Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[BondiHarry]

I'm reminding stubborn people who don't like the truth that God's law, provided for the care of the poor backed up with legal force. It was not that individuals volunteered to leave the edges of their field for the poor, every 7th harvest for the poor, that they all volunteered to return bought land and Israelite slaves every 50th year. No, at least some of that had to have government force.

Yes, God's covenant with the children of Israel did include laws backed up by legal force. I would remind you that as Christians we are not under such laws and they certainly can't be used to justify the theft by government proxy that some people here are advocating. Also take a closer look at the 50 year jubilee and consider how that would have impacted land sells for example. The price a man might pay for a plot of land 49 years away from such a jubilee would be more than a man would pay two years away from the jubilee. Plus, not all property was subject to the jubilee.

 

[chris4243]

Yes, God's covenant with the children of Israel did include laws backed up by legal force. I would remind you that as Christians we are not under such laws and they certainly can't be used to justify the theft by government proxy that some people here are advocating. Also take a closer look at the 50 year jubilee and consider how that would have impacted land sells for example. The price a man might pay for a plot of land 49 years away from such a jubilee would be more than a man would pay two years away from the jubilee. Plus, not all property was subject to the jubilee.

So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe that God would be pleased by the government forbidding an immoral behavior, or mandating a virtuous behavior. In particular, it doesn't matter to God if there is "theft by government proxy"?

 

[BondiHarry]

So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe that God would be pleased by the government forbidding an immoral behavior

It depends on the immoral behavior. Such evils as rape, murder, theft, fraud and so forth are things God establishes kings to combat (see Romans 13:3-4). However, we are commanded to not be busybodys in other men's matters (1 Peter 4:15) and numerous other scriptures (so far as is possible live peacebly with all men, our not judging those outside our faith) that indicate many things that Christians would consider immoral are outside the pervue of govenment. Basically men should be left to live their lives as they see fit so long as they don't initiate the use of force or fraud against their fellow man.

or mandating a virtuous behavior

Again, we are not to judge those outside our faith or be busybodys in their matters. All men should seek to be virtuous because God's warnings about sin are for our own good, sin does immense harm to men in our mortal lives and of course will cut the sinner off from God and eternal life once this life is done. However I think of the rich young lord who valued his wealth over Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, neither were forced to follow Him, the lord was allowed to walk away with his wealth intact and the woman was simply told 'go and sin no more' and from these examples I believe God will allow non-Christians to live according to their own conscience. We are called to be a light in this world, not a task master.

In particular, it doesn't matter to God if there is "theft by government proxy"?

Godly government does not engage in theft by government proxy. Although the throne is established in righteousness it is obvious many 'kings' abdicate their responsiblities to God and rule however they want. Many of these heartily support government stealing from the people and when we as servants of the Lord happen to be under their control we will render unto to Caesar what is Caesar and render unto God what is Gods. However, although we submit to these perversions of government we should not participate in them ourselves. I'm 56 and have paid into Social Security my entire working life but am led to believe that I should not apply for its benefits. The money I've been forced to put into the system was never intended for my retirement but was used to pay workers who retired before me. The promise government makes to me is that when it is my 'turn' younger workers will similarly be looted to cover what SS promises me. This is an example of the government sponsored theft I condemn and in a way I'm mildly amused that so many younger members here at CF champion the welfare state since they are the ones who are going to be taxed like there is no tomorrow to keep this sinking ship afloat.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Godly government does not engage in theft by government proxy.

I believe that anyone who finds the money they pay to the government for programs that help everyone around them to be an onerous "theft" are perfectly free to leave the country.

Personally I want to pay my taxes to ensure that everyone in this, what I consider the greatest country, can have a good life.

Many of these heartily support government stealing from the people and when we as servants of the Lord happen to be under their control

Again if someone in the U.S. thinks that they are giving too much to help the less fortunate through government programs or that they are asked to give too much to support "roads" and public works, or that they feel police and firemen should be paid less, or even teachers who teach their kids should be treated worse, then they are perfectly free to leave the U.S.

However, although we submit to these perversions of government we should not participate in them ourselves.

So am I to assume you don't:

1. Drive on any public roads?
2. Drink any public water?
3. Take any medicine (which is under the purview of the FDA)?
4. File police reports when you are burgled or hurt by another?
5. Don't have any children in public education?
6. Don't eat any foods grown in the U.S. (the USDA's research, publically funded over a century has made massive strides in making American Agriculture what it is)
7. Don't live in a rural area that has electricity (Rural Electrification was a New Deal program)?

I salute you.

I'm 56 and have paid into Social Security my entire working life but am led to believe that I should not apply for its benefits. The money I've been forced to put into the system was never intended for my retirement but was used to pay workers who retired before me.

Yes, most people in the past half-century have learned that. The first recipients of Social Security by definition would not have paid into it.

But any of us who have elderly relatives are usually "OK" with not seeing them reduced to poverty.

This is an example of the government sponsored theft I condemn and in a way I'm mildly amused that so many younger members here at CF champion the welfare state since they are the ones who are going to be taxed like there is no tomorrow to keep this sinking ship afloat.

Government Sponsored theft?

Wow. I didn't realize Social Security was such a horrible thing.

Aren't there any countries that are more to your liking you could go to?

 

[BondiHarry]

I believe that anyone who finds the money they pay to the government for programs that help everyone around them to be an onerous "theft" are perfectly free to leave the country.

You're entitled to your opinion. God's opinon is that we are not to put our trust in princes or in the son of man in whom there is no help and that we look to Him instead. That we are not to covet or steal and be content with such things as we have. BTW, police, courts and military do benefit everyone; the entitlement programs do not. Although born American, my 'country' is with Jesus.

Personally I want to pay my taxes to ensure that everyone in this, what I consider the greatest country, can have a good life.

Good for you. Under God's system of limited government you would be eqaully free to use your money to help everyone. Under your system of coercive government however, those of us who think your plans to 'help everyone' are poorly thought through and actually do harm to people are stilll compelled to do as YOU think wise; a rather contemptuous way to treat your neighbor my friend.

I can understand that many value their money more than their fellow citizens and find the mere thought of doing something for others to be a hard pill to swallow.

Of course you haven't the slightest idea what I do to help others so any concluson you may have of my charity is based purely on speculation ... and obviously you think the worst.

Again if someone in the U.S. thinks that they are giving too much to help the less fortunate through government programs or that they are asked to give too much to support "roads" and public works, or that they feel police and firemen should be paid less, or even teachers who teach their kids should be treated worse, then they are perfectly free to leave the U.S.

The bread of my labor is not morally yours to dispose of and no matter how you try to dress it up forceably taking the wealth of your neighbor to line the pocket of another, the act remains what it is ... an act of theft.

So am I to assume you don't:

1. Drive on any public roads?
2. Drink any public water?
3. Take any medicine (which is under the purview of the FDA)?
4. File police reports when you are burgled or hurt by another?
5. Don't have any children in public education?
6. Don't eat any foods grown in the U.S. (the USDA's research, publically funded over a century has made massive strides in making American Agriculture what it is)
7. Don't live in a rural area that has electricity (Rural Electrification was a New Deal program)?

Perhaps the things you list here would not exist for you unless government provided them for you however those of us who are prudent and productive would still build roads, make sure our food, water and medicines are safe, educate our children and provide for the fuel we need to power our homes and machines ... we don't need government to do that for us. We do need government to protect us from the predatory man and God has authorized such a government. When it comes to our care for the poor and needy however He tasks us as individuals and the church to take care of them, it is not a task He gives to government.

I salute you.

I have a pretty good idea what kind of 'salute' that is too.

Yes, most people in the past half-century have learned that. The first recipients of Social Security by definition would not have paid into it.

But any of us who have elderly relatives are usually "OK" with not seeing them reduced to poverty. But not everyone I suppose. Some probably like to see old people who are well past their prime and unable to work forced into poverty.

Ponzi schemes often benefit the first ones in but it remains, the entitlement programs are bankrupting this nation. They are contrary to how God teaches us to do things and are a prime example of a way that seems right to a man but the ways thereof are death. The misery that is coming as a result of the financial failure of the entitlement programs you so love will dwarf whatever good they may have done.

Government Sponsored theft?

Yes. When one group of men use brute force to take wealth from another group of men it is theft, that they do it under the auspices of 'government' doesn't change the nature of their action.

Wow. I didn't realize Social Security was such a horrible thing.

You will find out soon enough why this kind of program is a bad idea.

I'm sure it makes Jesus cry.

Iniquity does not rest well with the Lord.

Aren't there any countries that are more to your liking you could go to?

No matter what country I go to there will just be more people who desire to live off the sweat of another man's labor.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I believe that anyone who finds the money they pay to the government for programs that help everyone around them to be an onerous "theft" are perfectly free to leave the country.

The greatest effort by the communists: the 'stimulus' bill, was a failure. It barely did any good. The jobs it created lasted, on average, 35 hours --not per week --total. The creation of those jobs cost the tax payer $160,000 each.

The greatest efforts of hypocritical expropriators falls woefully short. You should not support those things. What you support is grossly immoral.

Personally I want to pay my taxes to ensure that everyone in this, what I consider the greatest country, can have a good life.

Would you support a bill that would allow you to over pay your taxes? The extra would go toward the malfare programs you like. If such a bill would pass then how much would you give? Could you go give up an additional 50% of your earnings? After all, it would benefit everyone. Do you think you could give that up for the greater good?

 

[NotreDame]

I was.

You didn't. You have yet to make one rational remark about my claim.

 

[NotreDame]

- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Why are our conservative friends so eager to "cherry pick" from the Constitution and relegate its stated intention to "promote the general Welfare" to private individuals?

The Preamble states that "We the People of the United States" should "promote the general Welfare" but "chaz345" argues that the responsibility for "help(ing) the needy" and "caring for the poor" be passed to private individuals.

If "promot(ing) the general Welfare" doesn't apply to the "poor" and "needy," just whose "general Welfare" is the government obligated to promote - the wealthy?

The preamble is nothing more than a mission statement, goals the U.S. Constitution seeks to achieve in a specific, defined, and limited manner. The preamble is not and should not be erroneously construed, as you have done above, to think it is a grant of power for the federal government to exercise.

 

[NotreDame]

The gap between early Enlightenment government ideas filtered through the early U.S. founders and the ideas on the constitution from the Republicans and "Tea Party" individuals is so wide I can't even see how they consider their position one mired in nostolgia.

Then you are not intimately familiar with the ideas of the Founders and their ideas as captured in the U.S. Constitution. If the Founders and Framers were around today, they'd be revolting in the streets over the amount of taxes, they'd repudiate the social welfare programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they'd deride the federal SCHIP program, TARP, Obama care, and many other programs. The Republicans and Tea Party actually have quite a lot in common with the Founders and Framers.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm reminding stubborn people who don't like the truth that God's law, provided for the care of the poor backed up with legal force. It was not that individuals volunteered to leave the edges of their field for the poor, every 7th harvest for the poor, that they all volunteered to return bought land and Israelite slaves every 50th year. No, at least some of that had to have government force.

Why would you think I want a theocracy? I just want people to face the truth, when they claim that God never intended the government to help the truth when it is obviously not true. Just like you are not interested in truth so you pretend I'm advocating a theocracy so that you don't have to face the truth while you hide behind a wall of ridicule.

What evidence do you have to support your notion God's dictates to assist the poor were codified as law in the nation of Israel?

God's dictates were to the people, and given to the people, to conform their behavior. God did not give mandates to government but to people. God's commandments were for the people to follow and abide by, to live by, and given to the people. God's commandments were not a list of demands for governments to follow.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You didn't. You have yet to make one rational remark about my claim.

You're right. You jumped in to provide all the caveats and altered the terms in the original poster's claim such that it was not what I was addressing.

I was addressing the original claim and that is really all I'm interested in.

You see the "meme" going around in the conseravative circles is around the shocking claim that 50% of Americans don't pay taxes. That is, as I said in response to the original claim, simply not true.

There may be certain taxes that are not paid, but that does not mean they are not paying taxes. And in fact in many cases they pay a higher percentage of their income in those taxes that they do pay than the wealthy pay on their primary income when that primary income is in the form of capital gains taxes.

So I suppose we can point at the rich and say they pay LESS taxes with the added caveats that we are talking about those rich people like Warren Buffet who derive their main income from capital gains.

So I addressed the original point, if you wish to discuss the details then you will have to make a more robust argument that the original claim had some merit. Why even bring that cannard up if it does not require so many redefinitions and caveats such as to render it essentially without the "shock value" of the original claim?

The more wealth one has the more access to various tax loopholes. Does that mean that the wealthy are leaching off the system? Well, by the same metric that claiming 50% of Americans pay no taxes it is.

Close the loopholes. Increase the rates to something closer to those days under Reagan and increase our revenues.

Again, in industry where we are talking about real money, it is not uncommon for a company to split and the "stronger" company to carry the liabilities and debt of the former "conjoined" company. Business people apparently do it all the time. The idea is that the stronger company can bear the cost and you wind up with a larger market capitalization overall.

So I'm curious why, suddenly, the wealthy who can afford to pay more in taxes are so obsessed with absolute equality with the poor who cannot?

Because I'm willing to bet that the wealthiest among us have gotten advantages from company splits that did that very thing.

 

[chris4243]

What evidence do you have to support your notion God's dictates to assist the poor were codified as law in the nation of Israel?

The laws in the Bible requiring certain help to the poor.

God's dictates were to the people, and given to the people, to conform their behavior. God did not give mandates to government but to people. God's commandments were for the people to follow and abide by, to live by, and given to the people. God's commandments were not a list of demands for governments to follow.

Oh, since the government isn't made up of people commands to people don't apply to our leaders?

 

[MachZer0]

I'm not going to dig through our bloated tax codes to give you a specific line they use for the loophole. The fact that they're able to do it should be enough.

Uhh, that's something Olberman is claiming that Republicans want to do. There's no indication that the Koch brothers have ever been able to do it, so, FAIL, big time

I guess you'd be all in favor of subsidizing the green energy industry then, right?

If there is an industry that has good prospects for future green energy, I would be happy to see them get tax breaks, which are not subsidies

Beyond that, why should those industries get breaks that no others do?

Because we want them to succeed

And as long as we're talking about everyone sacrificing, shouldn't special perks be the first sacrifice made?

What kind of perks?

I ask again, what shared sacrifice are the top being asked of?

They are making the same sacrifice they have for years, which is bearing the greatedr share of the tax burden. I posted this in another thread, which I believe was locked. Obama wants to make sure that the half of Americans who pay no taxes don't have to bear the tax burden of the other half that doesn't pay their fair share.

But what about before Obama was even a blip on the radar? Where was all the job growth in 2002? Future was looking pretty bright for businesses then, and we still saw the lowest job growth in 60+ years. If they're going to spend an entire decade making excuses for why they can't invest, why should I believe they're ever going to?

Bush came into office with a rising unemployment rate. He moved immediately to lower taxes to stimulate job growth and was successful. For the larger part of his tenure, we had what was considered full employment. You can't have a lot of job growth when you have full employment. So when you average his job growth record, it does not look very good based on the fact that we had full employment plus the economy collapsed when the housing market crashed after Democrats failld to move on Bush's calls to head the downturn

 

[MachZer0]

Tell me, Does Steve Wynn himself live in China? I doubt it.

I wonder why that is.

Hmmmm, interesting.

But at least he could save some cash on employing loser AMERICANS so he can afford his homes in the U.S.

Where he lives is irrelevant to the business climate

 

[MachZer0]

And the government had the responsibility of executing those who didn't follow the law. These weren't "do this out of the goodness of your heart but if you don't the government won't do anything to you", these were laws.

Where do you find the mandate for the government to execute those who disobeyed the gleaning commands? Just so we're clear.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Where he lives is irrelevant to the business climate

Actually NO IT ISN'T.

The captains of industry who move their "headquarters" to China are doing so because they feel China offers a better climate in which to do business.

But yet they still choose to live in a much better place.

Interestingly enough when enough jobs are shipped to China and the U.S. has to turn itself into China in terms of work place conditions then the Steve Wynns of the world will not find this place so nice to live.

This is precisely the whole debate! America is what it is because we have a high standard of living. If Steve Wynn wants to ship jobs to China because it is a better business climate then what value does he have in the U.S.?

But Steve himself would not want to live among the grinding poverty that is a great deal of China. It isn't a great place to live for most people. The reason Wynn and others move jobs to China is precisely because it isn't a great place for most people to live.

It is cheap labor for a reason. And those reasons are reasons Wynn and others do not live there.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Business leaders in the U.S. who wish to UNEMPLOY U.S. citizens in preference to Chinese and other country's citizens must feel that U.S. citizens simply "have it too good" and will not pay the fee to them.

So if Wynn and others like China so much, by all means, live there and see how "good" it is.

Granted the rich will have it better there, but in general I think that Wynn's (and other CEO's) actions speak far louder about how much they "care" about the U.S. And it should give us pause to use them as some sort of example.

Wynn and many other CEO's are in it for ONE THING and one thing only: MONEY. They got theirs so you can just go away. If they need to see the citizens of their own country turned into serfs then so be it.

Wynn would ask that MOST of us take sacrifices he himself would never even fantasize about taking.

Wynn wants to move his operations to China? Good! One less casino magnet around. But he needs to remember WHO MADE HIM RICH and it was the U.S.

NOT China.

NOT India.

WE DID. And apparently we are no longer of value to him. We cost too much.

 

[MachZer0]

More like "1st amendment, 1st amendment".

And yet when Democrats call out Republicans for allegedly ignoring Biblical principles regarding our laws, we hear nothing but chirp, chirp

 

[MachZer0]

Actually NO IT ISN'T.

The captains of industry who move their "headquarters" to China are doing so because they feel China offers a better climate in which to do business.

Exactly and that is what we were discussing, business, not personal lives.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Exactly and that is what we were discussing, business, not personal lives.

So you decided to miss the crux of my point?

I work in industry so I have to hear the mantra that "it's not personal, it's business". And that's a load of ....

It's always personal.

Wynn didn't get up and give an UNimpassioned speech. He got up and gave a diatribe. I guarantee it's personal to him when his fortune is threatened.

My point is that it matters where the coporate leaders live vs where they set up shop precisely because it indicates:

1. Whether they understand where their true base of income lies. Teddy Roosevelt famously pointed out that the rich and successful owe a debt to the society that provided them those opportunities. That is why this debate about the rich paying more in taxes is so important.

2. Whether they actually consider themselves part of the same society. Clearly people like Wynn who moves his offices to China feels that the Americans who SURROUND HIM EVERY DAY are of no importance. It is a special "sociopath" who considers their fellow people as mere tools to their enrichment.

3. They truly believe in anything of value from this country.

Wynn (and he's not the only one by far) view American workers as needlessly overpaid and the burden of supporting the country they live in as an onerous task that must be avoided when possible.

Wynn (and other executives) have shown their hand. It is all about money. Which is fine, insofar as that is totally divorced from the fact that Wynn and the other executives HAVE TO LIVE WITH HUMANS.

If only they could get away from the rest of us I'm sure they would.

But again, Wynn could not have his fortune without the countless people he employs to do the work.

Wynn could not build the casino himself. He has to contract that out. He could not build the circuits for the slot machines. He has to contract that out. Etc etc.

But apparently Wynn feels like contracting that out to his fellow Americans must be too expensive. Or that paying some portion of his massive revenues to support the society that has allowed him to be the tycoon he is is simply too much.

I hammer on Wynn because he's the most recent example. But again it isn't just him. It's executives all over the U.S. who look around, can't imagine taking a pay cut themselves and who say "it's too expensive to do business here in this 'nice' country" so they move the work elsewhere.

As if there won't be any "impact" on the place they clearly prefer to live themselves.

Am I not making this clear enough?

It is never "just business". It is always personal.

The only time people say "it's not personal, it's just business" is when the speaker is "putting the boot in" to someone else and they don't want the other person to express the pain.

If the boot were on the other foot....it would be personal. Believe it.

 

[jgarden]

We don't cherry pick from the Constitution. Rather we recognize that the gov't must provide for the general welfare within the bounds of the enumerated powers. And there is no enumerated power that allows welfare payments to individuals which, by the way, would be providing specific welfare rather than for the general welfare.)

The preamble is nothing more than a mission statement, goals the U.S. Constitution seeks to achieve in a specific, defined, and limited manner. The preamble is not and should not be erroneously construed, as you have done above, to think it is a grant of power for the federal government to exercise.

]The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

"Promote the general welfare" was one of the 5 guiding principles that the courts have interpreted as "reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Perhaps "MachZer0" and "NotreDame" could explain why the Founding Fathers" would include "Pomote the general welfare" was an intention/"guiding principle" but that it "should not be erroneously construed to think it is a grant of power for the federal government to exercise."

Why go to the trouble of articulating an intention/"guiding principle" in the Preamble and then not provide some mechanism(s) within the Constitution, itself, to ensure that this principle is achievable?

It is the responsibility of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court to determine what constitutes "promot(ing) the general welfare" in the best interests of "We the People" at any given time, and then to take the appropriate action to achieve it.