Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[Touma]

As a Christian, I'm called to help those less fortunate, those in need. I'm not called to form a government to confiscate the possessions of others and redistribute to those who I deem worthy or in need.

1) Money is not YOUR possession. It is the possession of the government of the United States of American given to you to pay your debts. You are REQUIRED to pay what the government requires of you, biblically speaking. As a Christian you are called to give to the government what it requires, unless it is unbiblical (worship of the emperor, for example).

2) Remember the time period when people gave bunches of money to the Church, and the church in turn kept it for the church and not the poor? Yeah, we kind of want to avoid that. Despite the few hundred years that the church did actual good, there are a few hundred years more where the church did plenty bad.

3) God gives government Authority. God says that the government should look out for the needy. Example check Jer. 22, where God is speaking to the son of Josiah saying that King Josiah, as the head of the government, helped the poor and needy. He further states "Is this not what it means to know me?" WOW.

This of course doesn't mean the government will always do what God wants. People are sinful by nature and will do wrong. But as Christians we are called to life both a life of service to others and to submit to all human authority, for the sake of the Lord.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Again, you seem to care about helping more than you care that they be helped. To some, it is the act of helping that is important rather than the result of the greatest number of poor being helped most efficiently.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how it's true, but whatever.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

1) Money is not YOUR possession. It is the possession of the government of the United States of American given to you to pay your debts.

YIKES! That sounds like something right out of the Communist Soviet Union.

You are REQUIRED to pay what the government requires of you, biblically speaking. As a Christian you are called to give to the government what it requires, unless it is unbiblical (worship of the emperor, for example).

Unless it's Unbliblical? So, if a government violates its own laws and does things it is not authorized to do, is there still a Biblical mandate to enable them in that lawlessness?

2) Remember the time period when people gave bunches of money to the Church, and the church in turn kept it for the church and not the poor?

Yes. It's one of the things that led to the Reformation.

Yeah, we kind of want to avoid that. Despite the few hundred years that the church did actual good, there are a few hundred years more where the church did plenty bad.

Yes, that's why there was a Reformation.

) God gives government Authority. God says that the government should look out for the needy. Example check Jer. 22, where God is speaking to the son of Josiah saying that King Josiah, as the head of the government, helped the poor and needy. He further states "Is this not what it means to know me?" WOW.

God is speaking about the Nation of Israel, specifically, which was a theocracy. We are neither a theocracy nor the Nation of Israel.

 

[BondiHarry]

You mean people like John Boehner who gave out checks from the Tobacco Lobbyists on the floor of the House of Representatives while Reps were assessing how to vote on legislature related to tobacco? That kind of "responsible"? (1995)

Oh yeah, and remember Eric Cantor voted for TARP funds in 2008.

Now I'm guessing Mitch McConnell is a paragon of responsibility. Somehow from 2008 to 2009 his personal fortune rose by about $800,000 to a whopping $32,756,000. Which is pretty good. I got a 0.8% raise last year that raised my personal fortune.

Just what do these have to do with what I said?

Any citations for that claim?

Do you listen to the news? Social Security is going bankrupt, Medicare is going bankrupt. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae policies to 'help' the poor buy homes led to a bubble in the housing industry which led to a damaging recession we still haven't recovered from.

You mean "hurt" the poor as in keep them from having children suffer from malnutrition?

Have you studied the history of welfare programs designed to help poor families and single parents? Are you aware they often served only to exacerbate the problems as women kept having children despite their situation?

Or hurt them by providing them with a place to live? Hurt them by giving them access to healthcare?

The failures of government housing are legion. People, since the homes were not theirs, often did not take care of them and trashed them instead. Housing projects were taken over by violent and dangerous gangs.

Those all sound pretty bad.

Once you understand what they actually did, they don't sound nearly as good. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You have a problem with the "minimum wage"?

Yes, when government mandates employers to pay employees an arbitrary wage that often has nothing to do with the value of the work those who would be paid the minimum wage do and as a result the very people who most desperately need a job are priced out of the job market (the unskilled and inexperienced), IT IS A PROBLEM.

Do you currently live on the minimum wage? (And by "live" I use the term loosely).

No. I did work minimum wage jobs and through them developed a work history and job skills that allowed me to get work that pays far more than the minimum wage does. It is one thing to be working for little money when you're just starting out but if one is reasonably intelligent and applies themself to their work they will quickly enough increase their value to employers and get better paying jobs. If one gets stuck in a low paying job it is often a result of their own lack of initiative that is the cause.

Why do people want to peel back the advances of the Progressive Movement? I was watching a documentary on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire recently. Earlier I was mistaken in saying they had locked the people in, when in reality they only locked 1 of the 2 doors. Sadly when the fire hit the one door that was unlocked was blocked by fire, forcing the people to go out through a window onto an overcrowded fire-escape which collapsed and killed quite a few, and an elevator which was able to ferry a few out before it had to stop running after which some people jumped or were shoved down the shaft as people tried to escape burning alive.

But generally I don't get the feeling that pre-Progressive working conditions were that great. And I suspect that the large number of republicans who find the Minimum Wage (and other progressive era advances) would probably be in the sweatshops and horrible working conditions if we were to be back in those days. So I don't understand why they talk like they would be some super-rich person of the time if they lived then. Statistically they would likely not be.

If progressive ideas are so good, demonstrate this in the free market of ideas thus showing others the wisdom of your ideas leading them to embrace them. Using the coercive power of government to compel others by force to do what you cannot get them to do by persuasion merely makes brute force and not the power of ideas the determining factor in how we do things.

 

[thaumaturgy]

We are the government only in theory. The system by which our leaders are selected is broken.

I agree, but the only people who can change it is us.

And we don't have A party dedicated to serving the interests of the wealthy, we have two.

Yes and no. Yes in that the DEMs are equally beholden to $$$, but "no" in that in the current debate (and pretty much over the past 30 years) the GOP has consistently worked to limit the social safety net and work harder to ensure that the interests of the top earning fraction of the U.S. population have ever lowered tax rates.

Right now it is technically possible that a person who earns a very low wage but pays mostly excise and taxes on purchases will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than an exceptionally wealthy person pays in taxes (especially with regards to those who get a lot of money from "capital gains" which are taxed even lower).

Tax cuts to the wealthy have never been shown to significantly drive more job creation. In fact during the years encompasing the height of the Bush tax cuts we saw real wages for the working decrease when adjusted for inflation while the rich-poor gap has grown to alarming levels. In the past 30 years since the Reagan administration introduced us to the idea of "trickle down" economics we've seen a steady loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. as employers moved them offshore to cheaper places.

While I know the DEMS are not necessarily different, indeed, it is usually a democrat that supports more direct funding to social programs rather than more tax breaks to the wealthy on the pretense that it will "trickle down" to the poor and less well off.

Or one that has two different names. That's where the system is broken, in the fact that when it comes right down to what they actually do, actual policies and legislation, there's almost zero difference between the "two" parties.

I generally agree. Albeit with the aforementioned caveats.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Again, you seem to care about helping more than you care that they be helped. To some, it is the act of helping that is important rather than the result of the greatest number of poor being helped most efficiently.

The reason I support governmentally coordinated social programs is exactly this. The "efficiency" of it.

While people can always point to how messed up the government can make something, the fact still is that the larger the pool and the larger the group the more efficient the system can be.

Church denominations are good for what they are able to do. But limited in scope (and sometimes carry dogmatic "strings" attached). Many churches together can make a bigger difference, but an entire country working together with common cause can be the most effective (short of the world working together).

It's obviously "do-able" since we see countries all over the world do that (western European social democracies for example).

Personally I think America should be ashamed of ourselves for not being the LEADERS in how we carry a social safety net. We are the richest country that has ever existed on the planet. So why do we have poverty to the level we do? Why do we have class distinctions and rich-poor gaps that rival 3rd world countries?

 

[mpok1519]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

Well, since our govt is a democratic republic (made up of a bunch of individuals), the Bible lessons do apply. Caring for the poor is a responsibility of people, and since out govt ultimately is WE the people, it is the govt's responsibility as well.

 

[Touma]

YIKES! That sounds like something right out of the Communist Soviet Union.

Oh? Does it say "Eric Hilbert" on the dollar bill? No? It says "United States of America". It belongs to the government. That is why if you deface it, you get in trouble.

Unless it's Unbliblical? So, if a government violates its own laws and does things it is not authorized to do, is there still a Biblical mandate to enable them in that lawlessness?

Give me an example.

Yes. It's one of the things that led to the Reformation.



Yes, that's why there was a Reformation.

WHich has completely defeated the problem, right? Like I never see WoF people begging for "seeds of faith" to be sown in their direction. If anything, the reformation just continued the practice in a different, more profitable way.

God is speaking about the Nation of Israel, specifically, which was a theocracy. We are neither a theocracy nor the Nation of Israel.

Really? I didn't see where God said "lol, these words be for Israel only. Everyone else can ignore it." If thats the case, then there is quite a bit of moral authority from the OT which should be ignored.

God sets up authority. ROmans 13 tells us this. Question: Does God set up authority to be a moral force or immoral force? If it is a moral force, then certaintly God expects it to do certain moral things, such as taking care of the least of these. I don't really think God desires just the individual believe to help the least, for he has punished entire cities for not being hospitable (see: Sodom and Gommorah). That is collective punishment, for a society that was collectively evil. God only punishes the evil. Therefore, punishing people for not taking care of the poor shows that this act is evil. And since God punishes cities and nations for not taking care of the poor/weak/widow/etc then we can assume(there is no real middle ground on this) that His desire is for society to take care of the poor. Society is just a few individuals, but EVERYONE, including the government.

 

[Touma]

Well, since our govt is a democratic republic (made up of a bunch of individuals), the Bible lessons do apply. Caring for the poor is a responsibility of people, and since out govt ultimately is WE the people, it is the govt's responsibility as well.

This is also a good point.

 

[SharonL]

Oh now it's ok to bring in the Bible - can't have it both ways - they spend most of their time kicking out God the Bible and anything to do with Christians.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Oh? Does it say "Eric Hilbert" on the dollar bill? No? It says "United States of America". It belongs to the government. That is why if you deface it, you get in trouble.

Actually, it says "Federal Reserve", which is not the government, but is a privately held bank.

Anyway, you didn't say the dollar. You said "money".

Give me an example.

Government handouts.

WHich has completely defeated the problem, right?

No, they're still very corrupt. I'm just saying that this is one reason we left them.

Like I never see WoF people begging for "seeds of faith" to be sown in their direction.

WoF is an abberant movement within the Church, not "the Church".

If anything, the reformation just continued the practice in a different, more profitable way.

I wish you'd tell that to our Catholic friends, because they keep telling me that there is no one Church within Protestant Christianity.

Really? I didn't see where God said "lol, these words be for Israel only. Everyone else can ignore it." If thats the case, then there is quite a bit of moral authority from the OT which should be ignored.

I don't believe any of it should be ignored. I just believe, in concert with the commonly held orthodox position, that parts of the OT are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I don't really think God desires just the individual believe to help the least

I don't, either. I just don't believe there is a Biblical or Constitutional case for the government to be involved in such things.

for he has punished entire cities for not being hospitable (see: Sodom and Gommorah).

Yep. God often dealt with cities and kingdoms under the Old Covenant.

That is collective punishment, for a society that was collectively evil. God only punishes the evil. Therefore, punishing people for not taking care of the poor shows that this act is evil. And since God punishes cities and nations for not taking care of the poor/weak/widow/etc then we can assume(there is no real middle ground on this) that His desire is for society to take care of the poor. Society is just a few individuals, but EVERYONE, including the government.

I see. So then do you also believe we should stone homosexuals to death?

 

[Touma]

Oh now it's ok to bring in the Bible - can't have it both ways - they spend most of their time kicking out God the Bible and anything to do with Christians.

I don't really see a conflict? The nation sets up a notion that we are to keep church and state separate. The government can't endorse any religion, nor prohibit them. Therefore, we can't have prayer in school, official religion, civil rights violations based on religious reasoning, etc.

On the other hand, we on the left believe the government is set up to help the people. We put into the system and they give back. Its a largely efficient system. Just because I tell my CHristian brothers and sisters that the government is set up by God to be a force protecting the weak, doesn't mean I am advocating the government doing it in the name of Christianity. I am not saying "Hey US, you have to help the poor because Jesus told us to". No, instead, I am simply saying "Hey bros and sisters, the reason we believe in the US gov't handing out help to the poor is because 1) It is the right thing to do, and 2) God, who sets up all authority, has stated this is His intent for government".


Surely you can tell the difference?

 

[SharonL]

I don't really see a conflict? The nation sets up a notion that we are to keep church and state separate. The government can't endorse any religion, nor prohibit them. Therefore, we can't have prayer in school, official religion, civil rights violations based on religious reasoning, etc.

On the other hand, we on the left believe the government is set up to help the people. We put into the system and they give back. Its a largely efficient system. Just because I tell my CHristian brothers and sisters that the government is set up by God to be a force protecting the weak, doesn't mean I am advocating the government doing it in the name of Christianity. I am not saying "Hey US, you have to help the poor because Jesus told us to". No, instead, I am simply saying "Hey bros and sisters, the reason we believe in the US gov't handing out help to the poor is because 1) It is the right thing to do, and 2) God, who sets up all authority, has stated this is His intent for government".


Surely you can tell the difference?

Yes I can tell the difference - I am all for prayer and God - my statement was sarcasm - because the left never wants any prayer, God or any mention of Jesus in anything - but now that they need it - it's ok to quote the Bible - All sarcasm. They always play it both ways when they need something.

 

[Touma]

Actually, it says "Federal Reserve", which is not the government, but is a privately held bank.

Look under "Federal Reserve Note". Big letters. What does it say? I read "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" ANd now, look down. You see the seal of the Treasury and the signature of the the Secretary of the Treasurer. These are part the the US government, no? The money belongs to the US government, and is printed by the Federal Reserve.

Anyway, you didn't say the dollar. You said "money".

Fine take out any piece of money, from any country at any time. It will always show some sort of belonging to the government, whether king, dictator, or representative democracy.

Government handouts.

"Government Handouts' are anti-Constitution? They are breaking the law and breaking Biblical commands? Can you show me where?

No, they're still very corrupt. I'm just saying that this is one reason we left them.


WoF is an abberant movement within the Church, not "the Church".

Sure, anyone can say this about any church. But some people hold it to be a true form of Christianity, and therefore it has to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

I don't believe any of it should be ignored. I just believe, in concert with the commonly held orthodox position, that parts of the OT are descriptive, not prescriptive.

And I don't see anything saying the principle is limited to just Israel of the OT.

Yep. God often dealt with cities and kingdoms under the Old Covenant.

And now and in the future. Nations will be judged at the last judgement for their disobedience.

I see. So then do you also believe we should stone homosexuals to death?

I don't recall any place I stated this? Nor do I understand how it figures into governments helping the poor?

 

[Verticordious]

The Bible is quite clear that role of government is to protect its citizens from both internal and external conflicts. The role of charity belongs to the church, aka the people. Government can only help people financially, but people can help people financially, socially, spiritually, mentally, and physical. In other words, government gives people fish, and individuals teach people how to fish.

Secondly, the top 1% earn 19% of the income and pay 37% of the taxes while the bottom 50% earn 13% of the income and pay 3% of the taxes. Data also shows that republicans give 2-3x as much of their own income to charity as democrats do (Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?). Maybe if liberals did more giving of their own money, and less giving of other people's money, we might takes their claims of piety and generosity seriously.

Thirdly, what does raising the debt ceiling accomplish? The debt is still there and needs to be paid back. How about we cut spending for all of these numerous and unneeded alphabet agencies so we can actually pay off our debt instead of just passing it on to the next generation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just what do these have to do with what I said?

NOthing I guess. I mean you didn't say who was more responsible than Obama et al. Just that there were some nebulous folks out there who were. And since you couched it in contrast to those people I thought I'd point out that the contrasting side in this debate appears to have some fine examples of its own.

But other than that, since you were opaque in your point, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us and show us who the avatars of responsibility are in opposition to the democratic leadership you listed.

Do you listen to the news? Social Security is going bankrupt, Medicare is going bankrupt.

No, your point was that the social programs were harmful to those they help. That has nothing to do with our stewardship of the program.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae policies to 'help' the poor buy homes led to a bubble in the housing industry which led to a damaging recession we still haven't recovered from.

So you can find an example of a general "downside. I don't see how generally speaking how social programs are more harmful than good.

Have you studied the history of welfare programs designed to help poor families and single parents? Are you aware they often served only to exacerbate the problems as women kept having children despite their situation?

Again, I'd be glad to see your numbers if you have them. I hear this cannard brought up by republicans over and over, but I don't see any real data to support the claims.

Yes, when government mandates employers to pay employees an arbitrary wage that often has nothing to do with the value of the work those who would be paid the minimum wage do and as a result the very people who most desperately need a job are priced out of the job market (the unskilled and inexperienced), IT IS A PROBLEM.

Minimum wage don't price people out of the market.

If the minimum wage is somehow a threat to competitiveness the best answer is human slavery. It's much more economical.

This whole "priced out of the market" cannard is one of those things that has driven many of our jobs overseas. If it's so good why don't the CEO's go live in India or China? Because they are not places that most of us would want to live in.

It always comes down to what we want to pay that is a "fair" price.

If a minimum wage worker is pricing someone out of the market then we all are responsible for pricing things out of the market.

If you make more than the minimum wage you are, by definition, waaaay overpaid. We all are.

It's always an arbitrary recompense calculation.

No. I did work minimum wage jobs and through them developed a work history and job skills that allowed me to get work that pays far more than the minimum wage does.

And I bet I could find someone in China who could do whatever you do cheaper.

I am a PhD research scientist in industry and guess what? There are contract R&D facilities popping up in China as we speak!

So if you did your time to get skills to make more money than minimum, I am willing to bet I did as much or more work to get where I am and even my job isn't "safe" in any sense.

It is one thing to be working for little money when you're just starting out but if one is reasonably intelligent and applies themself to their work they will quickly enough increase their value to employers and get better paying jobs.

Have you ever heard of a 56 year old man or woman who was "laid off"? They exist. Guess how quickly they get back into the same job they had? Hint: not very. That means they end up working at or near minimum wage for jobs that are available.

I love this talk about how one can just pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

Oh yeah, and with the wholesale elimination of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. due to offshoring there are a lot of people who need work but didn't have the ability to get a PhD as I did, so they can't get my job. So we are stuck with a lot of high paying jobs with lots of required skills and a lot of jobs that are bottom of the ladder. Wipe out the middle-jobs and this is what you get.

If one gets stuck in a low paying job it is often a result of their own lack of initiative that is the cause.

Yeah, right. I have no doubt there are people out there who are not motivated but it is such a juvenile view that says this is some major fraction of people.

If progressive ideas are so good, demonstrate this in the free market of ideas thus showing others the wisdom of your ideas leading them to embrace them.

First off: there is no such thing as a 'free market' that I am aware of. There's always some sort of oversite. So the idea that conservatives have of some magical "free market" seems to be predicated mostly on "theory" and not actual evidence.

Secondly: We have only to look at the 20th century in the U.S. to see the value of Progressive movements.

Again, if you don't like the things Progressives have given you then you can always go without:

1. safe food
2. 8 -hour work day
3. vacation time occasionally
4. Public health
5. workplace safety (see the whole Triangle Shirtwaist Fire tragedy etc. etc etc etc.)

Did we learn nothing from this?

Using the coercive power of government to compel others by force to do what you cannot get them to do by persuasion merely makes brute force and not the power of ideas the determining factor in how we do things.

Do you feel the same way about traffic laws? How about laws against theft? How about laws against fraud?

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Look under "Federal Reserve Note". Big letters. What does it say? I read "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" ANd now, look down. You see the seal of the Treasury and the signature of the the Secretary of the Treasurer. These are part the the US government, no? The money belongs to the US government, and is printed by the Federal Reserve.

Your point is still invalid because you said "money", not "Federal Reserve Notes".

"Government Handouts' are anti-Constitution? They are breaking the law and breaking Biblical commands? Can you show me where?

Our government operates on a principle known as "enumerated powers", with the Constitution granting those powers. What this means is that the government can only do those things specifically given to it, or enumerated, by the Constitution.

Sure, anyone can say this about any church. But some people hold it to be a true form of Christianity, and therefore it has to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

I'm not sweeping it under the rug. I'm just pointing out that it is an aberrant movement within the Church, and not "The Church".

And I don't see anything saying the principle is limited to just Israel of the OT.

Just as I don't see anything saying that we should be held to Old Covenant standards or that our Republic should be a theocracy.

And now and in the future. Nations will be judged at the last judgement for their disobedience.

So you say. I guess I'm just going to have to go with scripture on this one.

I don't recall any place I stated this?

You insisted that we should be held to the same Old Covenant standard as the Nation of Israel.

If you're going to insist that we be held to one Old Covenant law of Israel, why not all of them?

 

[chaz345]

2) God, who sets up all authority, has stated this is His intent for government".

Where? Where exactly does God say that His intent for government is to help peiople? Chapter and verse please.

 

[MachZer0]

A little late, but interesting.



Full story here -->

If Republicans criticized Democrats for ignoring Biblical principles, we'd be hearing nothing but "Church and State, Church and State"

 

[nehalem]

Oh now it's ok to bring in the Bible - can't have it both ways - they spend most of their time kicking out God the Bible and anything to do with Christians.

It's all a ploy. Every manuver they make, the left and some on the right, is a trick to get your vote. What really has me irked lately is this notion of Baseline budgeting. The running principle that the democrats go with, is that they call a 20 billion reduction of a 200 billion increase, a 20 billion cut, and then say nothing more. Reality is there was a 180 billion increase, but they call it nothing but a 20 billion cut. This is insanity how corrupt these people in washington are. Reid has proposed no deficit reducing cuts. Boehner has proposed no deficit reducing cuts, just tiny decreases to how much faster the blood is going to increase pouring out. We're on a path to destruction and nobody is speaking honestly out side of the tea party.

It's ridiculous. These people are as crooked as the day is long and then they throw the Bible around when they need votes as you mention, but the moment before they were mocking it.