The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:18:39 -0000

I see your point. No offense intended.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:12:27 -0000

Good Grief, I have no idea what you are refering too.

However, I sense that you are asking me to be stoic and serious with every comment.

I can’t…hey what kind of wood don’t float?

Elwood!

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:06:59 -0000

Well, you are a "social liberal", I am not.

Beyond that and by your overall description of your own politics, I see no government on earth as a working example supporting your ideology.

As far as imposing upon another’s rights, the rich in this country has been imposing on the rights of the less fortunate for far to long and by far to many immoral methodologies.

I see “Libertarian” as a fad, not a real and viable form of government. Chosen when one cannot, or chose not, to distinguish between right and wrong.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:18:39 -0000

I see your point. No offense intended.

Edit: And don't quit your day job.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:12:27 -0000

Good Grief, I have no idea what you are refering too.

However, I sense that you are asking me to be stoic and serious with every comment.

I can’t…hey what kind of wood don’t float?

Elwood!

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:06:59 -0000

Well, you are a "social liberal", I am not.

Beyond that and by your overall description of your own politics, I see no government on earth as a working example supporting your ideology.

As far as imposing upon another’s rights, the rich in this country has been imposing on the rights of the less fortunate for far to long and by far to many immoral methodologies.

I see “Libertarian” as a fad, not a real and viable form of government. Chosen when one cannot, or chose not, to distinguish between right and wrong.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:59:05 -0000

I can see some of your points, Jim, but there&#39s still some large issues that seem to get dusted under the rug. The biggest problem that I have with public programs (aside from the constitutionality issues) are with control issues: how do you fix them when they go wrong. AFDC was never meant to be a multi-generational excuse to avoid marriage and work, since it was passed in the aftermath of WW2 when there were large numbers of widowed mothers. Farm subsidies were meant (or at least sold) as a means to preserve family farms, but they have been twisted to help corporate farmers against the family farmers. Social Security was never meant to be a forced savings plan, but as a way to stop the county poor house. It has succeeded in ending the poor house, but it now pays the comfortably retired with money taxed from minimum wage earners. There are countless programs that have good intentions behind them, but it seems impossible to fix or kill them when they go wrong. Obama just found out how hard when he suggested a few minor cuts in completely useless, expired programs which congress just recently snubbed. The freedom to live should include some freedom in saying where my money goes, and a vote for a few, unpredictable candidates every two years is entirely ineffective in doing that.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:41:59 -0000

The "god" bit I culled from your description of Republics ruining the will of congress, or something like that -- I can&#39t find the thread anymore. It just seemed ethereal at the time, like there was some sort of power that would be controlling congress and making everything right, if only the, um, evil Republicans weren&#39t there.
The "devil" bit came from your blanket attack on the the rich, which you&#39ve explained better now.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

adelinesdad — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:27:50 -0000

Jim,

The Senate Republicans just voted unanimously to extend unemployment benefits. Clearly Republicans, and most conservatives, do support helping the poor to some degree. How much the government should help is a matter of debate, and as I mentioned before moral arguments are a part of that debate, as are economic ones of course. What I objected to was the use of a religious argument to imply that any Christian who doesn&#39t reflexively support any legislation that intends to help the poor is a hypocrite.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

nicrivera — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:29:43 -0000

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

I consider myself to be a libertarian-liberal--someone who is socially libertarian and fiscally moderate. I feel that people should basically be free to engage in consensual acts so long as they do not infringe on anyone else&#39s life, liberty, or property. I believe that government is essentially a coercive institution--that is--the laws they it passes are not recommendations that people may chose to follow but are dictates that individuals are forced to follow either via force or by the threat of force. I believe that some form of government is necessary to protect people&#39s rights, defend them from agressors, provide for courts and elections, and ensure some degree of stability within the country.

I believe that if the government is to pass a law, it should grounded on utilitarian reasons and not grounded moralistic philosophy that argues that some people need to be penalized merely because they are acting "immoral."

If we&#39re going to put certain people in prison, it should be because their actions are infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties or others--not because we find their actions to be distasteful or immoral.

If we&#39re going to tax people, it should be to collect revenue to fund programs that society as a whole deems is appropriate--not because the rich need to "pay their fair share."

My criticism of your above post was not so much a criticism of what you proposed for the government to do (add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year) but because of the reason you gave for this proposal (just to show them them the power of the collective majority). Was this a tongue-in-cheek statement, or do you believe the government should be imposing taxes on certain groups of people as some kind of "gotcha" or punitive measure, as your post suggested?

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:59:05 -0000

I can see some of your points, Jim, but there's still some large issues that seem to get swept under the rug. The biggest problem that I have with public programs (aside from the constitutionality issues) are with control issues: how do you fix them when they go wrong. AFDC was never meant to be a multi-generational excuse to avoid marriage and work, since it was passed in the aftermath of WW2 when there were large numbers of widowed mothers. Farm subsidies were meant (or at least sold) as a means to preserve family farms, but they have been twisted to help corporate farmers against the family farmers. Social Security was never meant to be a forced savings plan, but as a way to stop the county poor house. It has succeeded in ending the poor house, but it now pays the comfortably retired with money taxed from minimum wage earners. There are countless programs that have good intentions behind them, but it seems impossible to fix or kill them when they go wrong. Obama just found out how hard when he suggested a few minor cuts in completely useless, expired programs which congress just recently snubbed. The freedom to live should include some freedom in saying where my money goes, and a vote for a few, unpredictable candidates every two years is entirely ineffective in doing that.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ProfElwood — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:41:59 -0000

The "god" bit I culled from your description of Republics ruining the will of congress, or something like that -- I can't find the thread anymore. It just seemed ethereal at the time, like there was some sort of power that would be controlling congress and making everything right, if only the, um, evil Republicans weren't there.
The "devil" bit came from your blanket attack on the the rich, which you've explained better now.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

adelinesdad — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:27:50 -0000

Jim,

The Senate Republicans just voted unanimously to extend unemployment benefits. Clearly Republicans, and most conservatives, do support helping the poor to some degree. How much the government should help is a matter of debate, and as I mentioned before moral arguments are a part of that debate, as are economic ones of course. What I objected to was the use of a religious argument to imply that any Christian who doesn't reflexively support any legislation that intends to help the poor is a hypocrite.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Leonidas — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:46:03 -0000

I apologized previously for using crude terms on that previous post, accept it or not up to you. However that has nothing to do with the actual point that mothers and father should take responsibility for their actions and not saddle the price of their irresponsibility onto taxpayers. I don&#39t think our government has any business coddling such irresponsible behavior or rewarding it. Nurturing stupidity is not a valid role for government.

Now if you want to try to make a valid point, I&#39ll listen, but I haven&#39t time for your red herrings and ad homs.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:33:56 -0000

Several postings here show the problem. They attempt to say that how things are done now must be the same way they have always been done. It doesn&#39t matter if those ways are no longer effective. ginnymac says that those who do not work shouldn&#39t eat, or at least shouldn&#39t have our help doing so. But is not working the same as not being able to find a job? This is one of my greatest problems with conservatives/Republicans. They blame the people who can&#39t find work for not working, refusing completely to recognize that there are factors in the real world that are beyond the control of individuals. We are in the middle of the worst economic downturn since World War II. The official unemployment rate is 10.2% while the real number (Officially unemployed + discouraged workers + underemployed) is 17.5%. Yet the refrain continues. Government programs are bad. All charity should be private charity and that is good enough. Tell that to the food pantries whose shelves are empty because of the huge demand and the fall off in donations. If the conservatives did get their way and those evil social programs were wiped out do they really think that things would be just fine for the poor, working or not? Are they that far out of touch with reality because of their demonization of government programs?

I tend to think that the constant accusations of taxation being theft support my view, frankly.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

nicrivera — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:29:43 -0000

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

I consider myself to be a libertarian-liberal--someone who is socially libertarian and fiscally moderate. I feel that people should basically be free to engage in consensual acts so long as they do not infringe on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. I believe that government is essentially a coercive institution--that is--the laws they it passes are not recommendations that people may chose to follow but are dictates that individuals are forced to follow either via force or by the threat of force. I believe that some form of government is necessary to protect people's rights, defend them from agressors, provide for courts and elections, and ensure some degree of stability within the country.

I believe that if the government is to pass a law, it should grounded on utilitarian reasons and not grounded moralistic philosophy that argues that some people need to be penalized merely because they are acting "immoral."

If we're going to put certain people in prison, it should be because their actions are infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties or others--not because we find their actions to be distasteful or immoral.

If we're going to tax people, it should be to collect revenue to fund programs that society as a whole deems is appropriate--not because the rich need to "pay their fair share."

My criticism of your above post was not so much a criticism of what you proposed for the government to do (add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year) but because of the reason you gave for this proposal (just to show them them the power of the collective majority). Was this a tongue-in-cheek statement, or do you believe the government should be imposing taxes on certain groups of people as some kind of "gotcha" or punitive measure, as your post suggested?

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Leonidas — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:46:03 -0000

I apologized previously for using crude terms on that previous post, accept it or not up to you. However that has nothing to do with the actual point that mothers and father should take responsibility for their actions and not saddle the price of their irresponsibility onto taxpayers. I don't think our government has any business coddling such irresponsible behavior or rewarding it. Nurturing stupidity is not a valid role for government.

Now if you want to try to make a valid point, I'll listen, but I haven't time for your red herrings and ad homs. Perhaps you can start with why you think the average tax payer should be required to fund an irresponsible act by a person they don't even know, just because they can't afford insurance?

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:33:56 -0000

Several postings here show the problem. They attempt to say that how things are done now must be the same way they have always been done. It doesn't matter if those ways are no longer effective. ginnymac says that those who do not work shouldn't eat, or at least shouldn't have our help doing so. But is not working the same as not being able to find a job? This is one of my greatest problems with conservatives/Republicans. They blame the people who can't find work for not working, refusing completely to recognize that there are factors in the real world that are beyond the control of individuals. We are in the middle of the worst economic downturn since World War II. The official unemployment rate is 10.2% while the real number (Officially unemployed + discouraged workers + underemployed) is 17.5%. Yet the refrain continues. Government programs are bad. All charity should be private charity and that is good enough. Tell that to the food pantries whose shelves are empty because of the huge demand and the fall off in donations. If the conservatives did get their way and those evil social programs were wiped out do they really think that things would be just fine for the poor, working or not? Are they that far out of touch with reality because of their demonization of government programs?

I tend to think that the constant accusations of taxation being theft support my view, frankly.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:26 -0000

You are right it does sound rather vindictive.

I keep thinking of those millions losing their homes because they cannot afford healthcare. People whom suffer illness or injury because they cannot afford healthcare. Millions of Americans locked into poverty and ignorance within urban slums like east LA or backwoods under privileged places like West Virginia or millions already in prison because they have never had any hope to begin with. All simply because we do not invest in our education and social infrastructure like all other developed nations do. Then our non-wealthy but stubbornly dedicated youth taking the military option for a chance at a future either by career, skills training, or VA education benefits, and being sent over and over again to a war hell that rips their minds apart if not their bodies. The millions of homeless people scattered across the so-called “richest nation on earth”, the United States. Just to name a few reasons for animosity.

I am somewhat open minded also. So maybe you could help me with how I should express my favoritism or more precisely “un-favoritism” for those Americans that seemed to turned their backs on their “fellow Americans for decades.

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:37:02 -0000

No No No....

Just a playing with words.

Please, collective god??

...and rich devil????

Nonsense.

Nancy Pelosi is rich and I admire her....and.....most of the Kennedys....and....Senator & Mrs.Kerry....and.....Armand Hammer......and.....Oprah Winfrey....to name a few rich people.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ginnymac — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:28:06 -0000

The early church may have lived communally but, based on my interpretation, they took care of each other, not the population in general. If you look at the whole of Scripture, rather than at just the parts you like, Christian charity is a balancing act. The mandate is to help your neighbor, as he has need, but "Let he who will not work, not eat". What is "need"? The balance is possible only as long as you retain the actual meaning of the word "neighbor". I have to know my neighbor well enough to know whether or not he is working. The Good Samaritan did not call his Congressman to demand insurance: he took his neighbor to a doctor and paid the bill. Paying my taxes, however used, is not charity.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

DLS — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:33:54 -0000

"Compassionate conservative" = providing entitlements just like the Dems. No doubt, first and foremost by Washington, DC.

Just who is the Lord, though? Power (authority)?

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:09:26 -0000

You are right it does sound rather vindictive.

I keep thinking of those millions losing their homes because they cannot afford healthcare. People whom suffer illness or injury because they cannot afford healthcare. Millions of Americans locked into poverty and ignorance within urban slums like east LA or backwoods under privileged places like West Virginia or millions already in prison because they have never had any hope to begin with. All simply because we do not invest in our education and social infrastructure like all other developed nations do. Then our non-wealthy but stubbornly dedicated youth taking the military option for a chance at a future either by career, skills training, or VA education benefits, and being sent over and over again to a war hell that rips their minds apart if not their bodies. The millions of homeless people scattered across the so-called “richest nation on earth”, the United States. Just to name a few reasons for animosity.

I am somewhat open minded also. So maybe you could help me with how I should express my favoritism or more precisely “un-favoritism” for those Americans that seemed to turned their backs on their “fellow Americans for decades.

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

Father_Time — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:37:02 -0000

No No No....

Just a playing with words.

Please, collective god??

...and rich devil????

Nonsense.

Nancy Pelosi is rich and I admire her....and.....most of the Kennedys....and....Senator & Mrs.Kerry....and.....Armand Hammer......and.....Oprah Winfrey....to name a few rich people.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

ginnymac — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:28:06 -0000