid in exactly the same amount, and receive much different benefit amounts.

The formula uses an indexed earnings figure in which very early years' income is indexed up with inflation. SS Taxes were paid on the original amounts, not the indexed amounts used for the benefit calculation. My point is that no one can look at the amount they were taxed (a much more accurate representation than "contributed") and compute their benefit. And it is possible for people to have paid exactly that same amount in taxes yet get very different benefits because of the incidence of the taxes.

"Disagree. As long as their is a maximum amount of earned income that is taxed, it is clearly regressive."

I said the overall system, not just the tax system. You agreed that the benefit portion is progressive but then you assess the total system by considering only the tax portion of the system. Nowhere in your "analysis" do you take into account the fact that the person earning 90,000 will receive a benefit that is much larger, as a percent of pay, than Shaq. And even more relevant, since I hardly think anyone is too worried about the guy making $90K, the person making 30,000 gets a benefit that is a larger percent of pay than the person making 90,000.

I said in so many words that the tax portion of the program is regressive. But in looking at the overall program you have to look at both the tax and benefit sides. And the benefit side is extremely **progressive**. The benefit formula is a three step formula based on AIME (Average Indexed Monthly Earnings). The annual earnings on which this average earnings figure is based have the same caps as were used on the tax side. The formula for the benefit is then 90% of the first $x of AIME plus 32% of the next $y of AIME plus 15% of the balance of AIME. x and y are indexed yearly and since I have been out of the pension business for 5 years I don't have the current values at my fingertips. But it should be obvious from the structure of the formula that people with lower AIME's get a benefit that is substantially larger, as a percentage of AIME, than the benefit the person with a higher AIME receives.

Now, does the higher benefit compensate for the higher taxes? That would take a pretty extensive study, but it is not obvious on its face whether the totality of the SS program, taxes *and* benefits, is progressive or regressive.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcrash7 Two stars, 250 posts CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104735 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 3:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'd just as soon the whole SS welfare system be phased out. You can start with my generation if you want, long as the next generation doesn't have to pay and deal with this terrible mess.
My .02



Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104738 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 9:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

IMHO, Jesus would condemn the Republicans' position and practices - but then I'm not Repub or protestant. St John Chrisostom's sermons on Wealth and Poverty, in print from St Vladimir's Press (i think) demolish any idea that Christianity can be compatible with free-market, manchester, or Randroid economics. This is the heart of the current Repub movement, chiefly in the forms of free trade [tho Demos have moved this way] and tax reduction on the rich.


Hi deac!

I do like your OPINION. :) Don't know enough about economics to argue one way or another but St. John Chrisostom should!

Thanks for the info.

Becky

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104743 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/9/2004 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The original quote was about Bush saying that everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. So to make it true, the people of the bottom 50% who paid federal taxes must have a tax cut. Those who did not pay any taxes received no guarantee of anything. Bush never said the "poor" which can mean a lot do not pay taxes. Just that if they did then they received benefit from the tax cuts.

You've lost me. Would you please post a link to the original quote so I can read the context?


Tanks,
ShelbyBoy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104782 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/10/2004 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

And hello, Becky - interesting in here lately, isn't it?


BEE-ZARRO!


Did we ever answer the question posed in the subject of this post?


Good question. I THINK we agree it would be wrong? to put Jesus anywhere NEAR politics. I suppose we could go issue by issue--but I'd rather not. :)

Becky--your SISTER!

PS. Read your interview. *LOL* My hubby was just getting in and saw your joke about the dog with no legs? *ROFL!*

He said:

"What do you call a dog with no legs?

I doesn't matter, he isn't going to come anyway." :)

I DO love those 'silly' jokes!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104857 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/13/2004 10:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Becky wrote:

Look it up! Don't say "if true" if you don't know. I guarantee you if this info was false, FOX would be shouting it from the rooftops.

How are they going to do that with 40% of the information being sealed? How would you suggest anyone "looks it up"?

I don't know what his 'look' meant. I DO know he SAID it was a day to celebrate.

If we're supposed to celebrate, why didn't he look happy? Why were his campaign staffers crying and why were they saying they had now "lost"?

What else IS there? Are we supposed to keep losing good men and women every DAY until-----well, WHEN?

Until the Iraqis are strong enough to take over for themselves, yes. Someone had to stand up to the evils that were being perpetrated over there. Evil flourishes when good men - including the UN - do nothing.

We don't have to lose men and women every day. That's not a requirement. But we have a choice: doing nothing left us open to far worse and left a state sponsor of terror in charge who killed millions of his own people. Or we can deliberately put some lives at risk in order to save more lives.

And by the way, Bush's policy was unchanged from the Clinton administration's policy. Regime change has been the policy since 1998. And Congress voted on it.

OK. So, what DO we do? I'm sure everyone but Bush is open to suggestion.

You were talking about me being cynical?

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105014 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/18/2004 4:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
CC,
I've had company since Christmas and have been spending my time finding Ben a job--DONE! and now, a place to live for 6 (with an income for 2). I only answered this not to be rude. I really fear this starting the thread up again. So, I ask for a truce. If you want the last word, fine. I'll try not to answer it.:)
....................................


How are they going to do that with 40% of the information being sealed? How would you suggest anyone "looks it up"?


I don't know why politicians seal their records or why they can. Bush has ALL of his father's records sealed up in a museum. Does that mean you can't tell what he did in his presidency?

If we're supposed to celebrate, why didn't he look happy? Why were his campaign staffers crying and why were they saying they had now "lost"?

I must have missed that part. I didn't see crying, etc. You say 'not happy'---I say solemn?
I was jumping all over the living room when I heard they got Sadaam! That doesn't mean I changed my mind on the war. I sure hope getting him slows down the killing of our guys.
Maybe you didn't lose many of your friends in Viet Nam. I did. These "who is the enemy" wars are horrible. Who can live with killing women and children even if they are carrying bombs? Looking at people walking down the street or going about their daily chores and wondering if they are going to kill you? We aren't raised to kill as other cultures. It takes a huge toll on those young people.


Until the Iraqis are strong enough to take over for themselves, yes. Someone had to stand up to the evils that were being perpetrated over there. Evil flourishes when good men - including the UN - do nothing.

We don't have to lose men and women every day. That's not a requirement.


It may not be a requirement--but it IS a reality. My son was in the first Gulf War--every day he was there I was a walking zombie. All parents are. The war was to protect us from weapons of mass destruction, or have you forgotten. Where ARE THEY?


But we have a choice: doing nothing left us open to far worse and left a state sponsor of terror in charge who killed millions of his own people. Or we can deliberately put some lives at risk in order to save more lives.

Do you hear yourself? We could be at war forever with this kind of attitude! There are dictators killing people all over the place. We do trade with most of them!

And by the way, Bush's policy was unchanged from the Clinton administration's policy. Regime change has been the policy since 1998. And Congress voted on it.

I didn't vote for Clinton either time, so don't assume I agreed with him on anything.

In case you haven't noticed, you and I are just re-hashing Republican and Democratic rhetoric. I have had enough. We disagree, easy as that.

Becky--done with this. Except for ONE reply I have to find.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChundoHadASnack Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105069 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 2:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
The rich man is condemned, as must be familiar to you, for lack of active benevolence. He believes that he owes nothing to the poor man and stands on his 'rights' to his property. He is the example of the man who, because he has broken no law and has legal title to his property, thinks he is free of obligations.

Paying taxes does not equal personal benevolence. The rich man apparently knew who Lazarus was. The right thing to do would have been to help Lazarus directly. Going out and paying more taxes so some nebulous government program might possibly help poor Lazarus would have been the equivalent of saying "go and be filled" and would also have been wrong. Lots of people today think they are free from benevolent obligations because they paid their taxes. Forcing people to cough up more money via higher taxes doesn't fix the problem with their heart.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChundoHadASnack Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105072 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Remember we are to owe no man nothing but to love them. (Romans 13:8)

If the verse says "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another" then how is that saying we already do not owe it? Sounds like you COULD owe it. As in, if you should have given them something and you didn't, then you still owe it to them and you'd be in violation of this commandment. Secondly, wouldn't loving your neighbor involve actions taken toward that neighbor?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105073 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Forcing people to cough up more money via higher taxes doesn't fix the problem with their heart.

This deserves restating.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChundoHadASnack Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105074 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 3:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Um where does the Bible ever show an example of caring for the poor by government.

The "civil law" provisions of the Law of Moses did contain systemic provisions for taking care of the poor. They don't appear to be voluntary, but the law of the land:

"Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger." Lev 19:9

"Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers." Lev 25:25-42 (if you didn't follow this instruction and did sell a countryman instead of letting him go, the penalty was death)

"When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow" Deut. 24:19-24

King Lemuel's mother urged him to "defend the rights of the afflicted and needy" (Prov. 31:8-9)

In addition, the tithe and part of the animal sacrifices went to support the priests and Levites. Every 50th year the land was redistributed. Debts were cancelled and slaves were freed every 7 years. Sacrifices and requirements for vows had provisions for substitutes or sometimes reductions to be determined by the priest for those who were poor.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: freakydeac Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105076 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ron,
"...those in the poor category rarely stay there for a very long time"
““I think it is very dangerous to automatically assume that "great wealth was necessarily founded on avarice, exploitation, or theft/conquest””

and from Chundo:
“Going out and paying more taxes so some nebulous government program might possibly help poor Lazarus would have been the equivalent of saying "go and be filled" and would also have been wrong. Lots of people today think they are free from benevolent obligations because they paid their taxes.”

Who is rich? You're right, most of us move from poorer to richer during our careers.

Roughly, imho, there are 3 groups, based on where people *top out*: Lowest, those who never get a foot on the ladder, rent all their lives, have no savings or pensions, live paycheck to paycheck, and all those even poorer. If they can get work, they put in far more than they take. If they cannot, they are the reserve of labor that serves to depress wages. They pay a high percent of income in taxes, usually not income taxes.

Those who have something, but need to work. Mortgage payers, retirement savers, small investors, petits bourgeois, small landlords, family farmers. Most of the Fools. What is commonly called middle class, although too often that blurs the distinction between these and the richer group.

The rich: who can live from their holdings during normal working years, or who have extraordinary incomes. Roughly, law partners, senior managers, large owners, inheritors, a few athletes, actors, writers and patent holders. What used to be called middle class to distinguish it from aristocracy.

These last, hiding behind images and examples of the center group, have pressed for laws tilted to their advantage, most flagrantly by Bush/Delay etc. To point this out is to identify class conflict already existing. [disclaimer; I am not a Marxist although I use some of his concepts.]

How can a man get rich without avarice, at least? Once he has a generous sufficiency, say house, farm or shop, ship, etc, - - where to live and a means to make money; add dowries (education nowadays) for children, money for old age, support for aged family, etc - - then new income above expenses is surplus and ought to be, in the strictest usage, given to the needy. Men have lived by this principle; men have lived more strictly yet. Not every narrative in the OT makes this point.

The money we pay to the poor via taxation is not meant to rise to the level of charity; it only tries to pay down our debt. It is reasonable to work through the state to enforce just dealing, including payment of money due – compare to the Dist Atty pursuing deadbeat dads. By the way, maybe half of the poor are minors.

Not everyone agrees to the debt? They need to agree to the rule of law, and the power of citizens to make law. You bring in statements about the role of the individual and government that are not supported here. Ok, would take too long. But, not agreed premises. Government can do what we wish, within the limits of the nation's resources and the bounds of the Constitution.

Chundo, you're right to say that paying taxes is not enough; you are in error to say that it's a wrong choice.

If we are serious about a *real debt* to our neighbor, we don't want to ask the needy for servility. Everyone knows about the overbearing and patronizing rich busybody of 19th century fiction. We have to insert some objective intermediary. We don't want to be split into beggars and crumb-tossers, as is just about inevitable if we fall back on private giving alone. We don't want the needy to compete with one another for what we are giving, as this then submits them to our judgment, forgetting that we are payers of a debt. Much better to set up workers to administer tax funds on simple and objective grounds. (we have fallen into humiliating and abusing the recipients of the money, but that's a different kind of problem.)
deac

Not fair to draw a positive conclusion from simple non-mention in Scripture. [eg, saying Jesus never laughed because it is not recorded in the Gospel accounts].


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105081 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/21/2004 8:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"Forcing people to cough up more money via higher taxes doesn't fix the problem with their heart."

Well said.

God bless,

Rich


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ga1Dawg Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105084 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/22/2004 8:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That leaves the bottom 50% to pay 3.9%
*******************************
I think we can assume my 10 month old granddaughter, who does have a SSAN, but does not have a job is part of this bottom 50%.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ga1Dawg Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105085 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/22/2004 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This Republican president is borrowing money to fund his tax cut for the rich. How can any of you who call yourself a Christian call this practice good stewardship of our national wealth? And as for the Gov. taxing OUR hard earned money, I thought everything we have belongs to God, or did our Republican brothers find a loop hole in Gods word?


Disclaimer: I am a Democrat, but not a Dean Democrat.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105089 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/22/2004 10:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I think we can assume my 10 month old granddaughter, who does have a SSAN, but does not have a job is part of this bottom 50%.


The reference is to income earners who file a federal tax return.

So if your 10-month old granddaughter who does not have a job has income and files a federal tax return, she would be included in the numbers.

The amount of her income, as reported on her federal tax return, will determine whether she is in the top or bottom 50%.

ShelbyBoy



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105090 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/22/2004 10:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I think we can assume my 10 month old granddaughter, who does have a SSAN, but does not have a job is part of this bottom 50%.

Actually, the reference is to those who have filed taxes, which excludes all children (I think some high schoolers may file taxes, but I am not sure the exact requirements. I know that if my children made a certain amount of money I would have to claim it on MY tax filing.)



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105166 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 2:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Becky wrote:

Bush has ALL of his father's records sealed up in a museum. Does that mean you can't tell what he did in his presidency?

That is a patently false statement, which you would have discovered if you had spent 5 minutes or less to look it up.

The archivists at the George Bush Presidential Library have been working since 1993 to process the records in our collection. At present, more than three million pages of documents have been processed systematically and are available for use by researchers....All Bush presidential records as well as the vice-presidential records of Dan Quayle are administered in accordance with the requirements of the 1978 Presidential Records Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C., as amended). Records closed under statutes of the PRA will remain closed for a period of twelve years from the end of the respective administration, while records closed under FOIA exemptions will remain closed for longer, variable periods. Most information closed by the Bush Library in accordance with the statutes of one or both of these laws relates to national security information, information that reflects the advice given in confidence between the president and his advisors or among those advisors, or information which would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of a person's privacy if released. The appropriate restrictions are cited for all closed information so researchers are fully informed about all materials being withheld.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/faq/index.html#Closed Records Explained

Further, who cares? Bush, Sr. isn't running for president. What the father did during his term of office is no reflection on his son. The current president must stand on his own two feet, which he seems highly capable of doing.

I must have missed that part. I didn't see crying, etc.

Yes, you sure missed it.

I was jumping all over the living room when I heard they got Sadaam!

I'm glad for you. I would have preferred Howard Dean did the same. Guess we had to wait until the Iowa caucases to see that spectacle.

Maybe you didn't lose many of your friends in Viet Nam. I did.

I was too young to understand what Vietnam was when it ended. However, my brother-in-law was stationed in Korea. My uncle was in the Marines. My father was a first lieutenant in the Army Artillery stationed in Germany shortly after WWII. My great-uncle fought in WWII and was decorated for taking out a nest of Nazi machine gunners in the Battle of the Bulge. Two more of my uncles were in the Army. Another uncle was in the Air Force. He fought in WWII and received 4 Victory medals, Air Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Medal, 2 Bronze Stars, the Air Offensive of Japan Medal and the Battle of the Mandates medal. He flew the longest mission on record of World War II.

As for myself, I work with the American Red Cross Disaster Services.

Shall I keep going, or can I stop now? FWIW, I resent the implication that the only reason I hold the opinions I do is because I didn't lose enough people that I loved. My family put most of its men at risk in one war or another and the women worked at the USO and did other things to support them. There isn't a one of them that I didn't/don't love or that I wouldn't have missed.

These "who is the enemy" wars are horrible.

War is horrible. Period. But if war is necessary to prevent more killing, death and destruction, than it's justified.

Who can live with killing women and children even if they are carrying bombs?

If I could determine that those women and children were carrying bombs and I knew they were on their way to kill people, then yes, I could live with it. If I knew that by killing them I would be saving lives, yes, I could live with it. I wouldn't like it, but I could live with it.

The war was to protect us from weapons of mass destruction, or have you forgotten. Where ARE THEY?

We recently caught the biggest weapon of mass destruction - Saddam. As for the reasons for going to war, there were many reasons to go to war against Iraq, not the least of which was to remove an insane sociopath from a position of power from which he had already launched 3 wars, chemical weapons and mass murder of anyone he felt like. If we had not gone to war, the mass graves would still be filling up daily. 20 years of UN resolutions that remained uncomplied with. A ceasefire the terms of which Saddam did not comply with. As for the WMDs, we know he had them, but with a 6 months of lead time before the war, anything could have happened to them. Here is one possibility:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm

We aren't raised to kill as other cultures. It takes a huge toll on those young people.

Yes, war does take a huge toll on the participants. But they do that because they are afraid of a worse alternative.

Do you hear yourself? We could be at war forever with this kind of attitude!

With your kind of attitude, the war would never happen because we'd all be dead. As it is, we won't be at war forever. If enough force is shown where it needs to be shown, others will back down. Just as Libya has done. There will be others. You get respect if you refuse to be trod upon and when you stand on your principles. From my point of view, it is refusing to stand for your principles that invites wars by opportunistic madmen.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105168 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 8:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2


"Bush said they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes. "

You get very upset, Becky, when people say things that you feel are politically dishonest.


Yes I do--you are right.

I challenge you to find any place where the President said what you claim he said. You emphasized the word any with caps so I must insist that your source at least include the notion that Bush claimed the poor did not pay *any* taxes. I don't think you can.

DANG! You are right here too. I CAN'T.

And if not, then your misrepresentation of Bush is no different than what you perceive as misrepresentations of Dean.

God Bless You, too, Rich!
I write my replies on an 'e-mail message' MOST of the time so I can spell check it or store what I've written while I look for something---in this case, Bush saying what I said above. It is in e-mail limbo and I feel I must answer this.

SO!! Short and sweet-here.(for me!) I SAW Bush say that on C-Span. I have it on most of the day so if something good is on, I don't miss it. Hearings, voting on bills that aren't supposed to be voted on yet, etc.

Whether he was giving a speech at a fund-raiser, etc. or holding a news conference in the Rose Garden (I THINK that was it, but not sure) or answering a question or two as reporters scream at him when he gets off his plane. I did see him say that--promise. But, I'd have to go through ALL the speeches, etc. on www.c-span.org that he has given. I thought I'd try but there is almost nothing he and I agree on and it is to darn traumatic for me. If you remember the date (time-frame?) that this was a hot issue--MAYBE I could find it. It hasn't been that long, but I have no idea of even the month that this was being argued about.

I'm sorry, Rich. I tried. But, I rarely read the paper, prefer to hear what they say for REAL than a paper's 'commentary on it. Even journalists who write as in the 'olden days'----"The FACTS SIR, ONLY THE FACTS!" are too often tempted to put in a quote they choose to prove a personal or the 'boss' ' opinion. Call me 'cynical'--'CC' did!--but after watching the House or Senate in action or hearing a beginning to end speech or press comment, it is hard to go back to opinions and 'blurbs.'

Your sister,
Becky

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ga1Dawg Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105169 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Maybe the poor didn't get a tax cut because they don't pay tax, and maybe the pResident said “they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes. " and maybe he didn't. But you can take this to the bank. The economy will run in cycles, but we will not have a sustained economic recovery unless we increase the size of the middle class. And under the Bush administration the middle class has decreased.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ga1Dawg Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105170 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
We recently caught the biggest weapon of mass destruction - Saddam. As for the reasons for going to war, there were many reasons to go to war against Iraq, not the least of which was to remove an insane sociopath from a position of power from which he had already launched 3 wars, chemical weapons and mass murder of anyone he felt like.
***************************************

So, considering the loss of American lives. Do you believe it is OK to use deception on the American people in order to get the authority from Congress to go to war? And if your answer is yes do you really believe in a representative form of government?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105172 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 11:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And under the Bush administration the middle class has decreased.

Hey, Ga1Dawg, where did you read this? I haven't heard this statement before and was just wondering where you got the stats from?

TIA,
Zee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105173 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"As for the reasons for going to war, there were many reasons to go to war against Iraq, not the least of which was to remove an insane sociopath from a position of power from which he had already launched 3 wars, chemical weapons and mass murder of anyone he felt like."
_________________________________
I only count two wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, the venture failed, as Bush is still in a position of power.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105174 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 11:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We recently caught the biggest weapon of mass destruction - Saddam. As for the reasons for going to war, there were many reasons to go to war against Iraq, not the least of which was to remove an insane sociopath from a position of power from which he had already launched 3 wars, chemical weapons and mass murder of anyone he felt like.
***************************************


So, considering the loss of American lives. Do you believe it is OK to use deception on the American people in order to get the authority from Congress to go to war? And if your answer is yes do you really believe in a representative form of government?

One thing about this whole situation has me puzzled. For years before Bush was elected, during the Clinton presidency, President Clinton went and on and on about weapons of Mass Destruction and that Saddam needed to be stopped. A part of the Bush platform during His campaign was that he would do the job, that Clinton refused to do; Get Saddam. So in fact, Bush was elected in part by his stance on the need to actually get rid of Saddam.

Now I do not disagree that Bush probably overplayed his hand, however general wisdom for several years and two administrations was that Saddam either had weapons, and was in a mad dash to get them (Remember Saddam and the arms inspectors? If he did not care about at least obtaining them, then why throw them out?)

So if you wish to claim that it was a big conspiracy by Bush to lie about weapons of Mass Destruction, then I guess it stretches back for almost a decade.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105175 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 11:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ga1Dawg wrote:

So, considering the loss of American lives. Do you believe it is OK to use deception on the American people in order to get the authority from Congress to go to war?

No. I don't believe we have been deceived. Many reasons were given that justified dealing with Iraq. WMD was only one reason. That the media has a tendency to focus on only one issue, doesn't make it the only issue.

CCSand



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105176 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Maybe the poor didn't get a tax cut because they don't pay tax, and maybe the pResident said “they got no tax cut because they didn't pay ANY taxes. " and maybe he didn't. But you can take this to the bank. The economy will run in cycles, but we will not have a sustained economic recovery unless we increase the size of the middle class. And under the Bush administration the middle class has decreased.

Saying that you wont have a sustained economic recovery unless the size of the middle class is increased, is pretty much a nonsensical statement. One has to have an economic recovery in order to increase the size of the middle class. The reason? In order to gain entrance into the middle class, one has to earn more money. If one is actually earning more money, implies that the economy is strong (or at least stronger).

Next concerning the middle class having decreased, under the Bush administration, that is basically what happens after big bubbles such as the internet one begins to burst. (I personally believe more pain needs to be suffered before a real new bull market can begin).

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105179 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 1:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
"I'm sorry, Rich. I tried. But, I rarely read the paper, prefer to hear what they say for REAL than a paper's 'commentary on it. "

With all due respect I do not believe you. To quote you back to yourself (although you say it with respect to FOX) , if he had actually said this CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN would have been all over it, as would the NY Times and LA Times. The fact that you have been unable to find any documentation speaks volumes.

Just as you cannot substantiate your statement that the President has "ALL" of his father's presidential papers sealed up in a museum, because as CCSand has documented, it is simply untrue.

Feeling that justice is on your side is no excuse for making wild unsubstantiated statements.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105180 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/24/2004 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"Do you believe it is OK to use deception on the American people in order to get the authority from Congress to go to war? And if your answer is yes do you really believe in a representative form of government?"

What a fair way to frame the question. I'll answeer as soon as you tell me when you stopped beating your Mom.

God bless,

Rich


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DaveandBeckyz51 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 105186 of 195904
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a Democrat? Date: 1/25/2004 6:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
With all due respect I do not believe you. To quote you back to yourself (although you say it with respect to FOX) , if he had actually said this CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN would have been all over it, as would the NY Times and LA Times. The fact that you have been unable to find any documentation speaks volumes.

Just as you cannot substantiate your statement that the President has "ALL" of his father's presidential papers sealed up in a museum, because as CCSand has documented, it is simply untrue.


The 'documentation' was from the BUSH LIBRARY!! You moron! Did you read more than she sent you to? What to do when you CAN'T get a document?

NOW I GET IT!! YOU SAY YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN---But your heart is with the Republicans. If a brother or sister DARES to care for the poor--we are LIARS! I'm ready to jump a plane to DC to find the STUPID 2 seconds Bush said that--but YOU AREN'T WORTH IT! Stay away from me, RICH!

And don't you "GOD BLESS" me again AFTER calling me a LIAR!

CALL ME A WHORE, RICH. Don't call me a liar!.

Your sister, who may spend the rest of her life trying to forgive you.
Don't report this or get it pulled either! Any of you! not unless you pull his calling me a liar.



Feeling that justice is on your side is no excuse for making wild unsubstantiated statements.

moron



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: