2012 Election

[Jan]

Maybe if some Americans were not waisting money on ipads, iphones, imacs,Android phones and 140" LED TV's they could pay for health care them-self.

I agree.

[Dan]

I heard about a family that is just about gone bust because there kids want iphones this extended to Adults too, have to " keep up with the Jones family"

Congrats Jan on 222 posts.

[Dan]

Mannycat I understand your opinion, I used to think like that before I started thinking outside the box and started my own company. When you work for yourself you realize that the sky is the limit on what you can do and what revenue is generated, taxing on the wealth only will put a stop to being all you can be in the long run.


Here is an idea, lets tax the life out of the poor.. then they might want to work.

Why make being poor a reward?

[gman]

My opinion is it is the government's job to make sure people have access to these things, and yes, that means taxing the people who can most afford it to do so.

I have to disagree the govt. should only provided laws, law enforcement & schooling.

The rest should be worked for, it shouldn't be a wealthy persons fault if someone is lazy, doesn't want to work to earn their own damn health care.

Govt. and health need to stay the heck away from each other! I lived in Australia for years under that system, it is a failure.

Maybe if some Americans were not waisting money on ipads, iphones, imacs,Android phones and 140" LED TV's they could pay for health care them-self.

Exactly right. We should be working to roll back health insurance to the point where it is actually insurance and not some third party paying for everything and absolving people of any responsibility. When you have insurance paying for everything, it really ceases to be insurance, and it drives the cost way up. Gov't does a good job of fostering the attitude that it's not fair that some can afford to buy insurance and others can't. It pushes us toward a system where everyone has the right to have another entity pay, and really no one has the right say no thanks and pay for their own care, because they have a responsibility to pay into the system.
Bring on the left wing talking point that tries to push conservatives into the cute little box where they don't care about people who can't pay for their healthcare. We can and should help those people. However, for every person who truly needs healthcare help, welfare, or whatever, we could trot out dozens more who are, as Daniel points out, lazy and wasteful. We need to stop with the Gov't programs that cater to those people, no matter the reason. Using those programs as a political vote getting tool is despicable. Unfortunately both sides do it.

[Jan]

I heard about a family that is just about gone bust because there kids want iphones this extended to Adults too, have to " keep up with the Jones family"

Congrats Jan on 222 posts.

I used to be more on the "bleeding heart liberal" side, but after living in a big city for awhile and doing inner city ministry, I got over it. I got tired of taking food and other items to "poor" people, only to see that they have alot more stuff than I do.

Thanks! Now I only need 2000 more to catch up with Sue!

[corolla1]

God's Word does not call on Gov't to care for the poor anywhere in scripture. Jesus never addressed politics. He is neither liberal nor conservative. His kingdom is not of this world. The apostles never addressed politics either. We as believers are responsible to care for the poor and yes we have dropped the ball for the most part. Most of the $$$$ we give as Christians go towards building and maintaining massive buildings instead of taking care of our pastors or caring for the poor. Way too much overhead at the church level. Most of the social welfare programs that we have here at the federal level are unconstitional to begin with. BTW in case you didn't notice, we are on the verge of bankruptcy. We simply can't afford these programs anymore.

[knotodiswrld]

At some point, the Republican Party convinced a lot of Christians it has the monopoly on biblically supported social policy, which I find pretty astounding, considering that the GOP, other than on abortion, doesn't really do much standing up for the poor, needy or downtrodden, which is probably the single most overriding theme of the Bible.

That's because it is not now, nor has it ever been, the proper place of government to fulfill the Biblical command to "stand up for the poor, needy or downtrodden". The reason the Roman Empire collapsed was because of their social welfare system. The same thing will happen to the United States unless we get the government completely, 100% out of the business of "standing up for the poor".

Romans 13 tells us that the purpose of the government is to bear the sword, not the ladle. The governments job is to use force to maintain order ... and that is IT!!!!!

Now, there is some flexibility in that. For instance, in this day and time part of bearing the sword is to create a scientifically and technically knowledgeable populace so that we can continue to develop the technology to bear the sword in defense of the nation against technologically advanced opponents.

Therefore, while funding education would not have been a proper function for government in ages past, it is a proper function for government today. That is because having an educated populace has become a national security issue. Schools are as important to our long-term national defense as the military. And making sure our populace is educated is vital to having a sword worth bearing.

However, the government taking care of the poor has the opposite effect. It drains money from the economy in the most inefficient way possible and simply creates more poverty. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the only thing worse than letting the poor starve to death in the streets is letting the government try to be the solution.

No one is saying that Christians should not give of their means to care for the poor. Of course they should. That's obvious. It's a no-brainer. Only someone who has never cracked a Bible would not realize that Christians must care for the poor.

But how are Christians supposed to do that if the government keeps getting in our way!?!?!?!? To me, voting for politicians that want the government to take over the responsibility of caring for the poor is the same as shirking that responsibility ourselves. It's a cop-out. It's saying, "Oh good! Let the government do what Christ commanded us to do so we won't have to!"

Letting the government take care of the poor means spiritual death to both Christians individually and society as a whole. Let me explain.

Let's say a Christian of fairly modest means sees a family in poverty. This Christian, if he knows the government will not be helping out, will take of his means what he can and set them aside to help this family. Moreover, he will go to other members of The Church Universal and say, "Here is someone who needs our help. Let us gather what we may and help them." Then other members of The Church will contribute as well. Then, as they did in the First Century, the Church will go to that family and help them.

And they will do more than just hand them money. They will genuinely minister to that family. They will demonstrate the love of Christ. They will not only bless the family materially, but spiritually as well. This will provide the opportunity for this family to come to Christ, and will give the members of The Church involved an opportunity to lay up treasures in Heaven and be blessed for the seed they have sown in God's Kingdom.

The current system involving the government produces the opposite effect. It leaves no room for ministry. It leaves no opportunity for The Church to minister spiritually. And it leaves us little opportunity to store up treasures in Heaven.

It may produce warm, full stomachs ... at least until the U.S. winds up in the same shape as Greece ... but it produces cold, empty hearts. Allowing the government to care for the poor is the opposite of what Christ commanded. And just as it destroyed Rome, it will just as surely destroy the modern nations heading down that path today.

While salvation through the shed blood of Christ is the "single most overriding theme of the Bible", as you say, I will agree that "standing up for the poor, needy or downtrodden" runs a close second. But that is just my point exactly. Doing so is the command Christ gave The Church. But the command he gave the state was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The command he gave the state was to "bear the sword" to punish evil.

We have to stop getting those two confused. The state was ordained by God to deliver wrath (again, see Romans 13). The Church ordained by God to deliver mercy. The government should no more be caring for the poor than The Church should be policing the streets and arresting criminals.

The two need to stop interfering with one another. Yes, I am advocating the "Separation of Church and State". Which means the state needs to stop doing The Church's job.

And what happens when we fail to do our job?

Tough luck, poor guys. The church was supposed to take care of you, but since they haven't, it looks like your children won't make it this winter. I'm sure Jesus is OK with that because, see, it's not the government's job to help you. And I know you've been too busy trying to feed your family to go to church or spend much time thinking about theology, but since we're certain that anyone who dies in their sins is going to a literal hell for all eternity, it looks like you're really out of luck.

I know that's the standard liberal response, but it's a smoke screen. If the state failed to enforce the law, would that make law enforcement the job of The Church? Of course not.

In the same way, the mere fact that The Church sometimes fails in it's job does not give the state the right to take it over.

And yes, I am absolutely, 100% sure that Jesus is not only "OK" with that, but that He demands it.

for nations and individuals (Ezekiel 16:49, for example)

I see nothing in that passage saying that it is the job of the government, rather than individuals, to indicate that the government should be involved in caring for the poor. You're reading something into the passage that simply isn't there.

[executioner]

Welfare was created as temp solution to the Great Depression and was never intended to be the complete fix. Almost 70% of Americans that are getting assistance through welfare have been on it for 5 yrs or more; this was never the intention of welfare.
The more the government stays out of my life the better I will be.

[knotodiswrld]

Except when it comes to marriage and abortion laws, in which case, the goverment better rule in favour of our Christian values.

That's a pretty big, and completely unfounded, generalization to make.

True, most Christians believe an unborn child to be a human being. Therefore, we believe abortion to be the taking of a human life. Ergo, it should be handled under the homicide statutes.

Do you believe homicide should be regulated? Do you believe that taking the life of another, except to defend against loss of life or serious injury, should be punished?

If so, then you understand why we believe there should be legal penalties for performing an abortion. In fact, I do not believe that any state should pass any law making abortion, per se, illegal. I simply believe that those who perform abortions should be arrested and prosecuted under the statutes which their respective states already have regarding pre-meditated homicide.

So, no. Many conservative Christians do not want "abortion laws". We simply want the state to enforce the laws it already has against killing people!!!!!

As regards same-sex marriage, I think you have it backwards. It is the people who want same-sex marriage to be legal that want their values enthroned in legal status. Those of us who are against same-sex marriage are simply saying, "Hey, let's not put the blessing of the state on a relationship that so many of it's citizens find immoral."

It is those who are for same-sex marriage who are asking for laws that enforce their values. The rest of us are simply saying, "No, let's not force everyone, no matter their beliefs, to accept same-sex couples as legitimate." We are the ones saying, "Keep your laws out of the bedroom". Those endorsing sames sex marriage are the ones wanting to put the power of the state into people's sex lives.

In fact, I would be far more in favor of ending "marriage" as a legal institution altogether than having the state bless same-sex marriage. In fact, why on earth do we even allow the state to decide which couples are legitimate and which are not? Why do we allow the state to be the agency to legitimize marriages in the first place?

As for the running the government in favor of "religious values", I think you will have a very hard time supporting your assertion that the majority of Evangelical Christians want any such thing. We simply want to keep the government from interfering with those who do wish to live their lives according to Biblical principles.

It is those who wish to interfere with that who are trying to legislate their own values.

[CatNamedManny]

I'd been meaning to post back here for a while and tackle the largely incorrect notions of poverty that seem to exist among many of the posters here, but that requires time to research and post, which has been in short supply of late, so I'll just respond to some of the things posted since then:

I agree with Knot about abortion; I view it as a violation of human rights, not a religious issue. It's the same reason i oppose torturing suspected terrorists.

On gay marriage, however, Knot, your logic is incredibly tortured. You argue supporters of gay marriage are denying you of your right to force them to accept your values. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Nothing about the state allowing two people get married, regardless of gender, hurts my ability to love and marry my wife, live a Christian life, worship my Savior or regularly attend church. However, federal law and the laws of most states allow for discrimination against people based on the gender of their desired spouse, and they are harmed, significantly, by being unable in many cases to take advantage of the same rights married couples have in the realm of taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. The "nature or nurture" debate is a complicated one, but it is no longer a question that homosexuality can be — and in many, if not most, cases is — an inborn characteristic. As such, it is less a "value" than it is a state of being, one no religious group has the right to use the state to discriminate against.

We agree that "marriage" as a term should be reserved for the church to use. I think the state should simply certify civil unions, which would include by right all church-sanctioned marriages, as well any non-church unions any couple wished to make. This would hopefully end a lot of the confusion about what exactly "marriage" is (sanctioned by God, versus certified by the state).

We simply want to keep the government from interfering with those who do wish to live their lives according to Biblical principles.

Yet the positions evangelicals tend to support on social issues increase the government's role in the lives of those who do not wish to live their lives according to Biblical principles. Gay marriage being a prime example. Prohibiting assisted suicide being another. Advocating against the decriminalization of recreational drugs. Opposing pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants or, even worse, the children of illegal immigrants who did nothing wrong except be an infant when their parents came across the border and excel in our education system.

[CatNamedManny]

Tackling a few of the other statements made here:

Welfare was created as temp solution to the Great Depression and was never intended to be the complete fix. Almost 70% of Americans that are getting assistance through welfare have been on it for 5 yrs or more; this was never the intention of welfare.

This is inaccurate. The United States from its earliest days has provided cash assistance or jobs programs to the poor, a carryover from the British Poor Laws. The Civil War Pension Program of 1862 provided welfare to Civil War veterans and their families. States developed Mothers' Pension laws before World War I to allow single mothers the ability to raise their children at home, and by the 1920s, some states had begun providing formal assistance to the elderly and blind. Workers' compensation, which also is a welfare program, was nearly universal before the Great Depression. The welfare programs created under the Roosevelt administration were mainly the expansion, reorganization and formalization of welfare programs that already existed among the various states, which were overwhelmed by the amount of need produced by the depression. I can find no evidence that the Social Security Act, which established the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program usually associated with "welfare" until the 1996 Clinton reform, was in any way intended to be temporary.

The more the government stays out of my life the better I will be.

Interesting. Of course, I assume you're excluding the police force, the fire department, the post office, the interstate highway system, the Social Security checks you will be drawing (or your parents are or soon will be drawing), food safety regulations and inspections, toy safety regulations and inspections, workplace safety regulations and inspections, antidiscrimination legislation, terrorism investigations, the court and prison systems, the armed forces, prescription-drug regulations and inspections, airplane regulations and inspections, vehicle regulations and inspection, the FDIC, antimonopoly legislation and disaster response and aid, to name just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head.

Before we demonize the government, let's pause to think about what exactly we're demonizing: ourselves. This is a government of, for and by the people, no more, no less. It is in the best interests of society to keep vulnerable members of that society from falling through the cracks. It reduces crime and ultimately saves us money. And that's before we discuss the moral benefits of not leaving thousands of people on the streets to die. You say that's not the government's role. Fair enough, as long as you're aware that not only me and the majority of the people who make up the government (your fellow citizens) disagree with you, but so did the framers of the Constitution, who explicitly stated the federal government existed to "ensure the general welfare" and in separate documents defended strongly the ability of the government to make its citizens "happy."

However, the government taking care of the poor has the opposite effect. It drains money from the economy in the most inefficient way possible and simply creates more poverty. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the only thing worse than letting the poor starve to death in the streets is letting the government try to be the solution.

This is incorrect. Economists have shown that providing money to the poor actually stimulates the economy and produces more growth than cutting taxes, especially cutting taxes for the wealthy. Why? Because the poor will spend that money immediately on essential things, and every $1 of consumer spending produces jobs and more money to spend. Tax cuts, on the other hand, overwhelmingly go to people who need them less, and because it's not a direct infusion of money, it tends instead to be saved, which — while certainly a good and responsible thing to do if you can afford to do it — does not have as immediate, or as large, an effect on the economy.

And regardless of how convinced you are, the data say you're absolutely wrong. Every major industrialized country has seen a steep decline in poverty rates since they enacted welfare programs, and studies show that the factor that most correlates with the rate of decline in a nation's poverty is the robustness of its welfare programs.

Romans 13 tells us that the purpose of the government is to bear the sword, not the ladle. The governments job is to use force to maintain order ... and that is IT!!!!!

Let's be clear: God does not say much about government that's applicable to us. He chastises Israel quite a bit for being unjust, for abusing the poor, for failing to help the needy, but Israel was a theocracy; he was their ultimate king, even as they rejected his direct rule for an earthly king. In the New Testament, Jesus says to pay taxes, and Paul expounds on this by saying God uses governments to limit sin; in other words, government is a tool to help us fight temptation, and let's face it, that's a pretty effective tool.

But Paul is also writing to people caught in the web of some of history's most violent dictators. He focuses on "the sword," because unless they were Roman citizens, the sword was pretty much the extent of his audience's experience with government. The fact that a man about to be executed by one of the most infamous despots in world history talks briefly about government bringing a sword is not surprising to me, nor do I find it particularly relevant in this 21st century context. Help for the poor is not mentioned; why should it be? That wasn't a going concern for Christians in Rome at the time.

Yet we know that in at least one case, God judged a government other than Israel for its failure to protect the poor and needy:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. — Ezekiel 16:49-50

Does this verse mean that God requires governments to enact social welfare programs and ameliorate poverty below a certain percentage? No, I don't think so. But it, along with his general silence on the proper role of government in general, leads me to believe there is no biblical prohibition against governmental aid to the poor, and that the pervasiveness in the Bible of God's concern for the poor makes me think that He in fact is likely to approve of any efforts to help the poor, regardless of the entity doing the helping.

If we as Christians have the opportunity to utilize our tax dollars in ways that fulfill a key goal close to the heart of our Creator while doing an undeniable public good that benefits society as a whole and does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, I fail utterly to see why we should not do so.

[onyx]

I always think it's interesting when someone thinks the government is the answer to anything. As far as I can tell, the government doesn't do anything exceptionally well. Our educational system, Social Security, immigration...you name it. Now, let's give them power over our health care?? Foolishness.

[CatNamedManny]

I always think it's interesting when someone thinks the government is the answer to anything. As far as I can tell, the government doesn't do anything exceptionally well. Our educational system, Social Security, immigration...you name it. Now, let's give them power over our health care?? Foolishness.

I'll set aside the strawman (who has ever argued that government is the answer to everything?) to ask this simple question: What power does the federal government now have over our health care that it did not have before?

[gman]

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/0 ... -obamacare
That article is a pretty read on what's new and what's coming. It gets into some extrapolation and speculation, but it does a good job of detailing where we are headed. Face it, we are headed toward a single payer Gov't run system. A segment of our Gov't wants such a system, as does a segment of our citizens, and this legislation is a big step in that direction.
I have yet to see a good argument on why we needed this legislation. We certainly could have helped those who truly can't meet their responsibility to pay for their healthcare, without affecting what's already in place, and affecting everyone else. The only reason for this legislation is to help transition to single payer. It doesn't matter what is in it so long as it meets that objective. It's what the President wants. Listen to it on Youtube if you haven't heard it.
We could have helped people with a bill of only a few pages; giving them money to buy an insurance policy, or better yet, setting up a savings account for them to use to pay out of pocket for their care. Getting insurance out is a better answer anyway.
Romney care looks like a bust, and Obamacare will turn into the same if we don't get rid of it. Smaller countries may be able to make a Gov't run society work for awhile, but the U.S. is too large for Gov't solutions.

[Dan]

I always think it's interesting when someone thinks the government is the answer to anything. As far as I can tell, the government doesn't do anything exceptionally well. Our educational system, Social Security, immigration...you name it. Now, let's give them power over our health care?? Foolishness.

I'll set aside the strawman (who has ever argued that government is the answer to everything?) to ask this simple question: What power does the federal government now have over our health care that it did not have before?

The govt. now has a muppet who wants a system that has failed in other countries, you will see.

Sometimes I really think the posts that support this president are from welfare receivers who are abusing the system.

a) Look after your own health..
b) If your fat.. it's your problem.. and no you should get disabled parking spots cause your fat.
c) If you don't have a job, make a job.. it's not anyones problem but your own if you can't get work.
d) Welfare is old, it had temporary provisions put in in 1964 that never went because of lazy bums.
e) Man up and look after your family yourself.

Taxing for the poor welfare isn't for God's work of looking after the poor, otherwise tax would be called tything.

[img]http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/familyfacts/charts-web/310-FF-chart.jpg[/img]

On March 16, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in the United States. He created large-scale national programs aimed at helping the poor and needy that consumed nearly 1.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). The programs were meant to be temporary, short-term investments. Instead they have become permanent fixtures in government programming and spawned the creation of dozens more programs over the years. Today, spending on welfare programs (adjusted for inflation) is 13 times greater than it was in 1964.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-community/groups ... roupid=225