Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

PoS said:

Whether they keep 22 times that or a million times that why do you care?


Welfare was enacted in the Great Depression. And we never had riots and rebellions when it came to poor people. The fact of the matter is if a so called poor person in the US can afford to buy an Xbox then that person isnt starving. Nobody starves to death in America unless its on purpose.

Click to expand...

Before the New Deal kicked in, during the depression there were many malnourished, destitute people, esp in the dust bowl.


[
"..Although few starved, hunger and malnutrition affected many...."


"As the devastation of the Great Depression spread throughout Detroit, increased lay-offs and financial instability among Ford Motor Company workers led to an atmosphere of despair that reached an apex in 1932. These workers were among those who marched to Ford’s River Rouge Industrial Complex in Dearborn, Michigan on March 7, 1932. This event, famously known as the Hunger March, was orchestrated by members of Detroit’s Unemployed Councils, who had been helping unemployed workers fight evictions and seek relief from charitable agencies.

A group of 3,000 to 5,000 unemployed workers and supporters marched from Detroit to the Rouge Complex intending to give Henry Ford a list of demands, including the right to organize, relief and medical care for laid off Ford workers, and an end to racial discrimination, among other things. However, as the marchers approached the Fort Street Bridge at the Detroit city limit, peaceful demonstration met violence as the Dearborn police threw tear gas into the crowd in an attempt to end the protest. The marchers fought back, pushing the police onto the grounds of the Rouge where Dearborn police and Ford Servicemen turned fire hoses against the unarmed marchers from inside the plant gates. After marchers injured Harry Bennett, head of Ford’s Service Department, hundreds of shots were fired into the crowd killing four marchers and leaving as many as 60 wounded (a fifth man died later). In the aftermath, an inquiry was held but no one was ever charged in the killings....."
Walter P. Reuther Library

"Shacks on the Anacostia flats, Washington, D.C. put up by the Bonus Army (World War I veterans) burning after the battle with the 1,000 soldiers accompanied by tanks and machine guns, 1932"
Wikipedia

"The poor congregated in cardboard shacks in so-called Hoovervilles on the edges of cities across the nation; hundreds of thousands of the unemployed roamed the country on foot and in boxcars in futile search of jobs...... Blaming Wall Street speculators, bankers, and the Hoover administration, the rumblings of discontent grew mightily in the early 1930s. By 1932, hunger marches and small riots were common throughout the nation..."
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...ities/presentations/timeline/depwwii/depress/



"On August 11, 1965, the “Watts Riots” erupted
in Los Angeles. Though the start of physical
uprising can be traced to a minor incident that day,
in which an anglo police officer arrested a black
man for drunk driving, the true causes are much
deeper, yet easy to identify in hindsight: Neverending
unemployment and poverty. After six days
of rioting, four people lay dead, over 1,000 were
hurt, nearly 4,000 were arrested, and property
damage was estimated at about $40,000,000. The
National Guard was called in to restore order.

On December 2, 1965 The Governor's
Commission on the Los Angeles Riots (the McCone
Commission) issued its report, Violence in the City:
An End or a Beginning? The report painted a
picture of a “cycle of poverty,” hopelessness, and a
perceived indifference by the nation’s white middle
and upper classes....

Other major riots followed. There were the famed riots in the Watts section of Los Angeles
(1965) and Chicago (1966). In 1967 the country experienced 164 racial disorders in 128 cities,
including Detroit, where 33 blacks and 10 whites died in the violence. For the first time in the
decade, a riot had gotten so out of hand that the authorities had to call in federal troops. It took five days to restore order, and afterwards, aside from the 43 dead, 7,000 were arrested, 1,300 buildings were destroyed, and 2,700 businesses looted; damage was estimated at more than $40 million. Some 59,000 national guard and federal troops were called in to restore order in the cities in 1967, a number eclipsed by the 76,000 required the next year to quell the disorders....According to a 1969 report in the New York Times, in 1967 alone, there were almost four dozen riots and over one hundred lesser incidents of civil unrest..... The riots, the resulting deaths, and the themes of hopelessness echoed from the poor, seemed to indicate a country descending into anarchy...."
http://olympia.osd.wednet.edu/media.../kabat__dh/antiestablishemnt/riotspoverty.pdf

Glen Contrarian said:

He had a supermajority in the Senate for precisely 62 in-session days. After Scott Brown took office, the filibusters began in earnest...and you know the rest from there.

Click to expand...

So what are 60 in session days? 4 months? Ever hear of first 100 days? LBJ set a nice example many try to emulate, but I think Obama's the first to get zip and had the most voter help of the lot since LBJ. But okay. A little slow out of the gates. Fine. How many days, in-session or otherwise, are we up to now? And the hit parade of accomplishments include what, exactly? After MA had group retardation and sent Brown to fill Teddy's seat temporarily, he has Nancy push the insurance lobby wetdream Lieberman got through the Senate that we now call ACA / ObamaCare ... showing what 1 Ind can accomplish when they know how to friggin lead. And he pulled it off within the 62 days as you spin it.

But maybe Joe has a larger staff than the president and could delegate some tasks. Meanwhile reforming Bush tax cuts kinda happened on it own, with Obama merely pressing to have them continue for another 2 years. (not ending Bush Tax Cuts; doubling the time they were in force) Gays in the military got some ... uh ... no interference from the Admin. Kinda had to go away on its own, too. But to Obama's credit, he didn't end DADT by urging it continue for twice as long. GITMO and all that spying on us business going okie doke, ya think? How about middle class income and that minimum wage he was going to push be raised to $11 in 2009? Wait! He paid actual lip service to it, in 2014. Seems $9 is the new golden number to get a few sentences tossed up on the teleprompter.

With Dems so quick to be apologists for a non performer, and Reps in a twist about Web sites, is it any wonder why we have such a screwed up government?

I cared about 3 things in 2008 ...

- Reign in runaway healthcare cost

- Get wages up pronto to make up for lost ground since 1980

- Reform tax policy

How happy should I be with Obama's 6 years in dealing with those issues?

BTW, he and I both considered them at a crisis ... way back he was a Senator writing books and I was a marketing VP seeing Bush policies destroy our middle class.

I'm as anxious to see Obama go as I was to see Bush go. It's a failure. History and Dems might see it differently. But the simple fact is, the Obama Administration has failed on everything he campaigned on. Everything. ACA is nothing more than a clever political play when everyone thought the Brown win ended the reform effort. I gotta admit that I enjoyed to no end the Reps dancing a jig for a couple nanoseconds and then having their jaws drop to middle earth. I rolled. But to call the Lieberman effort, which was merely hoped to influence House debate an Obama accomplishment is a stretch bordering on delusional. It was a convenient trump card, nothing more. Oh; and it reforms squat. In fact it's worse than no reform. It's no reform with people thinking we reformed something. It might add years before needed reforms are enacted.

But I'm a Democrat for policy reasons, not because I really like the bumper stickers. To each his own.

Hard Truth said:

Before the New Deal kicked in, during the depression there were many malnourished, destitute people, esp in the dust bowl.

[
"..Although few starved, hunger and malnutrition affected many...."

"As the devastation of the Great Depression spread throughout Detroit, increased lay-offs and financial instability among Ford Motor Company workers led to an atmosphere of despair that reached an apex in 1932. These workers were among those who marched to Ford’s River Rouge Industrial Complex in Dearborn, Michigan on March 7, 1932. This event, famously known as the Hunger March, was orchestrated by members of Detroit’s Unemployed Councils, who had been helping unemployed workers fight evictions and seek relief from charitable agencies.

A group of 3,000 to 5,000 unemployed workers and supporters marched from Detroit to the Rouge Complex intending to give Henry Ford a list of demands, including the right to organize, relief and medical care for laid off Ford workers, and an end to racial discrimination, among other things. However, as the marchers approached the Fort Street Bridge at the Detroit city limit, peaceful demonstration met violence as the Dearborn police threw tear gas into the crowd in an attempt to end the protest. The marchers fought back, pushing the police onto the grounds of the Rouge where Dearborn police and Ford Servicemen turned fire hoses against the unarmed marchers from inside the plant gates. After marchers injured Harry Bennett, head of Ford’s Service Department, hundreds of shots were fired into the crowd killing four marchers and leaving as many as 60 wounded (a fifth man died later). In the aftermath, an inquiry was held but no one was ever charged in the killings....."
Walter P. Reuther Library

Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion fallacy. Show me some news links that many people starved to death please.

"Shacks on the Anacostia flats, Washington, D.C. put up by the Bonus Army (World War I veterans) burning after the battle with the 1,000 soldiers accompanied by tanks and machine guns, 1932"
Wikipedia

Click to expand...

The Bonus Army marched in protest because they were owed money for their service certificates.

"On August 11, 1965, the “Watts Riots” erupted
in Los Angeles. Though the start of physical
uprising can be traced to a minor incident that day,
in which an anglo police officer arrested a black
man for drunk driving, the true causes are much
deeper, yet easy to identify in hindsight: Neverending
unemployment and poverty. After six days
of rioting, four people lay dead, over 1,000 were
hurt, nearly 4,000 were arrested, and property
damage was estimated at about $40,000,000. The
National Guard was called in to restore order.

Click to expand...

Everybody knows the Watts riots was about race and discrimination, just like the Rodney King riots. Apples and oranges.

waynep said:

No. The Bush era's tax BREAKS expired for the corporations and exorbitantly wealthy and I feel that's what this whole struggle has been about. President Obama would not continue these tax breaks for the rich and so the rich in turn, through the Republican party, have decided to oppose what our government has been trying to do to help America overall. Just like when you have religion mixed up in government and it is a conflict of interests, when the corporations are calling the shots, they are going to look out for their own interests. Not only should the tax loopholes be closed up when it comes to the ultra wealthy, there should be more regulations, like when these "shark tank" billionaires are sending jobs overseas, again, to look out for their own wealth and not the very wonderful country they live and thrive in.

Click to expand...

that is moronic. at what point does the top rate start?

Sean.McDonnell said:

The answer to this question depends on what one thinks is the responsibility of the wealthy to the state, and what our tax dollars should be spent on. As a left leaning man, I believe that any government should be evaluated on how they take care of their poorest citizens. In line with this idea, no, I don't think the wealthy pay to much. When you compare the tax structure in the United States to other nations with similar quality of life ratings, it is clear that they pay a fair amount. I mean of course we would be comparing ourselves to socialist systems, but hey, that's the way the rest of the world has gone, and I think they're on to something...

Click to expand...

Unfortunate that you feel that way. The Constitution instructs government to promote the general welfare, not to take care of the poorest citizens. If the general welfare can be better achieved by investing in infrastructure, science and medicine instead of taking care of the poorest than we are throwing money away. Unfortunately, Christian morality, with it's emphasis on caring for the poor and the weak (much more so than any other religion or philosophy) has infected the political class. And I guess that there is no way to eradicate this Christian disease.

Sean.McDonnell said:

No, if you make enough money to be in the highest tax bracket, you have a larger responsibility to the state. You owe your financial success in part to the nation we live in which allows you to prosper. That and tax dollars building schools, libraries, and roads gives other citizens the ability to prosper, bolstering the economy of the nation as a whole.

Click to expand...

I am confused now. Earlier you wrote that government must care for the poorest of citizens and now you are talking about schools, libraries, roads, etc. all of which cost money which the government doesn't have when it devotes such a high percentage on poor citizens. FDR had it right in his 1935 SOTU:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

Click to expand...

But overly subsidizing people, government loses the ability to provide the infrastructure that you want. The PPACA, according to the CBO, will result in the equivalent of a loss of 2.5 million jobs, the opposite of what FDR wanted.

Lord of Planar said:

Typical jealousy.

Click to expand...

You mean me? Or what I was replying to in the post you quoted?

Beaudreaux said:

You mean me? Or what I was replying to in the post you quoted?

Click to expand...

I misunderstood and deleted rather than editing.

I'm for a flat tax if over our progressive tax system.

ocean515 said:

LOL

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Along with this gem above from then candidate Obama, and with the JournoList race baiting offensive revealed, it's well know fact where race has fit into the Progressive plan.

Click to expand...

Tell ya what - for everything you show that you think is race-baiting (and the above is NOT race-baiting), I'll show you five by the Republicans and conservatives. Deal?

Speaking of conservative antipathy towards immigrants, here's what Republican congressman Steve King said about Latinos: “For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act."

John Boehner did not discipline him.

It's statements like that, sir, that show Obama's statement - you know, the one you thought was racist - to be 100% on the money.

Clem said:

So what are 60 in session days? 4 months? Ever hear of first 100 days? LBJ set a nice example many try to emulate, but I think Obama's the first to get zip and had the most voter help of the lot since LBJ.

Click to expand...

62 in-session days.

Here's something to think about - most presidents since the early 1930's, including Nixon, tried to get health reform passed. Obama did what they weren't able to do. If he did nothing else the entire two terms, that's still a great thing.

Glen Contrarian said:

62 in-session days.

Here's something to think about - most presidents since the early 1930's, including Nixon, tried to get health reform passed. Obama did what they weren't able to do. If he did nothing else the entire two terms, that's still a great thing.

Click to expand...

What do you call Medicare/Medicaid or the EMTALA. Arguably the bulk of PPACA is the expansion of Medicaid and EMTALA provided universal health care. No one gets turned down. With EMTALA we got to the point in which there is no difference in morality rates for the insured and uninsured, according to PolitiFacts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ll-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/

Besides expanding Medicaid (to half the states apparently) the PPACA concerns not health care but health care insurance, or the paying for the health care. These are not the same things. Islam has it right when they are largely anti-insurance and against the idea of paying for something that you don't need. In Islam, insurance is viewed as a money making operation for the insurer.

People were already getting health care. The PPACA takes money from the healthy who feel they don't need insurance to cover those who are taking up most of the health care spending, while leaving a cut for the middleman, the insurance companies.

Glen Contrarian said:

Tell ya what - for everything you show that you think is race-baiting (and the above is NOT race-baiting), I'll show you five by the Republicans and conservatives. Deal?

Speaking of conservative antipathy towards immigrants, here's what Republican congressman Steve King said about Latinos: “For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act."

John Boehner did not discipline him.

It's statements like that, sir, that show Obama's statement - you know, the one you thought was racist - to be 100% on the money.

Click to expand...

LOL.

No, not necessary. I believe you are fully invested in spreading the bigoted racism that was initiated by Progs before Obama took office. The same racist agenda that President Clinton complained about during the '08 primaries, and the same racist agenda that has been the fall back position of the left when confronted with questions they can't answer.

It's a shame there is no shame in people who spit on the grave of those who gave their lives for equality, in an attempt to gain some political ground.

Really pathetic, and unquestionably vile, but just know, each and every time these false claims are made, it's like defecating on the grave of those heroic figures from history.

Perhaps it's time to pull up the pants and to stop doing that.

As to illegal immigrants, and please don't forget to add the correct word "illegal" in front of immigrants, there is nothing heroic about these self centered jerks. Why anyone would support people who put their families at risk, their co-workers at risk, and the citizens of the country they are extorting at risk is beyond me.

Eric7216 said:

What do you call Medicare/Medicaid or the EMTALA. Arguably the bulk of PPACA is the expansion of Medicaid and EMTALA provided universal health care. No one gets turned down. With EMTALA we got to the point in which there is no difference in morality rates for the insured and uninsured, according to PolitiFacts.
Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don

Besides expanding Medicaid (to half the states apparently) the PPACA concerns not health care but health care insurance, or the paying for the health care. These are not the same things. Islam has it right when they are largely anti-insurance and against the idea of paying for something that you don't need. In Islam, insurance is viewed as a money making operation for the insurer.

People were already getting health care. The PPACA takes money from the healthy who feel they don't need insurance to cover those who are taking up most of the health care spending, while leaving a cut for the middleman, the insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Interesting - and welcome to the discussion. Are you Muslim? And if so, please understand I'm not at all troubled by that; indeed, I'm happy to see you here. I am Christian, but the Church of which I am a member (Iglesia ni Cristo, which is Tagalog for "Church of Christ") is in agreement with Islam that only God is God, that Jesus has never been and never will be God. To my knowledge, all other "Christian" churches and sects hold as dogma that Jesus is God or, as in the Jehovah's Witnesses, that He is a mighty God, but just not the Almighty God. When it comes to the very nature of God Himself, then, Islam is right and the vast majority of mainstream "Christianity" is wrong. Where Islam and the Iglesia ni Cristo differ is that we believe that Jesus is still the Son of God and is our Savior, whereas IIRC Islam holds Jesus to be a great prophet. Am I right on my understanding of Islamic belief? And if you are Muslim, are you Sunni, Shi'a, or one of the others?

And when it comes to Islamic belief concerning insurance, I could argue the point, but I'm not sure that would serve the purpose of this thread.

Back to the matter at hand. According to the reference you gave:

On one key point, the Institute of Medicine and Kronick actually aren't that far apart. Kronick said he doesn't doubt that individuals' health suffers when they're uninsured — he just hasn't found evidence that they die sooner. "No one would choose not to have insurance if they could afford it," Kronick said. "There's no benefit to having 47 million Americans uninsured."

The purpose of the ACA wasn't merely to save peoples' lives - before the ACA, half of all bankruptcies in America were due at least in part to medical expenses...and bankruptcies and foreclosures not only hurt the individual or family, but also those with whom that individual or family did business. If the ACA can make a dent in the number of bankruptcies, then that certainly benefits America as a whole.

Glen Contrarian said:

Interesting - and welcome to the discussion. Are you Muslim? And if so, please understand I'm not at all troubled by that; indeed, I'm happy to see you here. I am Christian, but the Church of which I am a member (Iglesia ni Cristo, which is Tagalog for "Church of Christ") is in agreement with Islam that only God is God, that Jesus has never been and never will be God. To my knowledge, all other "Christian" churches and sects hold as dogma that Jesus is God or, as in the Jehovah's Witnesses, that He is a mighty God, but just not the Almighty God. When it comes to the very nature of God Himself, then, Islam is right and the vast majority of mainstream "Christianity" is wrong. Where Islam and the Iglesia ni Cristo differ is that we believe that Jesus is still the Son of God and is our Savior, whereas IIRC Islam holds Jesus to be a great prophet. Am I right on my understanding of Islamic belief? And if you are Muslim, are you Sunni, Shi'a, or one of the others?

And when it comes to Islamic belief concerning insurance, I could argue the point, but I'm not sure that would serve the purpose of this thread.

Back to the matter at hand. According to the reference you gave:

On one key point, the Institute of Medicine and Kronick actually aren't that far apart. Kronick said he doesn't doubt that individuals' health suffers when they're uninsured — he just hasn't found evidence that they die sooner. "No one would choose not to have insurance if they could afford it," Kronick said. "There's no benefit to having 47 million Americans uninsured."

The purpose of the ACA wasn't merely to save peoples' lives - before the ACA, half of all bankruptcies in America were due at least in part to medical expenses...and bankruptcies and foreclosures not only hurt the individual or family, but also those with whom that individual or family did business. If the ACA can make a dent in the number of bankruptcies, then that certainly benefits America as a whole.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I should not butt in, and you're right about this perhaps not being the right thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. How can a church that does not accept the divinity of Christ be called "Christian?" For the record, I'm agnostic.eace

ocean515 said:

LOL.

No, not necessary. I believe you are fully invested in spreading the bigoted racism that was initiated by Progs before Obama took office. The same racist agenda that President Clinton complained about during the '08 primaries, and the same racist agenda that has been the fall back position of the left when confronted with questions they can't answer.

It's a shame there is no shame in people who spit on the grave of those who gave their lives for equality, in an attempt to gain some political ground.

Really pathetic, and unquestionably vile, but just know, each and every time these false claims are made, it's like defecating on the grave of those heroic figures from history.

Perhaps it's time to pull up the pants and to stop doing that.

As to illegal immigrants, and please don't forget to add the correct word "illegal" in front of immigrants, there is nothing heroic about these self centered jerks. Why anyone would support people who put their families at risk, their co-workers at risk, and the citizens of the country they are extorting at risk is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Really? O5, you're forgetting something - I used to be a (moderately) racist and strong conservative. I grew up and lived in what is today the base of the Republican party. I'm sorry, but no one here knows both sides of the story like I do. Please do not take offense, but you telling me that the liberals are the ones who are dividing this nation along racial lines only evinces your ignorance of the matter. You really do not have a deep understanding of the matter.

I'm not surprised you didn't take me up on that challenge - I've made the same challenge to conservatives quite a few times before. Only one has ever taken me up on the challenge...and he of course lost - not that he admitted his loss, of course, but he lost nonetheless. But you're intelligent enough to know that when I say I can show so many more examples of race-baiting and racism by the right than you can of the left, I'm making no idle boast.

And no, the word "illegal" need not be included in front of "immigrants". Get to know someone who came here as a nonwhite immigrant sometime and ask them if they experience racism even though they've been American citizens for many years. Got an example for you - a couple months ago, a state inspector came to our Adult Family Home to investigate a matter. She looked at my sister-in-law and asked, "Does she have her green card?" It never occurred to her that my sister-in-law might be a citizen...and she has been for over twenty years. Would that state inspector have made the same assumption if my sister-in-law had been white? I think you know the answer to that one.

Glen Contrarian said:

62 in-session days.

Here's something to think about - most presidents since the early 1930's, including Nixon, tried to get health reform passed. Obama did what they weren't able to do. If he did nothing else the entire two terms, that's still a great thing.

Click to expand...

Terrific. Dodge an entire post and correct the 60 v 62 in-service days inconsistency, which is nearly irrelevant as well. Then presume to tell me what to think about.

Maybe stop being an apologist for a rank failure who has not lead on a single issue he spoke to so brilliantly when campaigning ... and try a nanosecond of thinking for yourself. Then come back and tell me what to think about. Okie doke?

*crowd goes "oooOOOoooh!"*

I don't have a problem paying my state income tax. I think for the most part, the taxes are being used appropriately. I don't think that is true for the federal government. I think too much is going toward corporate welfare and defense spending. JMHO

Jack Hays said:

Hmmm. I should not butt in, and you're right about this perhaps not being the right thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. How can a church that does not accept the divinity of Christ be called "Christian?" For the record, I'm agnostic.eace

Click to expand...

I honestly understand how you feel - I know enough history that if it weren't for this Church, I'd be agnostic or possibly even atheist.

Anyway, what the Church showed me - and what I was able to verify for myself - is that every single verse that is used to "prove" the divinity of Christ is either mistranslated or taken out of context. Every single one - and the "Trinity" is a fiction. It's still the Church of Christ because according to Acts 20:28 (Lamsa version - which is from the original Aramaic), Jesus purchased the Church with His blood.

As to trinitarian doctrine, here's something to think about: In the original Catholic Encyclopedia (not the new one) in the entry for "Babylonia" the Catholic church says that Baal (which you might remember from Old Testament stories) was part of a Trinity. Herodotus notes how the Babylonians would keep a chaste woman at the temple of Baal every night just in case the god wanted to show up and "take his pleasure"...and remember that nuns actually have a "marriage" to Jesus as part of their entry into the nunnery. That, and I looked around at every major culture and kingdom I could identify in the ancient world...and all of them worshiped a trinity of some sort. Sometimes that trinity was a group of three in a family, or three allied gods, and usually part of a larger pantheon...and then there's the Hindu three-in-one/one-in-three trinity of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. ALL of those ancient major societies worshiped trinities...

...except for the Hebrews.

Just something to think about.

Eric7216 said:

Unfortunate that you feel that way. The Constitution instructs government to promote the general welfare, not to take care of the poorest citizens. If the general welfare can be better achieved by investing in infrastructure, science and medicine instead of taking care of the poorest than we are throwing money away. Unfortunately, Christian morality, with it's emphasis on caring for the poor and the weak (much more so than any other religion or philosophy) has infected the political class. And I guess that there is no way to eradicate this Christian disease.

Click to expand...

The Christian ethic of caring for the poor and weak is the best part of Christianity and it used to play important part of in moderating the worst aspects of ruthless capitalism. Lack of concern for the poor isn't just a political view or ethic, it is a mental disorder.

"Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, impulsive and aggressive behavior..."
Wikipedia

ocean515 said:

....As to illegal immigrants, and please don't forget to add the correct word "illegal" in front of immigrants, there is nothing heroic about these self centered jerks. Why anyone would support people who put their families at risk, their co-workers at risk, and the citizens of the country they are extorting at risk is beyond me.

Click to expand...

"One of the largely overlooked aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement is the fact that the failed trade pact has been the catalyst for the massive increase in illegal immigration over the past two decades or so.

An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers, according to McClatchy Newspapers. Prior to the implementation of NAFTA, Mexican officials claimed that factory jobs would fill the void left by disappearing work on family farms......

Since NAFTA was signed into law, illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased to 12 million today from 3.9 million in 1993, accounting for an overall increase of over 300 percent. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 57 percent of those entering the country illegally are from Mexico.

“The numbers of people displaced from family farming were much, much higher than the number of new wage jobs,” Jonathan Fox, an expert on rural Mexico at the University of California at Santa Cruz, told McClatchy Newspapers.

Those displaced workers are largely the result of U.S. corn exports to Mexico. Heavily subsidized American Agribusiness not only put hundreds of thousands of American family farms out of business, but also dumped billions of dollars worth of American agricultural products into the Mexican market, putting millions of peasant farmers out of business.

Between 1994 and 2001, the flood of cheap, subsidized American corn caused the price of the crop to fall 70 percent in Mexico. The drop in prices caused millions of farm jobs to disappear, with the numbers falling from 8.1 million in 1993 to 6.8 million in 2002.

Those out-of-work farmers make up the bulk of the illegal immigrants entering the U.S. each year. Unable to compete with their highly subsidized American competitors – $10 billion in 2000 alone – rural Mexican farmers have increasingly sought employment in the U.S.

Corn producing jobs – the nation’s largest cash crop – fell by over one million in the first decade of NAFTA. Additionally, another 142,000 job cultivating flowers and fruit have disappeared.

In rural areas, the percentage of the population working in the agricultural sector fell from 44 percent in the early 1990s to just 28 percent at the beginning of the decade......"
Illegal Immigration and NAFTA February 05, 2011 Dustin Ensinger Illegal Immigration and NAFTA | Economy In Crisis

"....With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[3][4] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."..."
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glen Contrarian said:

I honestly understand how you feel - I know enough history that if it weren't for this Church, I'd be agnostic or possibly even atheist.

Anyway, what the Church showed me - and what I was able to verify for myself - is that every single verse that is used to "prove" the divinity of Christ is either mistranslated or taken out of context. Every single one - and the "Trinity" is a fiction. It's still the Church of Christ because according to Acts 20:28 (Lamsa version - which is from the original Aramaic), Jesus purchased the Church with His blood.

As to trinitarian doctrine, here's something to think about: In the original Catholic Encyclopedia (not the new one) in the entry for "Babylonia" the Catholic church says that Baal (which you might remember from Old Testament stories) was part of a Trinity. Herodotus notes how the Babylonians would keep a chaste woman at the temple of Baal every night just in case the god wanted to show up and "take his pleasure"...and remember that nuns actually have a "marriage" to Jesus as part of their entry into the nunnery. That, and I looked around at every major culture and kingdom I could identify in the ancient world...and all of them worshiped a trinity of some sort. Sometimes that trinity was a group of three in a family, or three allied gods, and usually part of a larger pantheon...and then there's the Hindu three-in-one/one-in-three trinity of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. ALL of those ancient major societies worshiped trinities...

...except for the Hebrews.

Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

OK. Arians who do not accept the Nicean Creed. Thanks.eace

Jack Hays said:

OK. Arians who do not accept the Nicean Creed. Thanks.eace

Click to expand...

Um, no. From Arian beliefs:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

We would disagree with the underlined sentence, because Jesus cannot be compared with God, and Jesus did not physically exist before He was born. Perhaps you might think that's quibbling, but in our eyes that's a pretty important point.

Glen Contrarian said:

Um, no. From Arian beliefs:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

We would disagree with the underlined sentence, because Jesus cannot be compared with God, and Jesus did not physically exist before He was born. Perhaps you might think that's quibbling, but in our eyes that's a pretty important point.

Click to expand...

Still part of the Arian tradition, broadly considered.eace