View Full Version : Saddleback Civil Forum
Obama, McCain talk issues at pastor's forum
RE: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html
The total of the videos is two hours but well worth the time. It's a fair apples-to-apples comparison of the issues. IMHO, they both had their gaffs, they both could have done better on a couple of questions, but there is a stark contrast between their views.
COBRADOC
08-18-2008, 20:30
I watched the entire program. I kept wanting them both to say something. Most of McCains answers were short and to the point, but I felt he could have elaborated more on some of his responses. On the other hand, Obama talked and talked around almost every question, but never directly answered any of them. I came away even more convinced that Obama, even though a gifted speaker, is a shallow, empty suit.
Rugermann
08-18-2008, 20:33
Yes , cobradoc, but a MARXIST shallow empty suit!!!!!
Jeff
It seemed as if Obama went out of his way to avoid calling terrorists evil. He also seemed to suggest that we can be evil when we pursue evil around us. Wrong answer! He's a member of the blame America crowd!
COBRADOC
08-19-2008, 13:11
It seemed as if Obama went out of his way to avoid calling terrorists evil. He also seemed to suggest that we can be evil when we pursue evil around us. Wrong answer! He's a member of the blame America crowd!
Like RUGERNAMM said, Obama is a MARXIST.
I have yet to see evidence of Obama being "a Marxist."
If advocating progressive taxation is how someone chooses to define "Marxist," then most Americans are "Marxist," myself included.
But the fact is, agreeing to one or a few of the many factors that define Marxism does not a Marxist make.
He also seemed to suggest that we can be evil when we pursue evil around us.
That's a fact. It's the height of arrogance to assume that the US, unique among all nations, is incapable of evil. This is not anything close to assigning moral equivalence between our actions and those of terrorists; there is none. It is, however, to be realistic in assessing our own actions, and those done in our name by our government.
Too many Americans these days are buying into such nonsense as that the ends of fighting terrorism justifies any and all means.
Remember, hubris comes before a fall, "hubris" being a better translation of what is intended by the proverb. Thinking we as a nation are without sin in our war on terror would be hubris. It doesn't matter that Osama bin Laden is even more mistaken in his belief that he is doing God's work; we are all judged on our own circumstances. Nations too are judged (according to scripture, if you believe in that, as I do), and we would do well to remember that.
I agree with Jack Cafferty's assessment of McCain's responses to Pastor Warren's questions:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/index.html?eref=rss_politics
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.
His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.
Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.
I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.
Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?
John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.
He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.
I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.
I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.
Many commentators have said that McCain sounded good at Saddleback, Even democrat commentators are saying it and it's got them worried.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
I just love it when folks purport their opinions as facts. Is it you or Cafferty that has your facts wrong. While Bush was an average student, he actually academically outshone both his presidential rivals.
Here's just one link, but there's plenty to be found if you care to search for it.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/inconvienent-truth-uneducated-liberals-college-transcripts-show-bush-outshines-gore-and-kerry-2
RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist
a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[3] of workers by the owners of the means of production
a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)
agreeing to one or a few of the many factors that define Marxism does not a Marxist makethen what does it make?
What does all that verbiage have to do with a tax system where the percentage rises with income? (which, it should be noted, is often offset by deductions and other "exceptions" at higher levels anyway).
And what does any of that verbiage have to do with Obama? That was the original claim made by several in this thread.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like duck, swims like a duck...it's a duck.
A lot of effort in politics is devoted to convincing people that ducks are not ducks.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like duck, swims like a duck...it's a duck.
A lot of effort in politics is devoted to convincing people that ducks are not ducks.
Could you go into a bit more detail of why you think Obama is a marxist?
Which is clearly what you're saying by that.
Could you go into a bit more detail of why you think Obama is a marxist?
Which is clearly what you're saying by that.
Obama supports a health care system for all.
Obama supports raising taxes on the wealthy only. Wants to eliminate the income taxes on seniors and people making low wages. Wants to increase taxes on capital gains taxes. Wants to put a profit tax on successful companies, etc.
AKA - Take from the Rich, give to the Poor.
Obama doesn't believe in the people owning guns. He wants to ban them. (Look at his history).
Obama has said he believes certain supreme court justices should be replaced (Like thomas). Says they don't have the values of the people in mind (AKA they believe in the constitution that gives the people rights).
Obama wants to increase the social security TAX. Again another way to redistribute wealth. (If you earn it, you should keep it.)
I DO NOT Support any social programs. If I could get out of social security I would.
Want more examples?
Obama supports a health care system for all.
Obama supports raising taxes on the wealthy only. Wants to eliminate the income taxes on seniors and people making low wages. Wants to increase taxes on capital gains taxes. Wants to put a profit tax on successful companies, etc.
AKA - Take from the Rich, give to the Poor.
Obama doesn't believe in the people owning guns. He wants to ban them. (Look at his history).
Obama has said he believes certain supreme court justices should be replaced (Like thomas). Says they don't have the values of the people in mind (AKA they believe in the constitution that gives the people rights).
Obama wants to increase the social security TAX. Again another way to redistribute wealth. (If you earn it, you should keep it.)
I DO NOT Support any social programs. If I could get out of social security I would.
Want more examples?
Obama wants government medical care; READ government control of what you get treated for and what you don't.
Obama refuses to say what he considers "rich". In my estimation "rich" means anyone with a job.
Obama wants to double the capital gains tax. That means if you sell the house you bought for 100k for 150K he wants 20K of it.
The rest of the stuff I think you covered pretty well.
Let's see, does the above put Obama more on the side of Marxists, or of the Catholic Church?
Obama supports a health care system for all.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has long advocated health care for all. In their pastoral letter, Health and Health Care, the bishops called for a “comprehensive health care system that will ensure a
basic level of health care for all Americans.” Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Peace on Earth, listed health care among those basic rights which flow from the sanctity and dignity of human life. In the same tradition, Pope John Paul II addressed the need for health care in On
Human Work, where he focused on the availability and affordability of health care for workers.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/brochure1.pdf
OK, Obama and Democrats generally are in good company on this one. Let's continue:
Obama supports raising taxes on the wealthy only. Wants to eliminate the income taxes on seniors and people making low wages. Wants to increase taxes on capital gains taxes. Wants to put a profit tax on successful companies, etc.
So? Does that make Obama a marxist, or is that point of view simply Christian?
Catholic tradition holds that the goods and the burdens of a community are to be distributed on the basis that not all persons can contribute in the same way. Wherever possible burdens should be distributed equitably with due emphasis on a person's capacity to contribute. (Mater et magistra, n132; Rerum novarum, n27) Thus, a system of taxation based on justice and equity would proportion taxes according to the capacity of the people contributing.
http://catholicsocialservices.org.au/publications/COMMON_Wealth/1of7
Some right-wingers would brand that as marxist, but it isn't. The problem isn't with Obama, or with the Catholic Church, but rather with those that would mistake, deliberately or not, sensible and fair taxation policies, for crypto-marxism (hidden marxism). It is fair that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. "Wealthy" "isn't easy to define but I know it when I see it," as Justice Stewart famously wrote about a somewhat different topic (though not altogether unrelated, as the phrase "obscenely rich" attests). Defining "rich" is not only impossible, but pointless. Progressive taxation is graduated, as percentage of income taxed rises with higher incomes, so it really doesn't matter how "rich" is defined. It's just a question of how to make the curve most fair.
Obama doesn't believe in the people owning guns. He wants to ban them. (Look at his history)
I simply don't believe either of these statements, not as they're stated. I think I know what you mean, though. He'd like to reinstitute the AWB, probably in a more comprehensive and permanent form. He doesn't like concealed carry. He does like cities' prohibtions on handguns. He's wrong on all those points in my view, needless to say. If your single issue is the 2nd amendment, then the debate is over, it's obvious who you'll vote for.
I don't believe he'll prioritize this particular issue among the many he'd "like" to see happen. Obama's a smart politicians and he knows gun control has become another "third rail' of politics. I'm not particularly worried about what might happen wrt the second amendment during an Obama presidency. I am worried about what would happen if McCain is elected, because I'm convinced he'll carry on with many of the erroneous, harmful, and it must be said, illegal and evil Bush policies.
Obama has said he believes certain supreme court justices should be replaced (Like thomas). Says they don't have the values of the people in mind (AKA they believe in the constitution that gives the people rights).
Obama did not say anything about "replacing" Justice Thomas. That would be unconstitutional, as Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. When Pastor Warren asked him which SC justice he would not have appointed, he answered the question, plain and simple. Then he did go on to note that Thomas did not rise to the level of SC material. Obama is right about that. Regarding your second point, I don't recall hearing him say that, either, and I doubt he did. Please get your quotes right.
Obama wants to increase the social security TAX. Again another way to redistribute wealth. (If you earn it, you should keep it.)
So would McCain if he were honest about Social Security. The fact is, there is a demographic bubble (the "baby boom") that has to be faced up to. McCain, if he doesn't want to increase the tax, needs to tell us what he would change about Social Security. If he favors doing away with it, or reducing benefits, he should say so.
Back to the question of whether Obama is a marxist. I've shown conclusively that the positions of Obama that you claimed were marxist happen to be, at the very least, consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, if not perfectly aligned with them. Am I suggesting the Catholic Church is marxist? Of course not, as their official documents going back at least as far as Rerum Novarum in the late 19th century make clear. There are extremely significant differences, and it is dishonest to attempt to confuse legitimate means of government ameliorating the negative consequences of the excessive practices of many businesses with marxism. They are not the same at all.
Finally, I should include a link to the most authoritative source of all for clarity on this matter:
http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_centesimus_annus_official_text.aspx
It's lengthy but eye-opening. Here are just two excerpts:
"...
In the sphere of economics, in which scientific discoveries and their practical application come together, new structures for the production of consumer goods had progressively taken shape. A new form of property had appeared--capital; and a new form of labor--labor for wages, characterized by high rates of production which lacked due regard for sex, age or family situation, and were determined solely by efficiency, with a view to increasing profits.
In this way labor became a commodity to be freely bought and sold on the market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand, without taking into account the bare minimum required for the support of the individual and his family. Moreover, the worker was not even sure of being able to sell "his own commodity," continually threatened as he was by unemployment, which, in the absence of any kind of social security, meant the specter of death by starvation.
The result of this transformation was a society "divided into two classes, separated by a deep chasm."[6] This situation was linked to the marked change taking place in the political order already mentioned. Thus the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote total economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a deliberate lack of any intervention. At the same time, another conception of property and economic life was beginning to appear in an organized and often violent form, one which implied a new political and social structure.
At the height of this clash, when people finally began to realize fully the very grave injustice of social realities in many places and the danger of a revolution fanned by ideals which were then called "socialist," Pope Leo XIII intervened with a document which dealt in a systematic way with the "condition of the workers." The encyclical had been preceded by others devoted to teachings of a political character; still others would appear later.[7] Here, particular mention must be made of the encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, which called attention to the essential bond between human freedom and truth, so that freedom which refused to be bound to the truth would fall into arbitrariness and end up submitting itself to the vilest of passions, to the point of self-destruction. Indeed, what is the origin of all the evils to which Rerum Novarum wished to respond, if not a kind of freedom which, in the area of economic and social activity, cuts itself off from the truth about humanity?
..."
And:
"...
Then there are the other social forces and ideological movements which oppose Marxism by setting up systems of "national security," aimed at controlling the whole of society in a systematic way, in order to make Marxist infiltration impossible. By emphasizing and increasing the power of the State, they wish to protect their people from Communism, but in doing so they run the grave risk of destroying the freedom and values of the person, the very things for whose sake it is necessary to oppose Communism.
Another kind of response, practical in nature, is represented by the affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on the level of pure materialism by showing how a free market society can achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism, while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar as it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law, culture and religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs.
..."
-- Pope John Paul II, on the 100th anniversary of the encyclical Rerum Novarum
Tailgunner
08-21-2008, 13:46
FSW
Since you like to run numbers, where would SS be if it wasn't for the burden of Democrat sponsered giveaways ADC, WIC, SS income for elderly that never contributed to the system (age elegable imagrents(sp)), SSI for drunks & drug addicts, and quite a few other programs?
FSW
Since you like to run numbers, where would SS be if it wasn't for the burden of Democrat sponsered giveaways ADC, WIC, SS income for elderly that never contributed to the system (age elegable imagrents(sp)), SSI for drunks & drug addicts, and quite a few other programs?
I have no idea, but I do know what you're getting at. From what I know of it, WIC is a good program. It's not part of the SS system as far as I know, unlike SSI. SSI is a problem because it eats up a lot of money before recipients even reach 65. I've known of a few examples of what I suspected were at least borderline abuse by recipients of SSI. But I'm leery of formulating an opinion about something like that from a few personal anecdotes. I'd favor tightening it up a bit, for sure. The problem is, I think lots of people on SSI could work minimum wage jobs, but they'd still be unable to get by on that because they're unable to necessarily work full time or with all that much regularity. But they could work, and contribute to a company. The solution in some of those cases could be a living wage, in others, minimum wage supplemented by SSI.
To answer your point more concisely, some of what you ask about is outside of the SS system, so is moot to the question of SS solubility. Would I favor lessening SSI benefits to save the overall system: Yes. Would I favor cutting benefits to eligible elderly immigrants? No. Social Security was designed to be a safety net for the elderly, who can no longer provide for themselves, and in that capacity has a critical function in a decent society.
Tailgunner
08-21-2008, 17:04
Social Security was designed to be a safety net for the elderly, who can no longer provide for themselves
Actually it was NOT designed as a safety net for anyone, but as a pre-paid retirement fund, paid for BY those that hoped to collect from it in their senior years. That's why you have a SS ACCOUNT number, and get an ACCOUNT statement. That's why the higher your (and your employer's) contribuation, the higher your monthly payout.
Actually it was NOT designed as a safety net for anyone, but as a pre-paid retirement fund, paid for BY those that hoped to collect from it in their senior years. That's why you have a SS ACCOUNT number, and get an ACCOUNT statement. That's why the higher your (and your employer's) contribuation, the higher your monthly payout.
Not so. How else do you think Social Security began making disbursements right away, before anyone had paid a dime into the system?
The official Social Security website has a detailed section on the history of Social Security and its origins.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
"...
One of the earliest American advocates of a plan that could be recognized as modern social insurance was Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, Roosevelt addressed the convention of the Progressive Party and made a strong statement on behalf of social insurance:
"We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure...it is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance." TR would succeed in having a plank adopted in the Progressive Party platform that stated: "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for: . . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
So as 1934 dawned the nation was deep in the throes of the Depression. Confidence in the old institutions was shaken. Social changes that started with the Industrial Revolution had long ago passed the point of no return. The traditional sources of economic security: assets; labor; family; and charity, had all failed in one degree or another. Radical proposals for action were springing like weeds from the soil of the nation's discontent. President Franklin Roosevelt would choose the social insurance approach as the "cornerstone" of his attempts to deal with the problem of economic security.
On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a message to the Congress, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security. Subsequently, the President created by Executive Order the Committee on Economic Security, which was composed of five top cabinet-level officials. The committee was instructed to study the entire problem of economic insecurity and to make recommendations that would serve as the basis for legislative consideration by the Congress.
The CES assembled a small staff of experts borrowed from other federal agencies and immediately set to work. In November 1934 the CES sponsored the first-ever national town-hall forum on Social Security. The CES did a comprehensive study of the whole issue of economic security in America, along with an analysis of the European experience with these perennial problems. Their full report was the first comprehensive attempt at this kind of analysis in many decades and it stood as a landmark study for many years. In slightly more than six months, the CES developed a Report to the Congress and drafted a detailed legislative proposal.
"Security was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it . . . This seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion . . ."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Message of the President to Congress, June 8, 1934.
...
"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."--
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act
Tailgunner
08-21-2008, 18:40
Technicaly your correct, in that current workers were/are paying the benifits of retired workers. However those workers were also paying in more than the system was spending (covering current retireies AND building up a surplus for their own future).
My point being however that it's the "non-contributers" that are drawing from the system that are causing the overspending of the funds (note that Johnson and Carter were the driving factors in increasing the expenses to the system, as they couldn't stand seeing a surplus of funds in the system).
...(note that Johnson and Carter were the driving factors in increasing the expenses to the system, as they couldn't stand seeing a surplus of funds in the system).
What's your source for the increases during their terms, and particularly, for what you say was their motive?
The bigger problem has occurred during the Bush years, where one can only deduce that Bush wants to hamstring every president from now until eternity.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-03-debt_N.htm
... Even during the four most recent years when there was a budget surplus, 1998-2001, the national debt ranged between $5.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion.
As in trying to pay off a large credit-card balance by only making minimum payments, the overall debt might be next to impossible to chisel down appreciably, regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls Congress, without major spending cuts, tax increases or both.
"The basic facts are a matter of arithmetic, not ideology," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates eliminating federal deficits.
There's little dispute that current fiscal policies are unsustainable, he said. "Yet too few of our elected leaders in Washington are willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the long-term fiscal problem and even fewer are willing to put it on the political agenda."
Polls show people don't like the idea of saddling future generations with debt, but proposing to pay down the national debt itself doesn't move the needle much.
...
Most of this just makes my head hurt.
IMO: "Progressive taxation" isn't. It punishes success and arbitrarily decides what you should get to keep for yourself. Much of it could be avoided through well-known accounting techniques.
You don't think all those wealthy politicians wouldn't leave themselves plenty of loopholes, do you? <_<
A system of flat-rate tax would require that the more you take in, the more you pay, but at the same rate as people that make less yet pay less. Loopholes could be largely eliminated, and the incentive to find them would be lower anyway.
Much of it could be avoided through well-known accounting techniques.
You don't think all those wealthy politicians wouldn't leave themselves plenty of loopholes, do you? <_<
Even more than for themselves, these are for their "backers" - the people they really work for: contributors, lobbyists, and those that hire their friends, and them once they're out of office.
And who's fault is that?
Progressive taxation is morally right and economically sound. It's the loopholes that are often wrong.
And please, don't try to feed me the line that people who are already very well off won't bother to earn even more just because it's taxed at a higher rate. I see your <_< and raise you <_<<_<
Progressive taxation is morally right and economically sound.
Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
And please, don't try to feed me the line that people who are already very well off won't bother to earn even more just because it's taxed at a higher rate. I see your <_< and raise you <_<<_<
Actually, I hadn't thought of that, but I wouldn't have brought it up if I had since I share your assumption. People are more likely to try to hide income than limit it.
Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
I provided supporting evidence above for the moral aspect. While you may not agree with it, and clearly don't, I provided plenty of evidence that my point of view on this and related matters is mainstream, entirely in line with a significant "higher authority."
As far as the sound economic aspect, I merely submit the sorry record of this administration in getting the deficit under control with "trickle down" and regressive tax policies.
Actually, I hadn't thought of that, but I wouldn't have brought it up if I had since I share your assumption. People are more likely to try to hide income than limit it.
People and companies do that already, if they think they can get away with it and just don't think they should have to pay. There's no evidence for less tax evasion and fraud under a regressive tax system, that I've found. Are you aware of any?
I guess I have to concede that we've never tried a flat tax, so there's no empirical data on whether or not cheating would decrease under such a system. If you buy the idea that people cheat on their taxes in proportion to the degree of unfairness they perceive in the system, then, when you factor in loopholes that exist under the current system, but presumably wouldn't under a flat tax, maybe there'd be less cheating by some. BUT, I do not forsee a loophole-free tax system anytime soon, so I don't think the theory will get tested. I certainly don't think tax cheats base their cheating on whether they think the tax system is more or less "fair." They do it because they don't want to pay taxes, and think they'll get away with it. Only to the extent the latter can be reduced, will cheating be reduced, IMO.
Just the axiom that compliance with a law drops with the public's perception of its unfairness. I believe it would apply to taxation as well.
As to moral and economic soundness, I consider the current economic situation to be such a mess, I guess I prefer not to accept your examples as set-in-stone on this topic. Its OK that you use them, and its OK if I reject them. I believe the economy is on seriously limited borrowed time. IMO just because some "experts" and "authorities" say something is so doesn't convince me of it. I guess I prefer to wait for all the conflicting reports to come in. In the meantime, Social Security may whither and die from overuse and my pension may contract since it is based on stocks for the most part.
We're all just along for the ride, folks.
Progressive taxation is morally right Based on whose definition of morality? The Bible asks for a flat rate and that's from the highest moral authority I'm aware of. Flat rates are not only fair but right. If people want to give more, they're certainly welcome to do so. Being forced to give progressively is nothing more than redistribution of wealth and forced charity.
People of faith believe charity is far more effective than government in helping the downtrodden and give accordingly. Isn't it funny that those who contribute the least are the ones making the most noise about how people should give more to the government?
RE: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
All of this can be summed up in one phrase:
Marxism doesn't work no matter who is in charge.
Marxism doesn't work no matter who is in charge.
I certainly agree with you there. Marxism's fundamental flaw is its failure to understand what it means to be human.
All of this can be summed up in one phrase: [see above]
No, there is much more to it than that.
The Bible asks for a flat rate and that's from the highest moral authority I'm aware of.
What is your source from the Bible that God's tax plan is a flat tax? No chapter and verse necessary, though that would be easiest for me to find. But just a quote will do.
I'm not convinced that people of faith contribute more or less to charity in response to any particular tax scheme. I believe it has to do with perceived need, strength of faith and empathy, and ability to contribute.
What is your source from the Bible that God's tax plan is a flat tax? No chapter and verse necessary, though that would be easiest for me to find. But just a quote will do.
'God's tax plan' Now that's funny. Your twist on words, not mine. But what God does ask for is a flat rate in tithing (10%). If a flat rate is good enough for God, it certainly should be good enough for government.
Some are moved to give more as the widow did in Luke 21:4 who gave 100% (All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.) This would (should) be the model for all those who think rates are too low, give what you feel compelled to give. But a progressive tax code is about wealth envy, pandering to buy votes and attempting to control behavior, pure and simple.
Remember, “The death of democracy starts when the people realize they can vote themselves free money.”
BTW,
Num 18:26 - Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the Lord 's offering.
1 Sam 8:15 - He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
Neh 10:38 - A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury.
I'm not convinced that people of faith contribute more or less to charity in response to any particular tax scheme. I believe it has to do with perceived need, strength of faith and empathy, and ability to contribute.
No one is saying charitable giving is in response to any tax scheme (again, your twist). If anything, it's in spite of it. And you being convinced doesn't make it any less of a fact. It's pretty widely known that private sector and faith-based organizations do better at managing and providing services than the government. But as I said above, if the goal was providing service, the gov't might do a better job. It's about votes and trying to mold us into good little subjects.
since you're the one that suggested a flat tax was biblical.
Turns out that what you meant is that a flat tithe is biblical.
Very different things in a constitutional republic, as I'm sure you know.
A graduated (ie, progressive) tax system is biblical in the sense that it is fair.
It's pretty widely known that private sector and faith-based organizations do better at managing and providing services than the government.
That's an oft-repeated maxim that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. See the excerpt earlier in the thread about the impetus for the Social Security system, for example.
Faith-based communities do great work, but you can't dump all, or even most, of the burden for expenses necessary to maintain a civilization on them.
You'd be asking for a return to a middle ages type economy and social order. And tithes weren't optional then. In fact, they were frequently far more onerous than our current tax system, because the louts that made up the ruling class engaged in endless, useless warfare, and thought productive work beneath their dignity. They diverted tithes meant for the poor to their own use.
Actually what I meant was what I said. Since you brought the issue of morality into taxes, I simply pointed out that a FLAT RATE is what God requires. You're the one who said progressive rates were moral, but if God thought progressive rates were moral and fair, I'm confident it would be stated that way. I think your misunderstanding was more inferrence than suggestion.
Now it's your turn. Back up this quote with something from the bible.
A graduated (ie, progressive) tax system is biblical in the sense that it is fair.
You want fairness in taxes? http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Read and understand the prophets, and the words of Jesus, and you'll know all you need to on the subject.
You want fairness in taxes? http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
"A progressive national retail sales tax."
If it really is, sign me up.
That's an oft-repeated maxim that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
You've really gone off the deep end on this one. If you seriously believe that government can provide the kinds of services that charitable organizations and the private sector do more efficiently with all the government corruption; fraud, waste, and abuse; special interests; layers of bureaucracy; entrenched incompetence, then I want some of what you're smoking.
Doesn't pass scrutiny? It does at pretty much any level. That's why groups like the teachers unions are against school vouchers, because private schools can do better jobs. Privatization works and the dems/libs can't stand it.
Here's just one example in the news recently. The House cafeteria started turning a profit and operating within budget once it went private. The Senate cafeteria, however, continues to lose money because it refuses to privatize.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews
Faith-based communities do great work, but you can't dump all, or even most, of the burden for expenses necessary to maintain a civilization on them.
Once again, you've introduced a false premise to support your logic. No one expects the private sector to maintain our civilization. But if we did, I'm confident it could be maintained within budget.
You'd be asking for a return to a middle ages type economy and social order. And tithes weren't optional then. In fact, they were frequently far more onerous than our current tax system, because the louts that made up the ruling class engaged in endless, useless warfare, and thought productive work beneath their dignity. They diverted tithes meant for the poor to their own use.
Sorry, but I apparently have infinitely more confidence in our republic and the free markets than you do. So if you really and honestly believe what's you're writing, I might as well throw my hands up because it would probably be more productive.
http://raccol.com/images/smileys/outtahere.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.