This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Here's something else sure to raise James Dobson's blood pressure: an ad sponsored by the Matthew 25 Network, now playing in Christian radio in Dobson's homebase of Colorado Springs:
The Matthew 25 Network describes itself as "a community of Christians—Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical—inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor."
Sounds like pretty serious Christianity to me....
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
I don't know, I think it would just make Dobson roll his eyes. Nothing Obama has said so far makes me think he is seriously christian, just seriously political. When you truly believe in something, you never feel a need to always qualify your answers.
ReplyDeleteThere are many Christians of the same faiths that practice those same beliefs but do NOT believe that Obama is the second coming and do NOT support him and his agenda for our country. Please don't imply that to support him is more Christian than to support another candidate.
ReplyDeleteObama is a true politico. He used Trinity Church as long it was politically expedient and got him a foot in the door so to speak. When he realized that Trinity was threatening his presidential aspirations, he ditched it. Not to say that there aren’t Christians in Trinity, but to say that the bigoted, hateful, and ignorant rants of Rev. Wright, his replacement pastor, and Fr. Flanagan are Christian is a stretch. And for Obama to claim that he never heard any of these "sermons" until this campaignis a bigger stretch.
Obama might be Christian, but first and foremost he is a politician of the true political stripe, nothing more, nothing less. He is being treated as a saint, savior, whatever you want to call it by the media, and unfortunately people who only rely on what they hear or read in the press are going along with it. He is not being challenged on the issues. He is given no negative press. And I’m afraid our nation is going to pay a big price for the “change” he will actually bring if we foolishly elect him as our president. He will change our nation, but not for the better.
I'm not implying a that you're less Christian if you don't vote for Obama. But I am trying to show that the folks trying to justify their opposition to Obama by saying he's not Christian (or Christian enough) have a really hard case to make, considering how many of their fellow Christians recognize Obama's strong and intentional faith.
ReplyDelete"First and foremost a politician" -- and this distinguishes Barack Obama from every other Presidential candidate... how?
"'First and foremost a politician' -- and this distinguishes Barack Obama from every other Presidential candidate... how?"
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly. He has tried to say he is unlike other politicians. The point here though is that he isn't. He is a politician through and through. He's promising everything to everyone, including the promise to take more of my hard-earned money for his income distribution schemes. He's changing his positions to try to appeal to the different factions he is trying to court for votes. A completely true politician!
My brother-in-law felt exactly like Anon 7:29. Redistribution of wealth: bad. He's a truck driver for goodness sake. Obama is not out to take more money from the lower and middle income earners. The people with high incomes (probably not even that many in South Dakota) should continue to pay their fair share rather than get a pass. After $350,000 they don't get taxed, and that's total BS. John Hess
ReplyDeleteTo 10:16: Just what do you mean by your post? People don't get a pass if they make over $350,000. But I wouldn't actually know that I guess cause I'm not even close to that figure yearly! I am middle income, and yes, I will pay more under Obama. He is going to raise capital gains, and I do have some invested in mutual funds, but that doesn't begin to qualify me as rich. He's going to do away with Bush's tax cuts, and they do help me as a middle class taxpayer.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that he is not going to take more from the lower class. They don't pay anything virtually anyway and still won't but will be getting more back in benefits. Income redistribution.
Again, I would like you to explain your post.
Anon 11:40, I was mistaken saying there's no income tax above $350,000. Rates are now substantially lower for the highest bracket - it was 70% in 1981. Probably this is my point: The government is going to collect enough taxes from somewhere to operate, and that should be as equitable as possible (more from way, way up above in my opinion). I think lowering capital gains has spurred speculation and too high of expectations for increased stock price causing market instability and in the long run lowered returns (or a lot more stress). It must hurt to pay substantial capital gains tax because of sales within your mutual fund since you have no control over that (unless unaffected within a deferred account), but isn't this lack of accountability a further cause? The fund manager wants to show highest performance even though your after-tax performance isn't close to that after the big IRS check. Very wealthy people don't own mutual funds and can better manage CG and no doubt have other ways to create shelters not so easy for middle class investors with limited resources (like our own tax team). Without real performance tied to stock price (perhaps best in the form of dividends) we have ended up with CEOs lying, audit departments and accounting firms looking the other way, etc. I'm suggesting the upper top tiers should pay more than 35% and leave the middle class alone and that it would be a mistake to entirely eliminating estate tax (as Republicans want), but go to a reasonable number like 5, 10 to 15 million. It's 2M this year, but will be entirely eliminated in the year 2010 and then revert back to 1M in 2011 if congress can't compromise. Should all the very very wealthy people get a pass on their huge estates? If they do and the Republicans get their way on this issue, you can bet middle class taxes will go up because the government is going to get the money from somewhere. The Republicans are not necessarily out for the interest of the middle class, even though they want you to think so and would appreciate your vote. The middle class gets squeezed. Almost makes you think it's time for a third party.
ReplyDeleteAlthough tax cuts for the wealthy may seem to help the middle class in time a disproportionate burden is shifted down. Index Funds are a good thing for smaller investors (per Warren Buffet & Motley Fools). Without a fund manager buying and selling they have very low expense ratios and not much capital gains to worry about. Lots of diversification too! Diversity is a good thing. Go Bama go!
ReplyDeleteIf you want to have a little fun, look at the historical individual tax rates. In 1913 it was 7%. From 1942 to 1963 the top bracket was generally at 90%. Ninety. http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
ReplyDeleteSo we won a war and enjoyed the economic expansion of the 1950s with 90% marginal income tax rates? Remarkable!
ReplyDeleteeliminate the estate tax
ReplyDeleteeliminate the capital gains tax
eliminate the corporate income tax
eliminate the fed prescription plan
eliminate future SS and Medicare/aid benefits age 40 & below
Eliminate the Dept of Ed
..and eliminate UN funding - just cause it would feel good
by the way CAH, the top marginal rate in 1948 started at $400,000 which translates to 4.6 million adjusted for inflation (1948 money)
so if you like that 90% rate I'd be happy to support you in that but only if we raised the top bracket to 4.6 million/year and exempted business income from it.