Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[nate33]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

On pre-existing conditions -- that's basically a penalty for changing jobs. If you don't change your job you're covered. If you get fired and get a new job you're not. So, not only is that totally unfair and doesn't make sense, it also discourages labor mobility, which is necessary for labor markets to function properly.

So to me, eliminating the pre-existing condition silliness is fair AND corrects a market failure, a no-brainer.

So I wouldn't lump that in with "govt sponsored charitable endeavors." It's a government intervention addressing a market failure, so that markets can function the way they're supposed to.

The whole issue with pre-existing conditions is only a problem because we have illogically attached health care insurance to employment. You should buy health care insurance directly as an individual. If you have health problems, your insurance should cost more. This will incentivize people to take care of themselves and I guarantee it would radically lower the cost of health care insurance for 95% of the population. Those with really dire health care issues (who didn't have the foresight to lock in a long term health care insurance contract when they were healthy) might ultimately be priced out of the market. Government could step in and provide some assistance, but that assistance should be finite. Eventually, those truly high risk people would be uninsurable. It may sound draconian, but it's perfectly logical as public policy. There is a finite amount of health care funds to spend. Health care must be rationed in some way. Shouldn't we be spending most of it on the healthy and reasonably healthy rather than spending a disproportionate amount on those who probably won't last long anyhow?

I'd rather provide free pre-natal care to 20 young pregnant women rather than keep one 75-year-old man with lung cancer alive another 6 months.

[Ruzious]

Sorry to break the flow of discussion, but I saw an article here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-fu ... 59680.html that I think people should read to educate themselves on why the special capital gains tax rates should be eliminated.

The top tax lawyers in the country make a living on developing schemes for the wealthy to convert ordinary income into capital gains - so they're taxed at 15% rather than 35%. In politics, everyone seems to ignore this - while focusing only on the ordinary income tax rates. The 15% capital gains tax rate and schemes to take advantage of it is why billionaires pay low tax rates.

[dobrojim]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

reading books is bad

[popper]

Sorry to break the flow of discussion, but I saw an article here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-fu ... 59680.html that I think people should read to educate themselves on why the special capital gains tax rates should be eliminated.

The top tax lawyers in the country make a living on developing schemes for the wealthy to convert ordinary income into capital gains - so they're taxed at 15% rather than 35%. In politics, everyone seems to ignore this - while focusing only on the ordinary income tax rates. The 15% capital gains tax rate and schemes to take advantage of it is why billionaires pay low tax rates.

Really complicated but important stuff. Bottom line is, if a fund manager collects fees from investors then he/she should pay normal income tax rates. If said fund manager directs their potential income into risk capital they should pay capital gains rates (assuming it is capital truly at risk).

[popper]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/20/884061/david-rouzer-energy-books/?mobile=nc

reading books is bad

Correct. We will never learn anything from reading books, unless of course they are comic books.

[dobrojim]

Sorry to break the flow of discussion, but I saw an article here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-fu ... 59680.html that I think people should read to educate themselves on why the special capital gains tax rates should be eliminated.

The top tax lawyers in the country make a living on developing schemes for the wealthy to convert ordinary income into capital gains - so they're taxed at 15% rather than 35%. In politics, everyone seems to ignore this - while focusing only on the ordinary income tax rates. The 15% capital gains tax rate and schemes to take advantage of it is why billionaires pay low tax rates.

this is why the whole righty backlash using the term 'class warfare' is dishonest.
In truth, class warfare has been going on probably as long as there have been classes.
In the last several decades, the wealthy in this country have been able to use their
wealth to nudge us from a democratic republic to something more akin to a plutocracy
or oligarchy. The poor, although much greater in number, have much less power than
the wealthy to influence laws which make this kind of abuse possible.

[Ed Wood]

Correct. We will never learn anything from reading books, unless of course they are comic books.

This is why we keep copies of The Fountainhead in our desks: unexpected visits by prominent conservatives; also for its projectile virtues.

[hands11]

Zonk - This is a response to your last two posts. First, Obama's health care plan and various other social programs that you mention as good assumes that our country can afford them and can perpetuate them. As you know, this is mathematically impossible without hyperinflation. Where a govt. check might buy a months worth of food today it will only by two weeks worth by next year or the year after. Something will have to give soon and we can be sure that those on the lower end of the economic stratum will suffer most. As we've discussed on this thread before, if Repubs are so evil why did they propose and adopt the EITC? Why are our churches, synagogues and mosques considered to be the greatest source of charity-giving on the face of the earth. Surely you don't believe that the American people, Repub and Dem alike, are not caring and generous in their charitable contribution.

I agree that neither candidate has an economic plan that brings the budget into balance. They both need to sharpen their pencils and get to work on our long term economic problems.

Regarding teaching science in public schools I'm not aware of the issue you describe. As far as I know, all of our public schools teach science. Gay marriage is a difficult issue for me and I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

I have something for you to think about objectively Pop.

You say the church is the biggest charity. Right ? Well why is that a good things but when our government does it, it is a bad thing ?

The "Church" is just a group of people that give their money to an organization that redistributes it to other people.

Well, our government does the same thing. I give to an organization called my government and they redistribute money to lots of things. To R&D. To our military. To social support systems. To training programs.

Religions get money from their members. Our government get it from a larger group of members. Our citizens.
Religions get the money from willing contributors. But there are standards that are expected.
Our government also sets standards for who and how much they give. I have no problem paying my taxes for these collective good and moral investments. I do have a problem with they spending it to invade a country that didn't attack up though. But both sides don't seem to mind giving for our military.

The church has a government structure that decides where the money is spend.
So does our government/us.

My guess without doing any research. Our government, we the people, are the biggest charity.

I think what happens with Church people is this. They say, I already give at church and I get to choose who I help. Why do I have to give a second time. Well, all of American doesn't go to Church and though our taxes, we take care of a bigger basket of people and a bigger basket of issues. Not just people that believe in our religion or who we want to convert.

Do you see what I am getting at. The structure and reasons for giving are the same. Only one is at a country level and the other is at a religious level.

I hope your reply isnt about waste because there is plenty of abuse of charity church money as well. Look at Pat Roberts and others of those mega millionaire church people. They are no mother Teresa's.

[hands11]

Excerpts from article (link at bottom).


In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them. Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15502.html

Pop

But our own history tells a factual different story. I really pray you will escape from the mental trap you are in. Something has you stuck. You to often see such a clear picture but then you revert to logic that is really no more then R talking points for conclusions. Try this for a week or two. Stop watching all Fox stuff. No Rush.

If you dont want to actually watch the MSNBA stuff, just watch this. Friday and Saturday, Up with Chris Hayes. Then watch some John Steward so you can get some news but laugh your ass off hearing it. Laughing is healthy.

This redistribution red herring is just that. Its all about redistribution. The Church. Our government. Its what groups do when they act as a group.

The rich are going to be just fine. As they have been. Even when they paid more at the top margins they were still mega rich. American even then was a great place to be if you wanted to be wealthy.

[hands11]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.

Its called Propaganda techniques.

And all this goes back to a debate we had several times. Who's money is it. Some people think that all they earn as revenue is theirs. Those people ignore the social contract we have. One that they know before they earned the money in our country. Before that money was even earned, they know full well that all of it was not theirs. A pieces goes to our collective investment team. Our government. Us.

What they want to do is manipulate that contract so they can utilize all the benefits of our country/government/people, but not put back into the system we designed. So what do they do, they try to take from it and give back the minimum. They spend millions to keep billions. Well they can only get away with that if we let them buy our legislators and manipulate the people that elect them. Well, and make it hard for our people to vote.

Did you know that part of that 47% that paid no earned income taxes include like 25,000 wealth a **** people. It includes mega billion dollar corporations. Hell, some of these people and corps actually get money back.

One thing I have waited a long time to see what is finally happening is this, the Dems are not running from these debates. They are actually debunking these phoney arguments for what they are. Total BS.

Redistribution ? Yes. Its is all that. Our government. The church. All of the tax code. This is what societies do. They organize and work as a group. If you don't want that. Go live in the woods. But hell, even then if you are in the USA, you are still protected by society and our military.

[hands11]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

What's going to bankrupt us is social security and medicare.

AAAAAAAAAAMEN

social security has taken in way more then it has ever paid out. Social Security has not cost anything from the general budget. We all paid into it and funded it. On paper, there is a huge surplus. Problem is, while it was collecting more then it was paying out, our didn't "Lock Box" the money. Instead they spend it on other things so the generation that would need that money in the future didn't have to pay the level of taxes in the present that would support what they would later take. Its like the post office. It was paid for.

Low taxes at all costs. You know. Republicans. Start some wars and don't pay for it, etc.

But again, it was all part of their plan. They wanted us at 100% debt to GDP. Starve the beast. It was the R plan all along. Now its not what every R voter wanted. They were fooled by a few mega rich who wanted to keep more then what they were contractually committed to keep. They were sold a fact platform that said, we want balanced budgets. That made common sense to people. Only it was only the Dems that actually did it.

[hands11]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

Since the subject came up:

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... fda77612f7

And there's this:

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate
by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

*snip*

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trill ... FtS2FFPv-G

Ok. So they either need to implement better cost controls or they will have to admit the Republican health care plan isn't going to work. Then they can implement a single payer system option like the Dems originally wanted.

[hands11]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.

No it's not. Sowell is intentionally selecting a loaded word. He knows what he's doing.

Just like he knows what he's doing when he drops Stalin and Castro as the examples of "confiscation" (comparing the result of Stalin's confiscation to Hitler and the holocaust).

And, he doesn't even connect the dots -- he just lets the reader associate Obama with Stalin, Hitler and Castro. What, was Pol Pot busy?

In what ways are Obama's thoughts on wealth redistribution similar to Stalin's or Castro's? Which of Obama's specific policy proposals can we look at to see how Obama's policies are similar to Stalin's or Castro's?

People really fall for this kind of tripe?

That's a different argument. I think it's fair to criticize Sowell for implying that Obama intends to implement the same policies as Stalin. But that's different from equating redistribution to confiscation, which I maintain is analogous in this case.

redistribution and confiscation are vastly different things.

confiscation can be done because you are taking what is rightfully yours or by taking what is not. It points to who has the power to take. It doesn't even necessary address if you have the legal right to do it.

redistribution is a totally different word. It address how something is parsed out.

They are not analogous to each other.

[Zonkerbl]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

On pre-existing conditions -- that's basically a penalty for changing jobs. If you don't change your job you're covered. If you get fired and get a new job you're not. So, not only is that totally unfair and doesn't make sense, it also discourages labor mobility, which is necessary for labor markets to function properly.

So to me, eliminating the pre-existing condition silliness is fair AND corrects a market failure, a no-brainer.

So I wouldn't lump that in with "govt sponsored charitable endeavors." It's a government intervention addressing a market failure, so that markets can function the way they're supposed to.

The whole issue with pre-existing conditions is only a problem because we have illogically attached health care insurance to employment. You should buy health care insurance directly as an individual. If you have health problems, your insurance should cost more. This will incentivize people to take care of themselves and I guarantee it would radically lower the cost of health care insurance for 95% of the population. Those with really dire health care issues (who didn't have the foresight to lock in a long term health care insurance contract when they were healthy) might ultimately be priced out of the market. Government could step in and provide some assistance, but that assistance should be finite. Eventually, those truly high risk people would be uninsurable. It may sound draconian, but it's perfectly logical as public policy. There is a finite amount of health care funds to spend. Health care must be rationed in some way. Shouldn't we be spending most of it on the healthy and reasonably healthy rather than spending a disproportionate amount on those who probably won't last long anyhow?

I'd rather provide free pre-natal care to 20 young pregnant women rather than keep one 75-year-old man with lung cancer alive another 6 months.

Argh, Nate, if we could buy insurance ourselves we would. Adverse selection makes that impossible, for precisely the reasons you cite. If I get priced out of the market the moment I get sick, why the hell should I pay for insurance in the first place? The health care market is inherently flawed. It requires some sort of intervention. Now, you can do it smart, like the tax penalty for free riding on my health care dollar, or you can do it the dumb way, like in Britain or Canada. But you have to do something, or you end up with the crazy mess that forced us to make changes in the first place.

[hands11]

Advance Warning - the following is awkwardly worded but I'm sure you'll get my point anyway.

Pretend it's inauguration day 2008. Obama has promised that the planet would begin to heal, that oceans would begin to recede, that unemployment would fall to 6% (given his stimulus), that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, that the Muslim world would begin to like us.

Knowing now what you didn't know then, that in general he was not able to honor his commitments, would progressives have changed their vote in 2008. If not, with a history of not being able to honor his commitments over the last four years why would you trust him for another four years?

that oceans would begin to recede

- He never said that would happen in 4 years.

that unemployment would fall to 6% (given his stimulus)

- I don't know that he said exactly that or not, but if he did. So what. Sounds like a great goal. He had the right approach. The stimulus helped in a huge way. Who knew what a mess things would be by Dec that year. Nothing to see here. next. Consensus is they stimulus saved 3-4 million jobs.

that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term
- again. I don't know that he said exactly that but who cares. Every politician says they are going to lower unemployment and cut the budget. By this standard, you couldn't elect anyone. Neither Bush achieved that. Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't . Next.

Muslim world would begin to like us

- They do.

Would I vote for him again then knowing what I know now. Yes and twice on Sunday. Now when you put the other options as returning to the Bush Neocon team and more trickle-down BS, Yes and a million times on Sunday

[hands11]

Advance Warning - the following is awkwardly worded but I'm sure you'll get my point anyway.

Pretend it's inauguration day 2008. Obama has promised that the planet would begin to heal, that oceans would begin to recede, that unemployment would fall to 6% (given his stimulus), that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, that the Muslim world would begin to like us.

Knowing now what you didn't know then, that in general he was not able to honor his commitments, would progressives have changed their vote in 2008. If not, with a history of not being able to honor his commitments over the last four years why would you trust him for another four years?

Is it true that "in general" Obama has not been able to honor his commitments? If so, is that inability to deliver on campaign promises materially different from other presidents?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm also not a progressive, so my answer is probably disqualified.

Politifact.com (run by the Tampa Bay Times) has a "Promise Meter".

Code: Select all

                GOP     OBAMA
Promise Kept    19%     38%
Compromise      7%      14%
Promise Broken  19%     17%
Promise Stalled 5%      9%
In the Works    19%     22%
Not yet Rated   30%     2%


GOP above in the table above is current congressional leadership.

They don't have a similar meter for other presidents, unfortunately.

Great post.

Why do Rs fight so hard to come up with every excuse for not seeing the reality of the facts?

Obame is not only a viable choice to elect again, he has done a impressive jobs. Not perfect but impressive.

On the other hand Mitt has been a out right disaster.

That goes to show you what propaganda, money to spreed it, and party loyalty can do.

Mitt shouldn't even be a serious choice. Hopefully America is on the ball and that proves out in the vote.

[hands11]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

You are a moderate or moderate/conservative Dem Pops. Just own it my friend.

[hands11]

The righties may scream that all the social democratic govs like Canada and
western Europe are going bankrupt (I think that's overblown) but the fact remains
that they are delivering health care to their citizens cheaper, and their citizens
are healthier, happier and living longer as a result. Uncovered medical expenses
are one of the single most prevalent causes of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Doing something to address this was necessary. So I would argue that doing nothing
about health care insurance would have been a quicker path to widespread
bankruptcy, unless you're a CEO of a large health insurance company.

They are delivering health care cheaper because the U.S. market is still driving innovation. Without the profit incentive from the U.S. market, there would be very little advancement in health care technology. Canada and Western Europe are getting a free ride from our free market and the associated innovation.

There is also a delay before the consequences of socialized health care has a real impact. At first, you still have all the doctors that went to school under the free market system dreaming of becoming upper middle class. But once the price controls kick in, nobody goes to school to become a doctor anymore because there is no financial incentive. For a few decades, you get by with the existing supply of doctors, plus imports from India, but ultimately you end with a catastrophic supply shortage of health care professionals. Canada and Britain are entering the terminal phase now.

So the only reason people become doctors is to get rich ?

Well if the system weed these people out, that might be a good thing.

The whole thing need restructured included people expectations. Most people don't need to see a phd as their first visit. RN's and places like Patients First are more then enough. phd's and specialists can be the second and third level and they should manage the first tier.

When I want to see a a medical person, most of my needs are meet from Patients First. I walk in and I get seen when I need to get seen. I don't wait two weeks. If I need more, they tell me where to go to get it.

[popper]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

You are a moderate or moderate/conservative Dem Pops. Just own it my friend.

I am a moderate conservative.

[popper]

Zonk - This is a response to your last two posts. First, Obama's health care plan and various other social programs that you mention as good assumes that our country can afford them and can perpetuate them. As you know, this is mathematically impossible without hyperinflation. Where a govt. check might buy a months worth of food today it will only by two weeks worth by next year or the year after. Something will have to give soon and we can be sure that those on the lower end of the economic stratum will suffer most. As we've discussed on this thread before, if Repubs are so evil why did they propose and adopt the EITC? Why are our churches, synagogues and mosques considered to be the greatest source of charity-giving on the face of the earth. Surely you don't believe that the American people, Repub and Dem alike, are not caring and generous in their charitable contribution.

I agree that neither candidate has an economic plan that brings the budget into balance. They both need to sharpen their pencils and get to work on our long term economic problems.

Regarding teaching science in public schools I'm not aware of the issue you describe. As far as I know, all of our public schools teach science. Gay marriage is a difficult issue for me and I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

I have something for you to think about objectively Pop.

You say the church is the biggest charity. Right ? Well why is that a good things but when our government does it, it is a bad thing ?

The "Church" is just a group of people that give their money to an organization that redistributes it to other people.

Well, our government does the same thing. I give to an organization called my government and they redistribute money to lots of things. To R&D. To our military. To social support systems. To training programs.

Religions get money from their members. Our government get it from a larger group of members. Our citizens.
Religions get the money from willing contributors. But there are standards that are expected.
Our government also sets standards for who and how much they give. I have no problem paying my taxes for these collective good and moral investments. I do have a problem with they spending it to invade a country that didn't attack up though. But both sides don't seem to mind giving for our military.

The church has a government structure that decides where the money is spend.
So does our government/us.

My guess without doing any research. Our government, we the people, are the biggest charity.

I think what happens with Church people is this. They say, I already give at church and I get to choose who I help. Why do I have to give a second time. Well, all of American doesn't go to Church and though our taxes, we take care of a bigger basket of people and a bigger basket of issues. Not just people that believe in our religion or who we want to convert.

Do you see what I am getting at. The structure and reasons for giving are the same. Only one is at a country level and the other is at a religious level.

I hope your reply isnt about waste because there is plenty of abuse of charity church money as well. Look at Pat Roberts and others of those mega millionaire church people. They are no mother Teresa's.

Excellent question. He who receives private charity says "thank you". He who receives govt. charity doesn't, and it will soon be perceived as an entitlement separated from the worthiness of the recipient.

Personally I'm honored to contribute to charity ( I do so through my church and through other venues). My wife and I traveled to Colarada Springs last month so my son could tour the Air Force Academy. While we were there we visited Compassion International, an organization we have supported for years. We pay monthly to ensure that an individual child receives health care and an education. The kids we support write a thank you note every once in a while.