[From Christian Post]
In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, the Barna Group released a report measuring Republicans and Democrats on Christian commitment. A new survey from The Barna Group explores the “God gap” between Republicans and Democrats, examining 32 measures of religious commitment, belief and activity. The study shows that while Republicans continue to hold advantage in attracting born again Christian voters, Democrats are not as far behind on measures of Christian commitment as might be assumed.
Read about it here.
[From me]
I’ll admit I used to be a Dittohead. I was an officer in my college Republicans. I admire Ronald Reagan and miss him greatly. I used to think that there was no way a person could be a follower of Jesus and be a Democrat. I’m sorry for my judgmental attitude. I’ve met many people through the blogs that are committed to Christ and lean much left of me. I don’t understand it but I see they have a genuine faith.
I see enough evil to go around in both Democrats and Republicans. There is corruption everywhere. Are there candidates anymore that committed Christians can count on to vote for their values? Do we have friends anymore in government? I’m not very hopeful.
What do you think?
Filed under: Christian, God, democrats, faith, politics, republicans
The courage of conviction on any issue is unfortunately pretty rare in politics. I think the nature of the game (especially the huge amounts of money involved) inherently makes it very difficult for a politician to stick to voting all of his or her principles. This is why I think we should have public financing of elections – without the influence of money from interest groups, politicians might feel freer to let us know what they actually think about issues.
I’m interested that you hold Reagan in such high regard. He wasn’t exactly a committed Christian in the sense you seem to be describing. I don’t mean that as an attack on Reagan; just as an observation based on what I’ve been taught.
I also liked Ronald Reagan, and worked in both his campaigns as a volunteer. I did, however at the time notice that his personal faith was not were I hoped it would be. I consoled myself with the types of people he filled his administration with.
That was then. This is now.
The appalling lack of Christian concern for just about any moral topic among the Conservative elites has long since left me behind. My father, a White, Southern Baptist, Republican, Fox News kinda guy is so furious with the current administration that he did not vote in the last election. Had he told me he was a transvestite, I would have been less surprised.
The level of distaste for dirty politics among faithful Christians of all sides appears to be growing to me.
TIA,
That is a fair question. The reason I loved Reagan is he stood firm in his convictions against abortion & he stood up to the Communists. Even his political ememies liked him as a person. He also made me feel proud to be an American.
Certainly their fiscal policies aren’t much different. And neither is their ability to be self-serving.
Both sides tend to talk and not do. Everyone runs on what they say they believe, but if those beliefs don’t have actions then so what? If someone runs on an issue like being against abortion, for example, yet that’s as far as this issue gets them is to a talking point then what difference does it really make?
Mark
The reason I lean to the Republican party is not so much because they believe the same as I do with regard to faith, but because I align with them on fiscal issues, such as how much of my money I give to my Uncle every April. Democrats would tax me more and more and more, and it seems like people on the left don’t care about that. If I have a client with a million dollar gain in a stock (and I do have a few), they cannot sell the stock without giving $150,000 to the government. That is insane! They NEED to sell it, because they could lose if the stock goes down, but selling it will cost them a capital gains tax. The government knows that they have them where they want them, and that seems wrong.
GOP would do away with that tax, along with the death tax, and others. Dems would raise those taxes, and are constantly looking for ways to tax us more. When Bill Clinton was president, he proposed to his aides that the government assess a one time tax of 10% on everyone’s 401k plan, IRA, etc. His people convinced him that the GOP leadership would bury him in bad publicity if he went through with his proposal, so he backed down. Thank goodness for the GOP.
JasonK I would not believe your one time tax story in a minute. Where does that come from? I hate to think a dozen people will walk away today and repeat that. However, if you taxed assets once every ten years to the extent that real growth had occurred (not just inflation) you might overcome your problem. Those who benefit from trading stock are naturally not going to want to see taxes reducing the tendency to turnover those assets.
People who make a million dollars on a stock deal can afford to pay taxes more than someone who works for a living.
I tend to vote to the left because we will always have the poor with us. I am turned off by the prosperity gospel of the religious right. I am a product of public education as were my parents (exceot of course for Dad’s SBTS degrees) and as are my high achieving daughters.
I enjoy a tremendous prosperity built on a great public education in a discipline/trade that is and always has been in demand and that my husband and I both work in. My husband lost his father at 14, my mother was an orphan at nine, my father lost his father at 14. My sister was born with multiple birth defects and my Baptist preacher father (while pastor of a mid size FBC) had no medical insurance. Multiple generations of people in my family have known financial hardship.
It is quite clear to me that it is my responsibility to see that others are helped to make it. I am happy to pay our taxes which are more than enough to support another middle income family. Anyone who gripes about the amount of taxes they pay obviously makes too much money or never heard of a budget.
I only wish my taxes weren’t being used to fight a war I was against in the first place.
So put me on the side of the religious left any day. My Baptist preacher father voted for Goldwater and Nixon. He never voted Republican again at the national level. He had been raised a conservative democrat as most in the south. He returned to his democratic roots and stayed there. Social Security paid him more than twice as much in retirement than the Southern Baptist Annuity board in spite of 41 years of service to the denomination and regular contributions.
More people should show their gratitude rather than whining about taxes.
I do think the minimum tax penalty is a problem because it limits reasonable deductions and decreases incentive for giving. Other than that I am satisfied that our tax system is more than fair though we could all come up with ways to fine tune the system. Capital gains taxes are a great deal.
I’ll vote character when I see it (and in a balance with issues), but absent that I will vote for what I think will most benefit the poor and needy. I will vote to further public education. I will vote to care for the sick. I will vote for a cleaner environment. I will not vote to pick a fight with a foreign country or to save us from losing access to unlimited energy sources (which of course are not unlimited).
Thanks, Kevin. I hope I don’t sound too strident. I simply want to be very clear as to why I see things from a “left” perspective and know at my age I will never see them from a “right” perspective. I sit next to republicans every week in church. It has had no effect on my thinking except to confirm for me my perspective.
Cathy,
Thanks for your perspective. I’m torn here. I served on staff at a very wealthy church. They were some of the most giving people I’ve ever met.
I also don’t see how Jesus would want me to vote for someone who supported Abortion. So how do I vote?
I lean Republican because of the fiscals ideals (which don’t often happen) and the moral issues. I am pro-life ALL THE WAY (anti-abortion & anti death penalty in most cases). I can’t vote Democrat because they take pride in killing the unborn! I do however appreciate their hearts for the “little man”. To me – they both have good ideals, but in the political climate if the day, we will never see them achieved.
I think W. is good man with strong faith, but politics is politics! What if we had a candidate that stood for life, low taxes, the common man, and was a believer. I would vote for that person.
[...] Original post by kevin bussey [...]
ryan,
that is my problem – I find my moral convictions and my fiscal views on two different sides. In fact, I find morals that I believe in on BOTH sides – but voting for one often means excluding the other. So, do I vote to protect the unborn or to help the poor? it is a devil of a choice. the answer, sometimes, is to vote to protect the unborn and then take extra care to take care of the poor personally – maybe that shouldn’t be the governments job anyway. That is not always satisfying, though. Then again, what if a politician holds all of the right views on the right issues, but you suspect them of being corrupt – and I mean in an illegal way, not the basic politics way. Do you vote in a corrupt politician just because you know he is bound to keep SOME of his promises because of the special interest groups that got him elected (I find it curious, incidentaly, that we all criticize special interest groups, despite the fact that most of us are part of at least one)? *sigh* I hate voting sometimes.
In Christ,
Tim Cook
I voted for Reagan, for George the 1st and when Clinton came around I didn’t know much about him. However I knew a well known Democrat well, because I drove him around as I helped him campaign for senate when I was in college in Memphis. I knew he was a Democrat but I thought he was different. Over Pizza one evening just me, him and another guy with the campaign sat at our table and I asked him about several things. He assured me he was a Christian. He said he held fast to the FACT abortion was murder and was very much against it, that we needed to do better on healthcare, and that we needed to GET tough on terrorism strengthen our armed forces and not let our Marines be sitting ducks like they were (at the time) recently in Beirut. Democrats have a good record for wanting to help impoverished people as a whole, so I thought finally we had a Democrat who had it right. His name? Al Gore and I voted for Clinton the first time because I liked Al. But he flipped from being a conservative to get on the ticket and have a shot at the white house. Some will call that shewed politics… I call it shameful. So I didn’t vote for them the 2nd time around.
I voted for George the 2nd. I feel just about as betrayed as I did back in the 90’s. So who do we vote for now?
Here is what is important to me.
We need to be guardians of life.
We need to defend Freedom.
We need to defend the defenseless, the weak and the oppressed.
We need to take care of Americans less fortunate than us.
And never compromise those values.
Tim,
Well, I hear you, but we have to be for life! What if…the church got a little messy & helped the poor and the government just worried about keeping us protected? Could that work?
Former Governor Mike Huckabee stated a position that I can support:
“Life begin at Conception–but it doesn’t end at birth…”
I’m very much pro-life. I’m very much against the whole “gay marriage” scenario…and I don’t even like the idea of “civil unions.” But two men who have committed their lives to each other–regardless of how wrong I find it socially and morally–should be able to protect whatever investments they have made together…
Both political parties spend money as though there will be no tomorrow–and someone, somewhere, in some generation will have to pay those bills!
Maybe we Christ-followers need to fast and pray, and ask the Lord to raise up a candidate who will stand for truth and not compromise.
Only God can raise up that candidate…Both political parties have proven over the last 100 years that they can’t raise one up like that…
4 words – PAT ROBERTSON FOR PRESIDENT!!! Just kidding – I would move to Canada!!!
Everything I knew about my Senator, Rick Santorum, pointed to the fact that he was a good and decent, honest Christian man who stood up for Christian values – and it cost him his job.
What about Iraq? I’m really struggling with that right now. I posted on it today.
It just seems to me that both parties are about self-serving politics and strategic moves. A slim few seem to profess a faith, much less live one with their leadership and votes.
Geoff
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Isn’t it good that we live in the Kingdom of God?
I’ve been watching KERA and the History Channel lately. Since all I read is theolgy and science fiction, the history lessons are good for me.
From what little I know about it, I might call myself a “Goldwater” republican. Less government is better. Some people would call me a liberal…in that, even though I’m not personally for Gay Marriage; I also think that the government should have no say in it. It is up to the church to say, “Hey, that’s sin!” If the government gets too involved with it…well, that’s just scary. I just saw someone that is trying to pass a bill in California, trying to prohibit spanking “by parents!” See, to much government.
Lord Jesus, come!
I have a buddy from New York that continually reminds me how crooked Juliani(sp?) is. He remarks that he had to be in bed with the mob and unions to get so much accomplished in NYC. But, he thinks that Juls used that corrupt power to get the right things done. He is just waiting for the time that he can vote him into the Oval Office. Go figure…
Wasn’t there a Christian-Republican govenor in Alabama..or something…that got into trouble for raising the taxes on the rich, but keeping them small for the poor? Can I write him in for President?
Btw, I figured it out, and I pay about 40% of every dollar I bring in in taxes. My wife and I have a combined salary (yes, two income home) of about 60k. We are truly blessed. I never complain about being poor…but I wish that I wasn’t paying around half of what I make in taxes. That just seems like robbery
Tim
You know, George Will has some interesting stuff to say about Ronald Reagan:
“…as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state’s history and the nation’s most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages — the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.”
How interesting.
MIT,
Maybe so, but he changed. Maybe he used Christians too. I don’t know but his son Michaels testimony at Ronald’s funeral was powerful.
I really like RR, I think he was the greatest President in the last 50 years. And even when I didn’t agree with his politics, I still liked him personally. I only put up George Will’s words to show how politicians vary their message, depending on the political need.
One side says that abortion is morally wrong and the gov’t needs to make the choice for you and outlaw it.
The other side says that we must raise taxes and take more of your money because we know better how to help the less fortunate, diseased, etc.
One side wants to legislate your morality and the other how your money is spent. The utilitarian question is which one is the greater good?
Aren’t both the left and the right wanting the gov’t to do the work of the church? Even in the church body a moral issue such as abortion is legislated via biblical grounding whereas monetary giving is not.
It’s also interesting to look at the studies and/or observations that have been made as far as who gives more charitably conservatives or liberals?
Mark
I’ve been out working all day, so I haven’t had a chance to look in on the lashing I was given by Cathy.
It seems, Cathy, that you think I am not a hard worker because I help people trade stocks, or because I don’t want to give away money I earn to support people who choose to not work. Not all people who trade in the stock market are rich, on the contrary, most are common, everyday people. They are the people who drive the stock market, and who profit the most from it.
What I see every day are people who work their tail ends off all their lives, try to save some for retirement, but the government hamstrings them with a capital gains tax. It is a tax on people for doing what they should to do be responsible, and not become reliant on the government. Your mentality seems to encourage people to live off of entitlements. The problem with that mentality is that eventually, people will figure out that going to college and getting a good job is not worth all the trouble. Why not just tax the fire out of “rich” people, and let them support me my whole life.
No, Cathy, the capital gains tax does not hurt the rich. It hurts the common man, who worked hard and made something of themselves. But I guess that’s okay with you, because you don’t have to worry about it.
There is a system which seems to fit your ideal. It looks great on paper. Take from the wealthy, and spread it out to everyone else. That way, you do away with class distinctions. The doctor and the millworker all make the same money. The politician and the fast food employee all earn the same salary. Its called socialism. And I don’t want this country to become any more socialist than it already has.
jasonk,
We are in the same business (I hope to have my CFP this year) and I agree with you.
Mark
I have had the AAMS for the past three years (its like a third of the work of the CFP). I just haven’t had the guts to start working on it yet. We have a fast track program at our firm, and they will pay for it. I need to suck it up and just get it done.
Thanks for agreeing with me Mark. I have found in my experience that people who do not have much money want to take from those who do, but they want the government to be the ones to take it and give it to them. I am by no means rich (ask my wife). We are comfortable, and we both work. I work three jobs to make the ends meet. And I certainly don’t mind paying my taxes. I want to pay what I owe, and not one penny more. What I don’t care for is people who rely on entitlements as an excuse to not work. But then, I am ranting :>)
While I don’t doubt your experience, my poli sci teachers often drove home the point that many of the working class continue to vote against their economic self-interest.
And despite our current tax policies, I don’t see us inching towards socialism. Class distinctions are real and have not faded. Looking at the big picture, the differences between the tax philosophies of centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats are not that great. How many Republicans campaigned on a flat tax last November? How many are advocating drastic reforms? Not many.
Sure, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected. I believe the Top 20% pay 80% of the taxes? But the rich don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay.
I’m all for fiscal responsibility (like everyone else). But I believe government should provide programs to help cure social ills and inequalities. Some say the private sector should provide these services (i.e. churches). But faith-based organizations can only do so much. And such services from churches tend to come with strings attached.
Ryan,
It’s a little offensive to characterize Democrats as people who take pride in killing the unborn. That’s patently false. Most (close to all) are personally opposed to abortion as birth control. Mario Cuomo, anyone? On the issue of abortion, you need to ask – what has the Republican Party done lately? Lip service, Lip service – that’s what pro-lifers have been getting for years…
Mea Culpa?
Is Newt in the confessional before the next campaign? Do Conservative Christians support him anyway? Isn’t this pretty close to the definition of not supporting family values?
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Thu Mar 8, 11:04 PM ET
WASHINGTON – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against
President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
“The honest answer is yes,” Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press.
jasonk I don’t expect your view to change so call my view a lashing if you please. It is my view and so should not be something you take personally.
Capital Gains taxes in my opinion are quite fair. They were very much reduced in recent years after Ronald Reagan raised them in the 80s. I personally held on to a rental property for an extra 15 years because Ronald Reagan raised Capital Gains taxes after we had purchased the property. In fact I haven’t sold the property yet, but probably will do it in the next couple of years. In the meantime it has seen further appreciation, the debt paid off, and there was that rent every month.
To me Ronald Reagan was an actor. To what extent we ever saw the real Ronald Reagan I for one will never know.
For those concerned about fiscal responsibility look at the bottom line. Were we better off as a nation in regard to debt and deficit spending at the end of the last democratic president or now nearing the end of this republican president?
So all the sound bites work well when everyone echos them back and forth to each other, but most don’t hold up to real scrutiny.
Does anyone have any concerns about how the Christian Right looks to the poor and disabled around us when as a block they vote to eliminate entitlements in order to give rich people a tax break or help them with private school tuition.
Is your church so republican that a democrat isn’t going to feel welcome? Might that be part of the problem when it comes to reaching more people and growing SBC churches?
I will vote for policies to improve the life, health, security, and freedoms of the American people. I will teach morals/ethics and try to model them daily. I won’t leave that to our secular government.
I will continue to send money to Christian causes and to donate time to a church sponsored charity. I don’t believe that churches can do it all.
Many third world countries are third world not because of a lack of resources, but because of greedy politicians and corrupt governments.
Cathy, you are right on so many levels. There are many countries whose poor are in the state they are in because of corrupt governments. I do not believe that America is an example.
We live in the most prosperous economy in the history of this country. You have a rent house. I have a small stock portfolio. Who’d have thought? How did you get to where you are? Hard work, no doubt. You worked hard, and have been rewarded for it. That’s great! But now, because you have succeeded, the government comes in and says, “give us more.” That is wrong, and stands in the way of the goals of a free market economy.
I agree that in many churches, Democrats do not feel welcome. That’s wrong. Many churches force liberals to the Unitarian churches, which is a shame. Christians should not force their brothers and sisters to a universalist theology.
And I agree that we need to help the poor. We do help the poor. Government policies, faith-based initiatives, etc., are all working to help give people a hand. The problem with our current system is that it encourages people to not work. When our system rewards people to sit at home and collect a check, we are only enabling them. Ironically, it was a Democrat who had the right idea. Let the government put people to work in order to receive an entitlement.
I disagree with you that the economy was better under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton enjoyed a decent economy because of the impact of twelve years of Republican policies of tax cuts and reduced government spending. Clinton enacted his policies, and by the time he left office, the economy had started to suffer, until 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the chickens had come home to roost.
Here is the bottom line. People will not thrive if everything is handed to them. They need to feel like they have earned what they have. That is why Habitat for Humanity is such a great program. The homeowner does not have a house handed to them, they have to work for it, and help pay for it. When that happens, people have a tendency to thrive.
What I remember from the Reagan Era: “I have no recolection of that…”
What I remember from the Clinton Era: “It depends on what the word ‘is’ is.”
I think the only prolitician I can remember is Carter…though I heard that Ford was pretty good. He was right before my time though.
Tim Dahl
Sorry, need to clarify:
I think the only “Non-Corrupt” prolitician I can remember is Carter…though I heard that Ford was pretty good. He was right before my time though.
Tim
We do have to make all those wjho come to feel welcome in our churches! I feel if we can get ‘em there the job is halfway done to crossing another soul off Satan’s list.
Capital gains taxes are wrong, especially if they are not indexed for inflation, and I am as unlikely as anyone here to ever have to pay any. The Alternate Minimum Tax, originally created in an envious time to punish about 150 families who had sheltered all of their income, is now a separate tax system that will surpass the regular income tax this year or next in total funds to the Treasury.
Your average U.S. stock holder is earning between $40 and $60 thousand a year. That is unlikely to happen in any other country. Sure, we could tax these people more and more, but jobs will be lost and you’ll see your lower-paid full time workers working longer before they can afford the things we grew up counting on.
As far as the original question goes, the only person who I had thought was religious who asked me if salvation and faith in Jesus were really all that important was my most liberal Democrat family member. I do believe she’s still mad at Hoover about the Depression.
Thanks for stopping by Steve,
I’m honored to have the “bionic” man on my site.
Cathy & BigDaddyWeave – RIGHT ON!!
Gas was 99 cents during the Clinton years . . . tell me again – what is it now?? The current administration has practically bankrupt our country. I’m not sure my grandkids will be free of the debt. What happens if the counties that have financed the U.S. call in their debts?? Bush has spent us into tax increases. The next administration will have to raise taxes. But he & VP have told us that it’s not their problem.
Socialism – at least to some extent – isn’t a bad thing.
Never in my lifetime do I remember such a divided nation . . . this from “the Unifier.”
Belinda.
Thank you for reinforcing my point, that socialism is the goal of many people who call themselves “liberal.” That is spooky, big time.
Socialism did not work in the twentieth century, even though it may sound good to you. The reason it does not work is because people intrinsically need to feel like they are working to better themselves. If they are not working to better their situation, they lose incentive, and things fall apart.
May I make a couple of suggestions to you?
Cuba is the closest nation that practices socialism. It is only ninety miles from the United States. I’m sure you will find it a beautiful place to live.
Also, you might look into buying a bicycle. It doesn’t cost anything to get around, and since your main concern seems to be filling up your car for less than twenty bucks, it will be a perfect solution.
Cuba. Bicycle. Socialism. Cheap transportation. You’re good to go.
May
When all else fails blame Bush. He did it all single-handedly without any congressional input and without any congressional authority. He acted as a lone Monarch.
As much as I have grown not to appreciate Bush people do forget that we don’t live in a monarchy. The republicans and democrats have essentially equal power and they whole of congress shares equal blame.
I love how the solution is always to raise taxes rather than first look at spending allocation. So often the wrong answer is to just pour more money into projects. It reminds me of people trying to force Walmart into paying for health insurance for all employees instead of going to the insurance companies who have billions of dollars in surplus. Why not go to the source first?
Our politicians need to be held accountable for their terrible spending and money management. The need for an energy policy didn’t just start during the Bush years. What have all of those same congress people who have been around since Clinton been doing? Oh, I know, they’ve been playing politics to ensure re-election.
Belinda,
Your grandkids need to worry about their personal debt first by not having any outside of a house. The Dave Ramsey method comes to mind. Other countries aren’t going to call in their debt. It doesn’t work like that, however, the USA has forgiven much debt that was owed to them.
Socialism may not be a bad thing if your sitting on top controlling cash flow, etc. they will stay on top. But those in the middle would never move beyond where they are. We need to stop the irresponsible pork spending. You want the rich to pay more taxes? Make a campaign for all of those multi-millionaires who want to raise taxes to stop itemizing on their tax filings. Block the loop-holes for the super wealthy.
Cathy, a question. Do you itemize on your taxes? If so, why? I ask because if you think taxes should be raised then it seems that to be consistent you would not itemize nor look for any tax breaks that you may lead by example.
Or we could be like Bono who wants everyone else to pay more while he moves his operation to another country when his taxes are raised.
If I am helping someone with their budget I don’t advise them to throw more money at the problem areas. If they tell me that they run out of money for groceries every month and I see that it it because they are spending most of that money on eating out I don’t tell them to just add more money from some where. Their spending has to be re-allocated and corrected. Same with our government.
Mark
Mark,
Please, find for me where I said that taxes should be raised. I said I am not going to complain about having to pay them. I also said that I thought we had a reasonably fair tax structure. I don’t look for ways to pay more.
I indicated that there were areas that could be fine tuned such as indexing for inflation any tax on long term gains and I said that the alternative minimum tax is a problem because it discourages charitable donations and decreases other deductions.
So I certainly didn’t say I want to pay more taxes. I am pleased to pay my share and am grateful for the public education that I received that makes it possible for me to enjoy a very good standard of living. I’m pleased that needy children are covered by Medicaid.
I’m sorry that my tax money is going to fight a war I don’t believe we should be in, but I would be willing to pay more taxes for the right causes.
I also specifically mentioned above that it was Ronald Reagan that raised the Capital Gains taxes that have now been greatly reduced but are still being complained about. So I would say that some of the most complained about taxes in this comment thread were much higher for years due to the right wing hero RR.
Cathy,
I wrongly attributed desiring raising taxes as your position. I was wrong and I’m sorry. As far as Reagan goes, I definately believe taxes were too high under him.
If I understand you correctly you didn’t like the high taxes under Reagan either which is why you held your property. This tells me that you do believe there is a point at which taxes are unfair or too high.
You said
Does anyone have any concerns about how the Christian Right looks to the poor and disabled around us when as a block they vote to eliminate entitlements in order to give rich people a tax break or help them with private school tuition.
First, this assigns that the motive for cutting entitlements soley so rich people can get tax breaks. Second, it is not inherently sinful for someone to believe they pay too much in taxes and would like them lowered. Third, you don’t know what “the rich” do with their extra money. Hasn’t it already been partially shown and tested that conservatives give more charitably as individuals? Not to defend Bush, but I think it’s been shown that he gave more to charity than either of his opponents from the last election.
There are rich liberals who send their kids to private school benefiting just as much as the conservatives and I bet they itemize too.
It ‘almost’ seems as if you are arguing that there is a level at which lower taxes are sinful. Or that someone is sinning if they want them lowered.
You also said
I will vote for policies to improve the life, health, security, and freedoms of the American people. I will teach morals/ethics and try to model them daily. I won’t leave that to our secular government.
Well, aren’t you relying on the secular government in a substantial portion by voting for public policy that seeks to achieve said actions?
I agree there are spending abuses, but it’s ‘on both sides’. I don’t want to pay for this war either. The war is the easiest thing to pick on right now because it is so visible. Spending has been abused for years though and I think we need to start there along with the war.
Do you not thing the Christian right does anything for the poor? It sounds as if you are almost questioning this. Just because people don’t want to go through the government to do this doesn’t mean they aren’t doing their part. And if anyone is guilty of not doing enough it’s everyone as individuals.
I know you didn’t say this, but people do have to understand that a very aggresive progressive tax would hinder more than motivate a productive society. For example, if the tax code were changed enough so that making $50K per year nets $30 all the way up to making $100k per year still netted $30 most wouldn’t work beyond the $50k level. Yes, it’s a flawed system, but that doesn’t mean it’s all around unfair.
Mark
p.s. Bush still didn’t act alone as a Monarch without the Congress.
I would like to weigh in here just a little and ask a question. What do you, Jasonok and Mark think of the Scripturally mandated Year of Jubilee (re-equalizing) from the Hebrew Scriptures?
What do you think of the mandate to NOT be efficient in harvesting your own crops, but leave some for the poor? How can that echo in our modern economic system?
What do you think of calling collecting accrued interest the exact same abomination word that man on man sex is called?
All of these, I would assume you would call socialist, yet are clearly all over the Scriptures.
And so you know, I don’t accept the argument that these scriptures are mandates to individuals not governments or to whole communities. Goverment and groups of individuals in those days were one in the same. God held whole communities responsible for the events occurring in the same. So, if there is a response, I would like to see a different take than this one.
Call me a socialist if you like, but in this country the government is us, we are it. As a community we join together to do the best we can, sure it isn’t perfect, and should always be ready for change to make it better, but I don’t see how you can get modern capitalism out of the Bible. I think it comes more from the political heritage of John Locke via Adam Smith.
And, just so you know, I think restrained capitalism is the best economic system, not full capitalism (which leads to monopoly and aristocrats) or full socialism (which leads to monopoly and aristocrats). Mix it up, take the best of both, minimize the worst of both.
Oh, btw, JohnMark is totallly right. President Bush could never have done all the, uh, STUFF he has done without the Republican congress (aided by Democrats). As much as he would like to be a “unitary executive” our system isn’t quite there yet, and Congress gets some of the blame/praise for whatever events have gone on.
MIT,
I will have to get back to you on this. I appreciate your thoughts. Restrained capitalism, as you call it, is what we have now to an extent.
As far as Congress, even now the split is so close that neither the dems nor repubs can do anything without the other.
The Pewforum has some interesting dialogue on these very issues.
Mark
I’m not sure I understand the line about netting $30 while making $50k. Not only would I stop working at $50k, I would stop working at $30. I have seen the tax brackets and I can assure you that anyone making $50k nets far more than $30.
With that said, I don’t think Jesus would approve of a system where someone has to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet while someone who makes $1,000,000 from a stock sale complains about having to pay $150,000 in taxes and also complains about the poor complaining.
I don’t have any argument about saving money for retirement. We all should. However, money earned on investments isn’t any more special than money that was earned by hard labor. Tax them both at the same rate.
“Bill Clinton enjoyed a decent economy because of the impact of twelve years of Republican policies of tax cuts and reduced government spending.” If you look at who controlled the house and senate during Reagan’s 2 terms you will see that the Democrats controlled the senate and that and it was split between the Democrats and the Republicans for most of Reagan’s 2 terms. Similarily, the house and senate were controlled by the Democrats for Bush’s 1 term. I wonder who passed all of the spending and tax bills during that time? When Clinton served his 2 terms he had the Democrats holding both the house and senate for half of his first term and the Republicans holding both the house and senate for the next 10 years. I wonder who passed all of the spending and tax bills during that time?
I guess them that gots wants it all, and them that aint just wants it to be fair.
Kozman
I know it’s months later, but I’d sure like to hear the promised response to MIT’s great questions.
Geekwad,
I think it is a great idea. The problem is how do we make the Government live by this?
These comments are from earlier this year – are we resurrecting this discussion??