Reading For Liberals
My Mother-In-Law gave me this book a few weeks ago upon her return from the liberal inundated state of Minnesota. This book illustrates the absurdness of many liberal core postures. What a nightmare it is...
posted by john at 9:06 PM
28 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
help mom!! there is a liberal in my bed, oh wait its just me again...Back to my nightmare where our president has a 33% job approval rating.
Help Mom, there's a liberal changing the focus of the conversation because he doesn't know what the book (issue) is about and needed to defend a position he felt threatened.
Seriously- you should listen to Rush Limbaugh for at least 6 weeks solid to learn the holes in the liberal arguments. This post's intention was part random post part experiment. In a matter of two comments - the first deleted by the author citing 60 Minutes/CBS as a credible source the actual issue was not addressed, focus changed, and the president attacked.
I'm totally serious about listening to Rush for 6 weeks - if you really believe in the liberal positions you defend what better place to strengthen your argument than to see what the other side is talking about. Rush even offers ways liberals can start having a better chance of winning on the issues and arguments. It is a 3 hour a day commitment. Let me know if you can’t find it on one of your AM stations there in Denver and I’ll give you the web address of a Boise station that lets you listen online.
Yes Tony - the 60 Minutes/CBS is on the fringe of 'argumentum ad hominem'. But I wasn't the one that deleted the comment.
you actually had me wondering if i had posted something and deleted it, but then i remembered i hadn't posted anything. must have been philipentum.
why don't we discuss an issue that you think illustrates your point about rush and holes? might (and that's a big might) be more constructive than cartoons...;)
I don't think I can handle Rush for that long. I deleted my comment because I changed my mind on bringing the whole WMD thing up...Seemed to be one of those "not really the issue issues".
And I was just trying to get a discussion going, not bashing a book that I don't know anything about.
speaking of discussion...I just went to try to find a Rush podcast--no go, I'll keep looking though. Anywho, I am interested in what this book (or/and you) believe the liberal core postures to be.
Oh, I see the president/poll approval comment was the way to spur on a discussion of what?...If a polling issue is of concern then to me it’s a dead end conversation as I don’t put much stock into polls or care much of approval ratings, we’ve seen how many times polls are incorrect, biased, etc. The popular thing isn’t necessarily the right thing -don't misunderstand me in that I am not saying absolutely everything our president does is the thing I view as right in my limited knowledge in regards to the intelligence that is available to him.
Rush's website provides some transcripts and sound bites but there is quite a bit more if you become a Rush 24/7 member. I'm sure if you can't do Rush for 3 hours then that’s not up your alley.
Take a look at http://www.kido.net/main.html 10 am-1pm MST. - if you care to indulge.
well i won't argue that there are things that the executive branch has to do and that the public doesn't need to understand or to approve.
The comment was just a jab to start conversation. much like the original post if i'm reading you right.
anyway--back to what you wanted to discuss in the first place. i am still wondering what you believe the liberal core postures to be.
An issue might and I emphasize might be more constructive dependent upon how honestly it is approached not on how sophisticated the illustrations are. I would normally refrain giving you a brief of a book/article/issue as that is a pretty surface way to inform given as basis of a discussion but will oblige.
The liberal issues the children’s book with illustrations addresses are taxation as a good thing (of course in real life it is disguised as programs, etc) and pretending that government is the best management of these funds, free speech as long as you say the right thing ACLU as an example, and that more gov't is better.
So pick one and let’s talk about it in how the reality of it works/should be addressed, etc.
I think the liberal core values vary from person to person candidate to candidate - I think liberal values vary and some liberal wouldn't really be liberals if they understood what their vote for those that hold those views really insight.
I can of course give you the stereotype but those are pretty easy to deal with - and don't assume that you stand for all of those such as abortion.
Rather than assuming what your liberal positions are - how about a brief list? I would be glad to provide a list of the conservative views I agree with.
well I would agree that taxation is a good thing. I believe in the distribution of wealth. now, that is not to say that taxes have (ever) been done right. i can't say that i would know exactly the best way to do them. i would say that if i were a person of means (which i am not) i would believe those funds to be given to me to bless others, improve the environment, fund education etc.
the big government thing isn't really a liberal core value, its just a government value. there isn't a single group in washington that doesn't want power, and after getting it want more. so i discriminate on both sides of the aisle on that one.
i see all government as human, i will continue to measure it against what i know of scriptural values.
So you believe in socialism. And you think it’s fair that one works 16 hours a day and pay taxes for a program that allows someone to sit on their couch and take a check for being a slug? Or fund a grant for the study on Gender Studies? Or a grant to provide funds for an artist to work on a portfolio, writer write a book, etc? I wouldn't say that is consistent with a Christian world view. I don’t think that falls into line with rendering unto Caesar all that are his.
Better yet is it fair for me to be penalized by being required to pay more taxes because I work 80 hours a week as opposed to a 40 hour a week worker? Absolutely not - when a society starts to reward mediocrity and penalize the self-motivated that creates some serious issues – take a look at the economic issues going on in Germany right now, I believe Spain is seeing much of the same – countries that fed the hand-out generations and are now seeing the problems this has caused.
I believe you are working with a theoretical rather than working knowledge of economics. This issue is way too long to include here and I don’t really know how to convey to you that someone who is a small business owner that makes 50K a year gross income with little overhead can actually make less than one who makes 17K a year.
Being a person of means and being blessed, we all are, beyond what we understand and I’m sure we agree on that. I would not agree that the government knows better than I of how to correctly spend the money that I pay in taxes to bless others if that really is its intention. That I believe is a fundamental difference between folks who think taxes are a good way to give back/think that those that have more should pay more and those that make more and/or understand the dynamics of the situation and aren’t inclined to take the popular stance.
I think that if one has a view that the government should manage our money for us and another thinks he can do without that government interaction that would be an inclination away from big government. This goes into regulation of the social, fiscal, etc. Maybe our definitions vary a bit of big gov’t. I do agree that there is corruption and thirst for power in gov’t across the party lines as in nearly any other arena.
like i said earlier, i don't think that taxes are being spent correctly by any party. all of those funds that you mentioned happen within the context of Republican and Democratic administrations, and if they don't they are replaced by equally fruitless endeavors.
America is the richest country in the world. I think stepping back and recognizing that we (I mean you and I) are incredibly priveledged. Both of us have college degrees, we both have houses to live in.
as far as my money being spent: government was never established to tax for those things you mentioned. government's main purpose (as i understand it) is to keep order--to combat violence. now, since i live within a country that sees fit to allow me to worship how i choose, i will pay taxes. if i have a choice where that money goes (which i do by my vote) i choose for it to help people. if a republican were to institute aid from my taxes that exceeded liberal plans i would vote for him.
It seems to me that the liberal candidates support many of the things I mentioned that you say government was never established to tax for, and in fact campaign on handout programs far more than the conservative candidates have since I started following politics in the mid 90's.
If you care to look at the numbers regarding the amount of taxation and who pays follow the link to an irs excel sheet: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls
Lines 125 on might be the most succinct as they show percentages - Notice how taxation steadily climbed in between '92-'00 and then they started to drop.
less taxes paid=more money in the publics hand=increased spending=morejobs=stronger economy
you can work the equation like that or like this
lower national debt->stronger economy->more jobs->more money in the public's hands
interstingly enough right about the time the taxes decreased in 2000 the national debt, and unemployment went up.
Please enlighten us on how a lower national debt directly creates a stronger economy?
Spending is one of my biggest gripes with this W this go around. There are a few things to consider when throwing out an issue like the national debt - like how interest compounds...
"In his book, Free Money, Rodger Malcolm argues that every major economic contraction in American history began with a major reduction in the national debt, and that every major expansion coincided with a resumption of government spending and a general increase in the debt:
In 1817-21 the federal debt was reduced 29% A contraction began in 1819
In 1823-36 the federal debt was reduced 99.7% A contraction began in 1837
In 1852-56 the federal debt was reduced 59% A contraction began in 1857
In 1867-73 the federal debt was reduced 27% A contraction began in 1873
In 1880-93 the federal debt was reduced 57% A contraction began in 1893
In 1920-30 the federal debt was reduced 36% The “Great Depression” began in 1929
In 1998-2000 federal debt growth slowed to 1.4% annually (President Clinton’s surplus). A recession began in 2001. The following deficits and expansion of the money supply under Bush did seem to correspond to a renewed expansion, but discussing economic events this close to the present day is of dubious merit." Wikipedia.org
I haven't researched this much but bumped across it in Wikipedia while searching for more history on the national debt.
Wikipedia.org
of course federal spending made the economy better. unfortunately it is a facade. the money isn't real. Federal debt causes a transfer of purchasing power from the private sector to the public sector. As a rule, the larger the public debt, the larger the interest payments, hence the more taxes needed to pay them. As a result, the public has less money to spend on their own needs. The problem with this government spending is that it continues to grow so that income will increase, so that taxes can incrase to make the interest payments, and the cycle continues. taxes needed to pay the interest can cut down the incentives to work, save, and invest. Individuals and businesses might feel less inclined to work harder and earn extra income if higher taxes will be placed on them. Many people feel that the government spends taxpayers' money in a heedless manner. If people feel that their taxes are being squandered, they are less likely to save and invest. some administration has to take responsibility for the cycle. decreasing taxes and increasing government spending isn't a real solution because the debt will continue to grow until it is impossible to keep taxes low. When the government sells bonds to finance the deficit, it competes with the private sector for scarce resources. At times there is the crowding-out effect Private borrowers are forced to pay the higher rates or leave the market. The increased demand for money causes the interest rate to go up. This increases forces borrowers to either pay higher rates, or to stay out of the market. so you see the debt is naturally connected to the economy's strength.
So do you think this is what is going on in our market right now?
I'm not sure that "If people feel that their taxes are being squandered, they are less likely to save and invest." I personally feel/do the opposite. I would be interested in more info. on that if you have it available, not necessarily for the sake of debate but to review.
I would suggest that there is always a way to save and invest that works with the state of the economy/interest rates. If high interest rates - I would want money in a CD type of setup that makes money off that condition. And the opposite if interest rates are low put that money to work in something like real estate related investments.
I don't know, I guess I just think money is a tool and can be used in different approaches like a hammer that can pound nails in and also pull them out and sometimes when the situation calls for the side to be used to pound in a broader object that can work as well.
If that’s contrary to what the majority will do as herd behavior then maybe I'm ok with that - the goal is to be ahead of the herd or at least to see as best possible and understand the herd's trend.
there are only five basic economic systems: anarchism, communism, socialism, capitalism, and feudalism. i think you mean philip is for communism, not socialism.
this dude called jesus and his followers also had some pretty communist tendencies. "Take all that you own and sell it, then give your money to the poor and follow me." "Blessed are the poor, but woe to the rich." "Sell all that you own and give the money to the poor."
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19: 23-24
--(Funny how he says it so succinctly, but preachers at mega(million dollar)churches use so many words to explain it.
"What should we do then?" the crowd asked. John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them. - Luke 3:10-13
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35)
like everything else in the bible, you know it's right. you just don't want to do it. (and by you i mean the royal/colloquial you.)
it's not so simple as saying that welfare pays for people to be slugs--not when the department of housing and urban development systematically denied housing loans to minorities in suburban areas over a span of decades, for example. this put minorites (especially blacks) at a huge disadvantage, as home equity represents the majority of the rising american middle class in the 50s, 60s, 70s...
i'm sure you understand how much home ownership means to most families, who pass homes on to children, along with the benefits that come with home ownership. children benefit hugely from this economic head start. mortgages pay for college educations, college educations that were denied disproportionately brown segment of our population, who were segregated and sequestered to the slums and ghettos of the increasingly barren, crime-ridden, and jobless inner cities in part because of a racist government policy.
that's just ONE example of how things that might be completely out of your control can partially limit you. it's not as simple as explaining to lazy homeless people that they need to buy thousand-dollar suits and smoke hundred-dollar cigars and charge $50.00 for a membership fee to their radio fan club. that kind of snide, cold look at things reminds me of the idiot at bluestem who genuinely wonders why all those [people] in new orleans didn't just drive away before katrina hit.
I’m sorry- lets ask Phil if he’s talking about Socialism or Communism – from the statements made they seem most consistent with Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism and Socialism is the precursor to Communism - which by the way has never worked anywhere, ever. As a Christian this should be easy to understand given the depravity of man.
The biblical references are absolutely right in their context we agree and I understand that you know I am on the same page there. We do disagree how/who should disperse that money.
Sure there are some things that can PARTIALLY limit ones economic status. But how long does one allow a chip to be on their shoulder. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 – also called the Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination. And the Equal Opportunity Act of 1974 addressed lending. So if housing is the basis of ONE argument how many generations does that take? It’s been 30-40 years?
I can’t name one that has ever suggested to a lazy person-( not sure how the lazy person turned into a homeless person) that they need to buy thousand dollar suits, smoke expensive cigars, and pay a membership fee to join a radio fan club. If you don’t like Rush that’s great just say it. I’m glad he makes as much money as he wants, wears what he wants, and requires people to pay for a service he provides. If that is something you don’t agree then how is that consistent with paying $10 to watch George Clooney’s Syriana?
Christians are called to support fellow men but are we talking about Christian’s responsibility or are we talking about paying taxes. The line seems hazy. "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them. - That’s what I’m talking about.
Is it fair for one to be penalized for making more money? I am trying to have you understand that a small business owner that makes 50K a year gross income with little overhead can actually make less than one who makes 17K a year. What the tax system and many people define as middle class, upper-middle class, or rich isn’t what you popularly/romantically define it as.
"Is it fair for one to be penalized for making more money?"
Luke 12:48- Fo everyone to whom much is given, much will be required;and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
God doesn't want us to store up treasures on this earth where moth and rust corrupt, but treasures in Heaven. What does it matter on this earth whether your income is 50k or 15? if you are doing God's will by showing them Christ-likeness--giving self sacrificially, knowing that the giving may be squandered, then you are fulfilling your purpose. God consistantly gives grace and blessings to us in many forms, knowing that in most cases, we not only do not recognize his grace, but we misuse or squander His blessings.
None of your belongings on this earth will make it into heaven.
Believe me Anonymous, we are on the same page I am unsure how you know me (and that’s fine by me if you want to keep it that way) but would hope that you would not assume that I believe that money is a goal and that I think he who dies with the biggest bank account wins - because you’re right we can’t take anything with us to heaven.
We also agree that the amount of money one makes does not make him a better person or will be of eternal value. “What does it matter” though seems a little general of a dismissal. Money as I hope we all understand is a tool – not a goal. So having money as opposed to not having money does allow for one to allot more money to causes that are for the common good (giving back what God has blessed us with). So I would argue that money as a tool and its value shouldn’t be so easily dismissed, we all have been given a different set of gifts/blessings.
God has the ability to judge hearts and know ones intentions in giving; however I don’t think that dismisses us from our responsibility to prudently manage those blessings.
What I believe we started talking about was Phil suggesting taxes are a way to give back of what we have been given and that he is/would be glad to pay them as it is a means of giving back - as he views it. My argument is that taxes are taxes and that I myself can chose a better way to disburse money to give back if that is the goal and if taxes were less one could allot more toward charitable giving. We’re not arguing whether giving is good or bad as we are called to do so as Christians.
right on, john. i think i agree with everything you said. the only problem is that i know you, and i know a little about human nature. you are a good person, and i think i could trust you to choose the best way to disburse money to good purposes. but surely if we all consider the "depravity of man," which you mentioned in an earlier post, we can't trust the majority of any population to responsibly disburse said moneys. (i used moneys as a plural noun there because i've always wanted to do that.)
i think i have a pretty decent understanding of economic systems and transitions from communism to capitalism. i guess what i love about capitalism is that it relies on the depravity (and specifically greed) of man to better everyone. everyone is motivated in a free market to comptete and make a profit, and this motivation
(whether you call it the depravity of man or a result of fallen nature or just human nature) ensures the most efficient and prosperous economy of any economic system.
but surely you can't rely on everyone to apply the same understanding of human nature to their own tithing or giving. watch a&e's "great american castles" to see how american barrens and tycoons "responsibly" spent their fortunes.
it's a complex issue. most philsophers at communism's nascent stages didn't consider things like shareholders, who can benefit from their respective corporation's windfall profits (think mega energy companies). who knows...i'm not smart/informed enough to make any enlightened comments. and i'm sleepy.
Post a Comment
<< Home