I recall a time when churches had absolute power. If the tenants of their faith
are suppose to "re-distribute the wealth" they did a very poor job of
doing that.The reason we have the system, or at least use to have
this system, was to give everyone a chance with their own hands and skills and
brains; to labor for their own increase and the pursuit of their own happiness.
Without religion, without politicians, without those who refuse to work, who
steal everything that you work hard to gather.Then if you choose to
give away and re-distribute your own wealth, then that is your choice. Your use
of agency, your freedom, your charity. It is between you and God alone what you
donate and who you donate to. I have never read anything in the Bible that tells
us to re-distribute our wealth by surrendering it to the government and let them
buy votes and power with it and steal from it. However I have read to stay out
of debt and usury. Why can't the politicians take those teachings and live
it? Stop running up debt with usury!
The question should be:will taxing the wealthy even more help the economy? The
answer it has not in the past Second: will reduceing taxes on the wealthiest
help the poor? Under Bush the tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in 10 million
of the poor going off the tax rolls and the rich paid in more taxes than ever.
Unless we do something we will be in real trouble. We are vastly overloaded with
government workers and red tape and a bloated welfare system, plus not to forget
medicare and social security underfunded to dangerous levelsand an enormous
national debt. This is the nation that produced during WWII one half of the
world's GDP. That is the system we want not a inefficient socialist system
we are being forced into.
Truthseeker: Thanks for the statistics. They show what I was trying to say:
single motherhood tends to promote poverty. (Not always, of course - I'm
speaking in general terms). Often (not always) single motherhood can be
prevented (I'm talking about abstinence, not abortion). Instead of the
government bailing out poor single parent families, it should be enacting
policies that seek to prevent (not encourage) single parenthood. Not that the
govt. should never bail out people when truly desperate; but the emphasis should
be on prevention - on living the law of chastity, for starters (not that all
single parents broke that law, but in the inner city, many do, and the
biological fathers do not seek to be real fathers). Under liberal policies, this
emphasis doesn't seem to be there; rather, it is go out and do what you
want to do, and we'll pay for your child support. This is why, at least
often, faith-based charity works better than govt. handouts.
The biggest sources of govt spending are Social Security and Medicare.Everybody pays taxes. The poor pay a larger percentage of their income in
taxes than the wealthy. The Earned Income Tax (EITC) Credit, first introduced
by Reagan, which reduces the amount of income tax lower income levels pay, has
been expanded by every President since. Poverty is a significant
factor in the success of a child. A bright, intelligent poor child has a lower
rate of success than middle or upper income children of average intelligence.What are Republican solutions for helping poor children? So far
all we've seen is an effort to defund clinics that provide care to poor
women and a "survival of the fittest mentality."So where
does the LDS church stand on this issue?
Re:SR71Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States had
25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an
average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.Ireland was
second (24.3 percent), followed by New Zealand (23.7 percent). Greece, Spain,
Italy, and Luxembourg had among the lowest percentages of children in
single-parent homes.Single parents in the United States were more
likely to be employed — 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average
— but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.“The in-work poverty is higher in the US than other OECD countries,
because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very
low,’’ said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group’s
social policy division. “For parents, the risk is higher because they have
to make expenditures on childcare costs.’’The U.S. is
the only OECD country that does not have a national paid parental leave policy.
This is particularly difficult for unwed mothers, who may not be
able to afford to take time off.(Washington Post)
What is the number one reason African Americans are poorer, on average, than
white or Asian Americans? It is because about 75-80% of the kids don't have
a father in the home. (Yes there may be other reasons, but this is the main one,
and to ignore it and blame racism would be foolish.) Lack of fathers also
results in more gang membership and incarceration. (Note: in England, the white
illegitimacy rate is just as high as the black rate in the US, and, in the US,
whites are unfortunately on track to catch up.) Did racism cause this? No, it
was govt. welfare programs, and their unintended consequences. Look at how the
Catholic church supported Obamacare in the name of religiously-inspired charity,
but then Obamacare's mandate of free birth control came around to bite
them. Aside from some safety nets to protect life, govt. welfare is not the
answer. Great intentions but always, always, bad unintended consequences.
Republican conservatives are very insistant we reduce the deficit, and
rightfully so. Problem is they want the entire burden of doing this to be placed
on the poor and middle class. Some of their plans even reduce taxes on of the
upper income tax bracket.
What is immoral is the womb to the tomb mentality and sense of entitlement among
a growing percentage of the citizenry including these religious leaders. Almost half of adults in this country pay ZERO income taxes. No wonder
we have a huge deficit that is more a result of medicare, medicade and other
entitlement programs than any other category.
In my opinion, the government should start cutting expenses by removing Earned
Income Credit. I do not see any benefit from this program.
Remove earned income credit...
@samhillLiberal double standard. They love to shout "Separate
church and state" unless the "church" agrees with them, then they
become silent. There are YouTube videos showing liberal politicians speaking at
churches and meeting with religious leaders. Where's the ACLU?It's just like free speech. Liberal pundits can bash women all they want,
but when a single conservative does it, the call goes out for him to be shut
down and arrested.
re:cavetrollGood point although the government entitlements I am
talking about relate to personal welfare checks and all the other handouts which
are unsustainable....unless you simply decide as a society that you are content
to continue with the entitlements all the way to bankruptcy like Greece and the
state of California. Not a good plan I think you would agree.These
corporations you speak of are critical to the US economy so having incentives
for them is important. It is very important that all these corporations do well
and that is where a SMART president comes in. What we need (and don't
presently have) is a president who is pro-business, pro-capitalism and
understands that in order for all of us to succeed we must have government /
business partnerships (not government take over). You are correct however that
those business partnerships must be monitored and controlled to avoid abuses and
@Seronac: The only problem with eliminating income tax is that a national tax on
goods and services would penalize the middle class and place on them the burdens
of funding the entire nation. The rich don't spend money, they
save it... so you'd get virtually no tax income from them.Much of the
money the poor has comes from the government anyways, so you aren't gaining
anything there.The middle class average Joes are the ones out there
spending 80-100% of their paycheck every week. They buy the electronics, they go
out to eat, they see movies, they go on vacations. Three quarters of our economy
is consumer spending, done mostly by the middle class. If you put a 20% tax on
the stuff they buy you only erode their purchasing power further.
And while we're at it, convert the income tax to a flat tax with no
deductions and no exemptions, OR repeal the income tax entirely (since it's
stupid to tax production), and institute the Fair Tax; and repeal income taxes
for businesses, since it's just an expense that gets passed on to
consumers. Also, no special incentives, programs or pensions for elected
government employees, just a flat annual salary.
What's immoral is confiscating the income of working people to redistribute
to people who don't work. Any contributions to the poor should be
voluntary on the part of the givers, not forced by the government. And anyone
receiving such compensation should do everything they can to be independent and
self-sufficient, and not mooch off of others. On the other hand, we should give
generously to the poor, of our own free will and choice.Any budget
that works to end the dole, reduce taxes and get the country out of debt is a
step in the right direction.
I believe in taking care of the poor and needy, not the lazy and greedy !! Take
care of those who need help, not the people who WILL not work.
Christianity doesn't tell us what the answers are in politics. It tells us
what questions to ask. The clergy quoted in the article may be perfectly fine
clergymen but as political economists, they're perfectly fine clergymen.I assert that the poor do better under a freer economic system than
under an unfree one. I assert that it is immoral to advocate for the
perpetuation of programs that, if kept on their present course, will bankrupt
the country and make it impossible to pay for *any* aid for the needy. I assert
that it is immoral to take one dime more in taxes than is needed to pay for
legitimate public needs, which include aiding the needy but do not include
"reducing income inequality" once the needy are aided, and that it is
immoral to maintain a wasteful system of taxation when the same ends could be
achieved with less cost.How to achieve justice and mercy in the
public sphere are matters for people's prudential judgments, and I am glad
that the LDS Church, unlike these false priests, understands that.
PatriotI agree, let's cut the entitlement programs. Including
those to big corporations like Boeing, Chevron, Exxon, Big Pharma, the
military-industrial complex, etc. These companies also receive numerous monies
from the government. How many times have we heard of military contractors being
over budget and behind schedule on their projects? Yet they continue to receive
handouts. Oils companies also receive huge handouts from the government. In
fact, many times their tax burden is zero, thanks to all the tax breaks they
Hmmm. So far I've not seen any of the typical "Separation Of Church
And State" comments that usually follow statements from religious types
regarding the functions of government.Most of those kinds of
comments come from people who are usually regarded as "liberal" and/or
socialistic. And, from my experience, I'd say that the more liberal the
more vociferous is the protest against any expression about what governments
ought or ought not to do by religious organizations or people.But,
as yet, I've not heard or read a word of protest! Why are they not
mounting the almost knee-jerk condemnations that follow virtually any other
announcement this type? What gives??Could it be that they are
agreeing with this particular group of religious organizations or people?
8plex says: 50% don't pay a dime in taxes. Please that has been
proven False many, many times even thought your radio tells you otherwise.... and if you mean income tax the wealthy that you worship don't pay it
either, they pay capital gains like Romney at a whopping.... what was it almost
14% (of what he keeps in the light.)8plex says: The hypocritical
religious leaders will be facing a bankrupt country. Religious folk
are now Hypocritical for trying to protect the sick the down trodden?At
least those saintly wealthy have the GOP to protect them from the
"hypocritical religious leaders"The tent gets smaller and
@Dart Thrower; Thank You!Military projects that should be
scrapped.F-35 fighter. We don't need it... buy more F-16s and
F/A-18s to replace older airframes that are retired. They offer proven
capability and can accept all the modern electronics upgrades at a fraction of
the cost.CV-22 tiltrotor. Expensive and useless. The blackhawk
helicopter can do everything the CV-22 can and costs much less.Ford
class carrier: Complete waste. The Nimitz class carriers have decades of life
left and do NOT need to be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis as they reach the end of
their lifespan. We don't need ten aircraft carriers in service, 5 or 6 is
more than enough to have several deployed to hotspots around the world and a
couple held in reserve. With the presence of land bases for aircraft dotted all
across the globe the value of carrier airpower is limited anyways.Getting rid of those 3 programs would eliminate some $18 billion from the DoD
budget.America does NOT need to be the world's police force.
Let our NATO and UN allies pick up some of the slack in keeping the world safe
from terrorists and crackpots.
It used to be that if you didn't work you didn't eat. When people are
forced to pay for non-workers who are capable of working and then those same
non-workers cry foul at the workers revolution is at hand. When people are
assigned to be feeling and to do good they cannot do good but they can only
fulfill their duty. 50% don't pay a dime in taxes. That means 50%
shouldn't have a say where the tax dollars go. However, in society today
the 50% have time to get on social media boards, picket, write up a storm and
change policy while the others are busy providing for their family and the free
loaders.Take Ryan's budget or not. The hypocritical religious leaders
will be facing a bankrupt country. Why isn't their message to get people to
produce more so that there are more resources available for their indigent and
handicapped people? There is another saying - To he who has 5 talents shall be
given another 5 more and from him who hid his one will be taken even what he
The Air Force is currently developing a next generation fighter called the F-35.
It is now years behind in development and over-cost. The total lifetime cost
for this fighter is predicted to be One Trillion Dollars. That is a Thousand
Billion Dollars. And why do we need this? In the last forty years or so, the
US Armed Forces have lost fewer than 50 airplanes in combat, despite almost
constant war. Our F-22 is the only fifth generation aircraft on the planet.
Our F-15s and F-18s are still so good that Boeing is using them to compete for
business in Korea and Japan. They are still leading edge. Yet, the
military-industrial complex supported by Congress feel the need to obligate the
US Taxpayers to spend a Thousand Billion Dollars for aircraft that will be
another full generation of what anyone will have in the same time period. And
the GOP wants to give the rich another Four Thousand Billion Dollar tax cut to
the wealthy at the same time. Insanity.
define economic fairness ....Is fairness unemployment for all? Is
fairness 16 trillion in debt set to be 20 trillion in 4 more years ? Liberals will not reign in entitlements (ever) and all the government hand out
takers are used to living off the government so taking that away means they will
have to work now. Not going to happen .... willingly. If you GIVE your kids 1000
a month in allowance for 5 years making them do NOTHING at all to earn it and
then suddenly tell them they are going to have to start working for the
allowance what do you think the reaction will be ? Very predictable outrage!!
Ryan is a SMART guy but nothing of value will EVER get passed in
Congress until Obama and Reid are gone! Liberals live to make people dependent -
it is how they keep power so giving people the chance at self reliance sort of
shatters that agenda. America will be like Greece unless a budget
like Ryan's is adopted ...soon....and that is reality and then there will
be screaming and burning cars in the streets as people protest about government
bankruptcy! How fair is that????
There are certainly things that need to be done on the spending cut side, but to
continue to treat the wealthiest of Americans like victims is only going to make
the problem worse. Could someone tell me why the wealthiest of the wealthy who
are the only ones to profit in this current economic downturn need a tax cut?
They have made huge profits and haven't been creating jobs, why would one
think they would start now? Ryan's plan will only make the rich richer and
everyone else poor.
It's OK, I've read dozens of posts from GOP supporters that claim
Churches should and can provide all the charity, food, and shelter that
lazy/needy/old people and children in America depend on.
Just another step towards the eventual destruction of the middle class and a
return to the Feudal system, where all means of economic growth are owned by the