Armyman25 posted:

He must get paid by the word.

quote:

For 60 years the National Prayer Breakfast has been a nonpolitical event where speakers put aside their earthly biases and focus on a Higher Authority. Last Thursday, President Obama departed from that tradition to claim the endorsement of Jesus for raising taxes. It beat the endorsement of Mitt Romney by Donald Trump.

In his remarks, the president quoted Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The president sees this verse as a command for him to raise taxes on the successful so the money can be “spread around” to the less successful. If the president’s interpretation of this verse sounds a little like Karl Marx, it should. Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The president took a quote that was meant to mean something else and twisted it to serve his political ends. He took a verse out of context, created a pretext and then preached on politics. A conservative spinner might also wrongly use Matthew 13:12 to justify cutting taxes. That verse says: “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance.”

Dr. Robert Norris, senior pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Md., (where I attend) said in response to what I suggested to him was the president’s flawed exegesis, “There is an accountability we have for all that we have been given. We are held personally responsible by God and not man for what is entrusted to us. The knowledge, abilities and resources we have come from Him and he holds us accountable for their use.” The problem comes when government seeks to replace God and this was the attitude conveyed in the president’s remarks.

The religious and even secular left commends religion when it suits their earthly agenda, but opposes religious instruction when it comes to issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The absence of any editorials in major newspapers critical of the president’s mixing of church and state and the virtual silence of activist groups like the ACLU and People for the American Way testifies to this point. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State criticized the prayer breakfast, but not the misinterpretation of Scripture, though it did say most of the president’s remarks were “election-season boilerplate.”

The president claimed Muslims, Jews and even secular sources like Plato also admonish us to have “consideration for others.” True enough, but that isn’t a mandate for government to be our primary keeper so we “shall not want.”

The verse the president quoted, in context, differs from the spin he placed on it. True charity has a purpose beyond the satisfaction of physical needs. Its objective is to change hearts so that whatever is making someone poor will help them become less so. Meeting physical needs is the primary work of the church and individuals, not government, which changes no heart and does a poor job of making people self-sustaining. Government should be a last resort, not a first resource.

The social gospel is not new to this president. It is largely a creation of 20th-century Protestants who believed in applying “Christian principles” to rectify society’s problems. Deeds quickly supplanted faith, evolving into a “works salvation” theology, which says if you do enough good works, God will be pleased and let you into Heaven when you die. This contradicts biblical teaching that it is by faith and not works that one is saved from judgment (Ephesians 2:8-9). Some verses teach works as an extension of faith, revealing its depth and seriousness, but they equally teach that works without faith in Jesus is not enough. This is traditional Christian theology. Accept it, or not, but the president is mistaken when he interprets Scripture to achieve his political goals.

quote:

A Fairness Quiz for the President
by Stephen Moore

President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don't work?

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can't afford to repay?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won't have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

My dad just sent me this WSJ op-ed:


So much to respond to. Tempted to just reply with "Ugh."

quote:

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

My dad just sent me this WSJ op-ed:


So much to respond to. Tempted to just reply with "Ugh."

quote:

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

quote:

Two hundred and thirty years ago our country was established under a theory of equality that all Americans were born with the right to take advantage of their unique set of talents given by God.

quote:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

My dad just sent me this WSJ op-ed:


So much to respond to. Tempted to just reply with "Ugh."

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

A Fairness Quiz for the President
by Stephen Moore

President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax? They own a larger portion of the wealth, so I agree, it isn't fair that they pay such a low rate.

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?see above

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?2/3rds of all companies pay an effective rate of zero, so again, I agree it isn't fair it's so low.

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools? Parents are free to send their children to any school that will admit their children. No on is stopping them.

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones? The estate will be able to pass on millions of dollars, untaxed. The loved ones have not earned that money and thus they must pay tax when they receive it.

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes? And this discrepancy was later corrected. The system works!

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007? I agree, it's not fair that continuing the economic policy laid out by the previous president is not helpful, and it's a shame he extended the tax cuts that could have paid for the jobs of many Americans. It is also a shame that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of government jobs have been cut because of these tax cuts.

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats? So you suggest that we should cut people off from the democratic process?

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area? What are you getting at? Would you rather we redistribute that wealth?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"? Oil companies paid a lower effective tax rate than the average American. Again, I agree that isn't fair.

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don't work? Unemployed workers paid for unemployment insurance. Do you think they should be cutoff from something they paid for?

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can't afford to repay?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won't have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office? I agree, we should compel private employers to provide more equitable compensation. It is a shame that one of the primary mechanisms of this, the labor union, has been demonized and destroyed throughout the country.

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans? The elderly paid into Social Security. Why should we cut them off from that?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs? Is it fair than an employee can be fired for even saying the word union?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama? I agree, it isn't fair that so many families make so little, a result of stagnant wages and constantly weakened labor protections.

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them? I agree, that money should have gone to education and infrastructure spending, which would benefit many generations, instead of cutting the taxes of the most wealthy.

Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

ts12 posted:

Chunk posted:

There, I took care of most of them using the same dumb glib snark the original author used.

quote:

"Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?"

The richest 10% hold 75% of the wealth, so maybe they should pay more taxes? Is it fair the average income of the richest 400 people has gone up 400% since 1992 while their tax burden has gone down by 37%? And is it fair the income for the bottom 80% of Americans has fallen since 1979?

"Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?"

Well, if America had a fairer distribution of wealth, like Sweden, then the top 10% would have a proportionally lower tax burden. So maybe we should enact policies that result in better jobs/wages for the bottom 90%?

"Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?"

Yes, public schools are being cut to the bones, so maybe we should strengthen and fix them instead of cutting their budgets and throwing them to the wayside?

"Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?"

Is this guy an idiot? Middle class incomes have been stagnant since Reagan – directly traceable to REAGANomics. What even is Obamanomics anyway? I've never heard the term before, and any coherent economic policy from Obama seems to be simply an extension of Bush II's policies.

"Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?"

Is it fair that the GOP has a "news" network of its own – the highest rated one on cable – to spew propaganda? Regardless, the best way to fix political contributions from reporters is complete public financing of elections.

"Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?"

Yes, completely fair. The oil & gas industry provide so much energy because they've been helped by subsidies for so long, and they make billions of dollars in profit each quarter. It's time to develop the energy of the future and to not do so is shortsighted, ignorant, and borderline insane.

"Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don't work?"

So this guy is gonna rail against the poor and then use them to play politics? That ain't fair. What should we do with the unemployed? Give them the cold shoulder and let them starve? Seriously, what's this guy's solution other than to let them go hungry in the cold?

"Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can't afford to repay?"

No, we should have had stronger regulations in place in the first place, but those were cut apart. Is it fair that the world economy crashed because of banks who acted with reckless, repulsive greed – and never faced any punishment for their actions?

"Is it fair that thousands of workers won't have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?"

Less than 5,000 jobs – and not very good ones at that. Oil is the way of the past. Invest in clean, renewable energy. Building that pipeline would have drastically threatened the future of our climate.

"Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?"

Once again: a problem easily solved with publicly financed elections.

"Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?"

Maybe the private sector should unionize then and fight for the benefits the public sector fought for. Why do so many people insist on bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator of crappy benefits?

"Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?"

Social security is a vital source of income for millions of elderly people and to take that away from them would kill them. Literally. Which is what this guy seems to be implying we should do (take it away, not kill them directly). But maybe we can reform it so that the rich don't draw benefits.

"Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?"

Classic free-rider problem – people should pay for the benefits they enjoy. Right-to-work is backdoor union-busting and hurts employees. Employees in non-RTW states make $5,000 more per year, have better health coverage and better pensions.

"Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?"

The bottom 40% of the country holds less than 5% of the wealth. They pay payroll and social security taxes, as well as sales tax, gas tax, excise taxes and so on. Help the poor pay federal income taxes by providing jobs that would allow them to make enough to pay them.

"Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?"

This guy is crazy. Well, let's see, the two wars of aggression started by Bush have cost about $4 trillion, why not mention that? Or the Bush tax cuts? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that those two things alone will account for half of all of America's public debt by 2019. Half. Is it fair our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids will have to pay for two wars of aggression started by a president they never voted for while said president drastically cut taxes – absolutely, incomprehensibly idiotic public policy – and will have to fix the environment the generations before them ruined?

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

My dad just sent me this WSJ op-ed:


So much to respond to. Tempted to just reply with "Ugh."

Chunk posted:

2/3rds of all companies pay an effective rate of zero, so again, I agree it isn't fair it's so low.

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

Got a source for this? It sounds pretty unbelieveable on its face. The closest I can find is this study where 2/3rds of 12 (i.e. 8) large companies paid no tax. But the companies weren't selected randomly and the study was conducted by an organization called Citizens for Tax Justice, which doesn't exactly scream impartiality.

However, effective corporate tax rates are at a 40-year low of 12.1%:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/

No need to go for misleading stuff when the truth is damning enough.

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

What do people think Obama has actually done? I can't think of a single thing this administration has done that's remotely collectivist, let alone tyrannically socialist? I really never understand this kind of argument, and its not even confined to the crazy right wing internet anymore even Mitt Romney is saying this kind of thing.

The Evansville Courier & Press posted:

IN RESPONSE: Evolution an offence to science
Timothy E. Rea, Evansville

Reference your editorial "Teaching Creationism" on Friday: for decades the theory of evolution has been taught as unassailable fact in our government schools, from kindergarten through graduate school.

In the scientific community, a theory becomes fact only if and when it is proven to be verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable. The theory of evolution meets none of the above criteria, much less all three.

Yet it, and it alone in science, is given a pass from the rigors of the scientific method by the academy. Why? Because the atheist academy has nowhere else to hang its hat except on the head of Charles Darwin, and the academy establishes the rules of the debate.

Rule No. 1 is: "There is no supernatural." Rule No. 2 is: "In the event of a question, see rule No. 1." No other model will be allowed into the discussion. In fact, if the word "Bible" is ever mentioned, all discussion is terminated summarily.

The Darwinists are living in an irrational world in which time, along with "chance" (which is no entity at all and which has no being or essence or power), not only assembles fantastically complex machines but writes the instructions and design of those machines before their assembly, all before the fact, all without intelligence, all without design and all without purpose.

The eye, as found in the animal kingdom in it's many varied forms, is a prime example. Another is our blood-clotting mechanism. Another is cellular transport. Another is the incredible complexity found in a single cell.

Darwinism is a remarkable belief system. In fact, it is a truly supernatural one. Evolution is metaphysics. Declaring it to be science is wishful thinking. In fact, it is philosophy. It certainly is not scientific fact.

The theory of evolution flies in the face of the atheist scientist's own second law of thermodynamics very simply because randomness and time will produce only greater entropy or randomness, by its own definition.

It takes a good deal more faith to believe in evolution than it does to acknowledge a creator. The academy demands freedom from God rather than truth. This is the real problem. They will never consider any alternative to their blind faith in Darwinism, which is their only refuge. Rather, they stretch and bend this theory to fit all available new evidence, that is to say those new discoveries that they might allow into the discussion. Those for which they have no reply are summarily excluded.

Creationism belongs in the philosophy department of your local institute of higher learning, as does evolution. Neither one belongs in the history department or the science department or the literature department. There, a rational debate might ensue. However, by assigning evolution to be science, the academy by fiat, not by merit, has closed off any and all debate before one might even begin. It doesn't have to defend any of its assertions.

Simply declaring that evolution is science does not make it so, no matter how desperately one wishes it to be true.

ts12 posted:

Boom boxes are a nuisance to all and a breach of peace to everyone affected by such noise. The rap music they play is very vulgar and repulsive to most all of us in public.

First of all it is deafening. Why should we allow this to happen to the careless ones that do it? Then to the taxpayers’ tune, we are forced to provide them with hearing aides when they go deaf. We should all join together to get our officials to do something before this gets out of hand.

It is a disgrace to be forced to listen to all this amplified vulgarity. I am sick and tired of these awful vibrations that rattle our walls and drown out our TVs and wake us up in our own homes if we are asleep.

When these nuisance cars pass you on the streets, it vibrates your car and you can’t hear anything but vulgarity. This is a health hazard to people wearing hearing aides especially. If there was an emergency siren from a fire truck, an ambulance or a police car, you couldn’t hear it.

This shouldn’t be considered a freedom of speech. It is just dangerous. How about our freedom from hearing their garbage and amplified filthy rap music?

Clifton Stocks

Bradenton

quote:

The Feb. 5 letter from Clifton Stocks was great! I have often thought that we should do something about these awful noisy cars. It is totally ridiculous to have to listen to noise (I certainly wouldn’t call it music!) from these ignorant people.

Just imagine if everyone had those speakers in their car. You would not be able to go outside or function as a human being.

First of all, I think it should start with passing a law that only regular, come-with-the-car radios are legal. Stop it at the source instead of making the cops enforce this horrible practice.

And maybe it should be lawful to throw eggs/tomatoes at these cars.

And the ACLU can just stay out of it. The obnoxious noise people may have rights but we have just as many and it includes peace and quiet! Take license numbers and start reporting all of them.

Why do we have to wait until these “children” grow up and wise up about noise? There is another generation coming along just as noisy!

Sally Katharyn Leberman

Bradenton

quote:

See the health care takeover now? Kevin O'Brien
Kevin OBrien, The Plain Dealer

The Obama administration says it's willing to work with the U.S. Catholic bishops so we can all get past this unfortunate dust-up over the federal government forcing church institutions to buy contraceptives.

Asked this week what "work with" might mean, White House spokesman Jay Carney said,"I'm not going to predict, because I don't know, all the various possibilities those discussions will entertain."

But later in the same news conference, he said, "The president's interest, at a policy level, is making sure that this coverage is extended to all women."

That narrows the various possibilities those discussions will entertain to a single topic: The federal government will force church institutions to buy contraceptives.

Presumably, the bishops will get some helpful counseling along the way from the federal Bureau of Theology to help them see where they went wrong with church doctrine.

Much has been written about the constitutional problem inherent in a direct federal assault on the church's freedom to act according to its beliefs.

If the administration doesn't back down from this outlandish overreach, the courts -- or maybe even Congress (remember Congress?) -- will undo it.

But another aspect of this fight is more subtle -- and in some respects scarier, because it affects every American.

When the battle was raging in Congress over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- the abominable misnomer much better de scribed as Obamacare (well, except for the "care" part) -- its proponents assured Americans that it did not constitute a federal takeover of the health care industry.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no! Nothing of the sort!

Now, less than two years into the Obamacare era, we have the federal government ordering all health insurance companies to provide a certain kind of service to all comers and dictating who will pay for that service and how.

Since a church that opposes the entire product line on doctrinal grounds is putting up a fight, we've all been brought up to speed on how the administration's edict conflicts with religious freedom. And that's good.

But much less has been said about commercial freedom -- in this case, the freedom of an insurance buyer to shop among companies and choose products that cover things the customer finds desirable and that don't include -- or charge for -- things the customer doesn't want.

What happened to that?

Why, a federal takeover of health care, of course.

Yup. They lied. They took it over. Once they passed that bill so we could find out what was in it, darned if what was in it wasn't exactly what its opponents had predicted: a huge federal power grab that now engenders mandates not just to churches, but to private companies and to individuals.

The Catholic bishops got rolled on the deal more than most. They chose not to fight passage of the law, thinking they had arranged a deal on the side for a conscience exemption. But once the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wrote the rules, and we found out what was in them, it turned out the bishops have been played for suckers.

So what's a bishop -- or a rank-and-file Catholic, or any American who is concerned about liberty, religious or otherwise -- to do?

Well, the bishops suggest praying and writing one's congressman and senators -- two activities I endorse wholeheartedly. But this is one of those times when a phrase that underpins the good, old Protestant work ethic applies, too: The Lord helps those who help themselves.

Your freedom, ultimately, is your responsibility to defend.

You can't count on the federal government to do it. It's pretty clear that the current edition of the federal government doesn't even want you to have it.

So, as this year's elections roll around, use your vote, your money and your voice in the ears of friends, relatives and neighbors to defend your freedom. Or, in the case of health care, to begin the recovery of your freedom.

Obamacare's implementation is lifting the veil for all to see what the law really is -- a mechanism for dictating the behavior of individuals and institutions.

Sure, your masters in Washington will "work with" you. They might even give you an extra year to comply with something really onerous. But if you let them keep the power to compel, they'll use it. And you will do things their way.

Doctor Butts posted:

Yep, this person is paid for his contributions to a newspaper.

I always make the mistake of trying to respond to his criticisms in the comments section, but he always gives some snarky unsubstantiated remark, or just outright deletes a comment he doesn't like.

I'm posting this because, seriously, this poo poo is just horrible.

ts12 posted:

a followup has come in!!! This is not a joke, it is a serious letter. God bless old people.


the comments deliver once again as some guy asked a state senator if he could shoot at black people with their loud hippity hop music:
Just eggs and tomatoes? For a long time I've wanted all vehicles emitting more than 80 dB at a distance of 50 feet to be declared pistol and riflery targets. This would improve our audio environment while, at the same time, improving Floridians' marksmanship.

I suggested this to State Se. Mike "Road Rage" Bennett once, but never heard back from him

Limbo posted:

Along the 'God bless old people' line, here is one from the Cumberland, MD Times-News. He just trails off into general ranting by the end.
----------
Isn’t it ironic how a young person that isn’t anywhere close to retirement can receive Social Security benefits, free housing, food stamps and a medical card?
I think if a individual is receiving any public or federal benefits, first, they should be required to pass a random drug test.
Second, if any underage children reside in the residence they should be required to stay enrolled in school or receive a GED.
Finally if the adult recipient is receiving any benefits due to alcohol or drug addiction they should have to complete a drug or alcohol program and show documentation that they’re seeking gainful employment.
This is the United States of America, land of opportunity.
This doesn’t mean sit on your rear end waiting on your SSI check and your Independence Card to reload and your rent to be paid with your hat cocked on your head like a gangster and your boxer shorts pulled up under your arm pits with the crotch of your pants hanging down to your knees.
JFK said it best: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
Stand up be proud, take off your hat when the National Anthem plays, fly the American flag on the appropriate days, and quit milking the system dry that us honest deserving taxpaying citizens contribute to daily!
Michael R. Fields
Cumberland
-------------

Bruce Leroy posted:

How does a "young person that isn’t anywhere close to retirement" get Social Security benefits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you could only get SS benefits if you were either old enough (65?) or were physically/mentally/psychologically disabled and couldn't work?

How else would a "young person" get SS benefits?

Bryter posted:

Social security includes disability and unemployment.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Ok, I always considered unemployment insurance to be a separate thing.

So, isn't the hypothetical person he complained about someone who was relatively recently fired, i.e. working poor, not some kind of conservative stereotype?

drat, they sure love to hate on the poor.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Ok, I always considered unemployment insurance to be a separate thing.

So, isn't the hypothetical person he complained about someone who was relatively recently fired, i.e. working poor, not some kind of conservative stereotype?

drat, they sure love to hate on the poor.

Bruce Leroy posted:

How else would a "young person" get SS benefits?

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

I'm no expert but the language in the editorial looked more like "let the blacks starve to death". You're welcome.

Black (liberal) history month posted:

Black History Month honors the achievements of African Americans throughout history and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, a reliance on family and faith, which allowed many African Americans to survive the horrors of Reconstruction, racial injustice and violent acts of discrimination, has become a casualty of the modern welfare state, which has contributed to the destruction of family cohesion, supplanted faith in God with faith in government and fashioned many African-Americans into a Democratic voting bloc that has not improved the lot of the impoverished among them.

While African-American history is important, the way it is most often presented through a liberal political lens skews the contributions and examples of African Americans who do not toe the liberal line. One especially sees this in the civil rights establishment’s response to Justice Clarence Thomas and more recently to Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.)

West took to the floor of the House last week to praise what he called the Republican Party’s contributions to civil rights. It is a history practically unknown among many African Americans, who have been taught that Republicans are racist and care nothing about black empowerment. When examples to the contrary are presented to them, they often call white Republicans disparaging names and vilify Black Republicans as insufficiently black.

The Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, West asserted, has consistently fought for individual freedom over the last 150 years. He said Democratic “handouts” to the poor have resulted in a “modern form of slavery.” Republicans, he said, “reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.”

West noted that following Republican Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Republicans supported the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which ended slavery, provided for equal protection under the law and gave voting rights to blacks.

West added, “It was the Republican-controlled 39th Congress that established the Buffalo Soldiers,” an African-American regiment of the U.S. Army, and that it was President Ulysses S. Grant who signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Republican Calvin Coolidge spoke out in favor of civil rights. The late Republican Congressman Jack Kemp promoted “enterprise zones” in depressed urban neighborhoods.

Republican George W. Bush, West said, “signed an omnibus bill that included a voucher program for school children…,” establishing school choice in Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama announced there would be no new funding for the program in his current budget, even though it’s enormously popular with poor African-American parents, who see school choice as fundamental to their child’s success. Apparently, the president favors teachers’ unions over poor schoolchildren.

More history: The Ku Klux Klan was founded by a group of Southern Democrats; white Democratic politicians in the South tried to derail civil rights legislation; white Alabama Governor George C. Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door to keep African-American students out; the late West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a former member of the KKK. Byrd eventually recanted his racist beliefs, but late in life still used the phrase “white n----r” in an interview.

West’s point is that those Democrats who claim to care so much for African Americans have done them a disservice by perpetuating the myth of Republican racism and addicting too many of them to a government check instead of liberating them through education and strong families.

According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, published in Investor’s Business Daily, “The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23 percent in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program.” That involves money for housing, health, welfare, education and other programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

Of course, African Americans are not the only group represented in this number — there are poor Hispanics, poor whites, etc. And certainly not all vote Democratic. The fact is, more and more Americans are finding themselves relying on government. In many cases, they would work if there was work to be had; they would succeed if the road to success were a viable option.

The question for African Americans, however, particularly during Black History Month, is not about history at all. The question is: “Are better you off than you were 40 years ago?” By any objective measure, the answer for too many is “no.” That was West’s point. No wonder the liberal establishment wants to redistrict him out of Congress.

Saint Sputnik posted:

I'm at work and wouldn't be comfortable googling the KKK just now, but comparing either party now to what its members did 100 years ago is just asinine.

quote:

Eugene, when you spend the majority of your rub-shoulders time with fellow liberals clinking champagne glasses in Georgetown, yes, it is understandable that you might come to the conclusion a Santorum-led Republican party is headed for, in your words, a "debacle."

But like many liberals, you are unwilling to even listen to anybody who doesn't agree with your worldview. That's why your assumptions and those of your colleagues are so frequently way off base or outright wrong.

Rick Santorum is loved, adored by millions for his unashamed attachment to values and beliefs that our fathers and forefathers (and mothers) had, values that did not include having children and being a have-it-all Washington lawyer but focused instead on the responsibility of letting go of that when one chooses to have children -- or are reckless enough with their bodies or incapable of controlling their lusts to the extent that unexpected children ensue.

That's a sacrilege to the Left today, tantamount to "hate speech" among many of your Democrat brethren, but remember: they were the values of the people who lived and worked in this country for most of our history.

Perhaps you've decided that history doesn't mean anything, that here was no good in it, because of slavery and the keeping down of the race from which you came. I understand that and can hardly blame you for feeling that way. Yet, it clouds all other judgments you have about what is good, valuable, or worth preserving in American from the past, it is unfair. The Civil Rights Movement collapsed segregation - a nearly universally accepted "good" - so therefore, you seem to make the leap in logic to the conclusion that almost anything that existed in the past should be demonized and replaced with something "better. "

In that, you couldn't be more wrong, Mr. Robinson. In that lies the reason wny your view of Rick Santorum and his policies is not accurate.

The Republican party will do better than it ever has with Rick Santorum, because many do not embrace "progressivism" as a foregone "good", as you do. In fact, Americans are largely much more conservative than you think -- they just don't get much airtime because mainstream outlets find them trite, boring, or unworthy of the news.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they do not believe in preserving values of the past - such as hard work, marriage between a man and a woman, women who choose to have children with a responsibility to stay at home and care for them, men married to such women as having a responsibility to be faithful and supporting them and their kids, respsect for the sanctity of life. respect for the land/nature but also respect for one's right to succeed or fail if they are healthy and capable of working -- and many other values that are snickered at by your friends, Mr. Robinson.

So, Republicans in for a debacle? I don't thnk so. A Santorum candidacy will set up the Republicans for a landslide in their favor. Wait and see.

The Macaroni posted:

Technically a comment responding to an opinion piece on the disaster that is Rick Santorum, but so thickheaded I had to share. With special guest stars "the race card" and "The Civil Rights Movement wasn't a good thing!"