Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Hitch]

That is a separate, albeit related, issue. Yes, government is inefficient and imperfect. But the answer is certainly not to abandon the clearly noble intent of members of society to act collectively in order to help the poor.

I hope you didnt strectch a muscle patting yourself on the back

Jesus is lord of all, including government. So we should be working and advocating for the integration of Kingdom of God principle into government, not abandoning our vocation to build the kingdom.

Besides, I suggest that the government is at least somewhat effective in vectoring money to the poor. [/quote] Interesting Drew makes this claim; Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “forces†you to pay taxes to support charity. All the simple-minded rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation†is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.
Im surprized you arent in total agreement .

If ya don't work (in one form or another) you should not eat - at least, not eat on someone else's money.

These are unfortunate and almost certainly incorrect generalizations. Of course, it makes us feel good to think that the poor are lazy and shiftless. But this is generally not the case. The overwhelming majority of the poor are not poor by their own choosing. [/quote] A good number of the poor are kept so by the do-gooders spreading anti-scriptural poverty programs

However, it makes us feel justified in enjoying our wealth - and not sharing it - if we choose characterize the poor the way that you are doing here.

If it makes you feel better Im all for sharing your wealth. ;)

 

[Drew]

Not one poster has really engaged the force of the argument I have made - people in a society choose to be taxed to assist the poor, entering into a "legal" commitment to follow through on this desire. As the argument states, there is a very real practical reason to "force" people to follow through on their commitments - those who actually are given the task of re-distributing wealth to the poor need to know how much money they will be getting. So, people agree to be "bound" to pay. That is how the system works.

As with so many issues, those who suggest otherwise are really appealing to a sloganeering "pie in the sky" approach, which really does muzzle responsible dialogue on this issue and does not reflect the realities of our world.

Yes, it would be nice if people all "voluntarily" paid their taxes to assist the poor. But the world is not that simple. Given the harsh realities of life, it really is necessarily to hold people legally responsible for commitments they make.

If I freely agree to pay $ 1000 to the government to support the poor, the government needs to be sure that they will, in fact, get this money. Otherwise, they cannot plan appropriately. So I agree to be legally bound to come through on this commitment. Fundamentally, though, the initial commitment - to give $ 1000 to the poor - is entirely a free will decision.

Others will paint this issue in simple terms - focusing on the fact that we are forced to pay taxes and not really engaging the argument that this is really only a realistic means to ensure that people will follow through on a commitment that is fundamentally made freely.

 

[Hitch]

Not one poster has really engaged the force of the argument I have made - people in a society choose to be taxed to assist the poor, entering into a "legal" commitment to follow through on this desire. As the argument states, there is a very real practical reason to "force" people to follow through on their commitments - those who actually are given the task of re-distributing wealth to the poor need to know how much money they will be getting. So, people agree to be "bound" to pay. That is how the system works.

As with so many issues, those who suggest otherwise are really appealing to a sloganeering "pie in the sky" approach, which really does muzzle responsible dialogue on this issue and does not reflect the realities of our world.

Yes, it would be nice if people all "voluntarily" paid their taxes to assist the poor. But the world is not that simple. Given the harsh realities of life, it really is necessarily to hold people legally responsible for commitments they make.

If I freely agree to pay $ 1000 to the government to support the poor, the government needs to be sure that they will, in fact, get this money. Otherwise, they cannot plan appropriately. So I agree to be legally bound to come through on this commitment. Fundamentally, though, the initial commitment - to give $ 1000 to the poor - is entirely a free will decision.

Others will paint this issue in simple terms - focusing on the fact that we are forced to pay taxes and not really engaging the argument that this is really only a realistic means to ensure that people will follow through on a commitment that is fundamentally made freely.

Do you copy this spin from somewhere or just make it up as you go? Half truths such as you have used to make the bulk of your posts on this thread are complete lies.

I suggest you make a change and revere Christ as Messiah.

 

[Hitch]

Liberal convolution 101;

Yes, it would be nice if people all "voluntarily" paid their taxes to assist the poor. But the world is not that simple. Given the harsh realities of life, it really is necessarily to hold people legally responsible for commitments they make.

If I freely agree to pay $ 1000 to the government to support the poor, the government needs to be sure that they will, in fact, get this money. Otherwise, they cannot plan appropriately. So I agree to be legally bound to come through on this commitment. Fundamentally, though, the initial commitment - to give $ 1000 to the poor - is entirely a free will decision.

Only in the mind of a dedicated lefty is there an absolute need to hold people legally responsible for their free will decisions to give to charity. This is the muddled approach that is inevitable when people wany the government to supply that which God never intended. Charity at gun point.

 

[Pizzaguy]

people in a society choose to be taxed to assist the poor...

I just can't get past this piece of incoherent thought.

If you are waiting for someone to address THAT statement, you may wait a long time, because it makes no sense.

WHEN did I CHOOSE to be taxed to assist the poor?

Liberal thought is certainly weird.

 

[Hitch]

I just can't get past this piece of incoherent thought.

If you are waiting for someone to address THAT statement, you may wait a long time, because it makes no sense.

WHEN did I CHOOSE to be taxed to assist the poor?

Liberal thought is certainly weird.

Drew seems to think enough english will make anything reasonable.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I vote democrat b/c I find social darwinism to be decidedly un-Christian. I imagine some people do abuse welfare, true...but then again, trickle down economics hasn't exactly proven all that helpful, either, and I certainly don't enjoy being trickled on.


The only reason I could ever be swayed to vote Republican would maybe be over abortion, but even then..I'd rather have abortion safe and legal than illegal and dangerous, so I'll stick with the (moderately) liberal Democrats, "Obamacare," and crazy socialist ideas like "social security" and "medicare" over let them eat cake style right-wing nonsense.

 

[Hitch]

I vote democrat b/c I find social darwinism to be decidedly un-Christian. I imagine some people do abuse welfare, true...but then again, trickle down economics hasn't exactly proven all that helpful, either, and I certainly don't enjoy being trickled on.


The only reason I could ever be swayed to vote Republican would maybe be over abortion, but even then..I'd rather have abortion safe and legal than illegal and dangerous, so I'll stick with the (moderately) liberal Democrats, "Obamacare," and crazy socialist ideas like "social security" and "medicare" over let them eat cake style right-wing nonsense.

Nonsense? And you said 'safe abortion' ?

 

[Pizzaguy]

How is an abortion ever safe for the baby?


EDIT: *OOPS*, someone beat me to it.

 

[Drew]

I just can't get past this piece of incoherent thought.

If you are waiting for someone to address THAT statement, you may wait a long time, because it makes no sense.

WHEN did I CHOOSE to be taxed to assist the poor?

Liberal thought is certainly weird.

Even though you are being exceedingly rude and unconstructive here, I will address this, even I generally will not answer posts that are personally insulting. You are, as so many do, ignoring arguments and dismissing the conclusions of those arguments.

My argument explains in some detail how it is that people choose to be taxed. With all due respect, my thought is not "incoherent", it is instead actual thought. If you and others would carefully read the argument, you would see that there is indeed an actual case to the effect that, despite superficial appearance, we do indeed "choose" to be taxed to assist the poor.

Amid all the insulting, empty blather one reads in this thread, one fact remains - no one is seriously engaging the argument I have made.

And, of course, I was perhaps a fool to expect otherwise.

 

[Hitch]

Even though you are being exceedingly rude and unconstructive here, I will address this, even I generally will not answer posts that are personally insulting. You are, as so many do, ignoring arguments and dismissing the conclusions of those arguments.

My argument explains in some detail how it is that people choose to be taxed. With all due respect, my thought is not "incoherent", it is instead actual thought. If you and others would carefully read the argument, you would see that there is indeed an actual case to the effect that, despite superficial appearance, we do indeed "choose" to be taxed to assist the poor.

Amid all the insulting, empty blather one reads in this thread, one fact remains - no one is seriously engaging the argument I have made.

And, of course, I was perhaps a fool to expect otherwise.

Your 'argument' was identified as no more that the common left spin-half truth it is.

Get over it.

 

[Pizzaguy]

we do indeed "choose" to be taxed to assist the poor.

This is almost laughable. I'd be interested to see you address this ONE more time - go ahead, convince me.

 

[Drew]

This is almost laughable. I'd be interested to see you address this ONE more time - go ahead, convince me.

I have already addressed this in my previous post. Why should I repeat a detailed explanation already provided.

Let me ask you this - is all your dismissive and insulting language really your way of dealing with the possibility that I have provided a detailed, correct explanation of how, in the most important and fundamental sense, our being taxed is really a matter of choice?

Why not choose the route I am taking - letting the force of the argument make the case rather than trying clumsily to paint me as bumbling, incoherent, dim-witted, etc.?

 

[Pizzaguy]

No. Because I therefore "choose" that my taxes are way too high (I paid almost 20% this past year in income and property taxes - not counting sales taxes or taxes on gasoline, utility bills, etc.)

So, since I "choose" to pay less now, since my taxes are unreasonable - where do I go to initiate my new "chosen" rate?

My GOD Drew - my property taxes alone have risen 35% in the past two years! Where did I sign on to THAT?

 

[Drew]

No. Because I therefore "choose" that my taxes are way too high (I paid almost 20% this past year in income and property taxes - not counting sales taxes or taxes on gasoline, utility bills, etc.)

So, since I "choose" to pay less now, since my taxes are unreasonable - where do I go to initiate my new "chosen" rate?

My GOD Drew - my property taxes alone have risen 35% in the past two years! Where did I sign on to THAT?

If you really "chose" to pay less, you would vote to be paid less. You, and others, are perfectly free to vote to pay as little tax as you like and deal with the consequences in terms of reduced services and common infrastructure. No one is forcing you to have a hospital - you are free to get together with like-minded people and vote for a government that will not provide any hospitals, if that is what you realy want.

You are free to vote the people who raised your taxes out of office.

 

[Pizzaguy]

If you really "chose" to pay less, you would vote to be paid less. You, and others, are perfectly free to vote to pay as little tax as you like and deal with the consequences in terms of reduced services and common infrastructure. No one is forcing you to have a hospital - you are free to get together with like-minded people and vote for a government that will not provide any hospitals, if that is what you realy want.

You are free to vote the people who raised your taxes out of office.

This is the most idiotic thing you have posted all day. You are telling me that I CHOOSE to pay high taxes based on my one vote?

Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Just answer the question:

You are telling me that I CHOOSE to pay high taxes based on my one vote?

Did I nail your argument so effectively that ignoring me is the only answer? ;)

 

[Elijah674]

This is the most idiotic thing you have posted all day. You are telling me that I CHOOSE to pay high taxes based on my one vote?

Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

Yes, your [posts] sure do have a Lovimg Christian attitude, huh? My above highlights!

--Elijah

 

[Pizzaguy]

Congratulations, Elijah!

You made a post that can be easily understood!

I will wear it as a badge of HONOR that I was the catalyst that brought it out of you!

 

[childeye]

How is an abortion ever safe for the baby?


EDIT: *OOPS*, someone beat me to it.

I ask myself, would a liar politician say he was for letting babies live and by default label his opposition as baby killers just to get votes from gullible voters? The answer is yes.