Posted on 12/01/2004 6:04:00 PM PST by OklaRancher
I belong to a Methodist Church in a rural area with a small congretion of 30 or so. This past Sunday the Pastor started his sermon by saying how much good the Bush tax cut could have done if it had been used to alleviate poverty.
You are right, and even the low income filers that paid no income tax got a $600 "refund".
refund = free money.
Former UMC member here. Wow, you go to a big church :) Our rural UMC got down to about two families. Anyway ... $600 is real money to us, about six weeks worth of groceries. But, since we are farmers we didn't see it.
The real burden for us is state and local taxes ... state income taxes, and property and inventory taxes. Restructuring state and local taxes would be a bigger boon to rural areas than whether or not folks got the Bush tax rebate.
Finally, I agree with the folks that said maybe you'd better put poverty discussions on the back burner and ask the pastor -- who exactly does he say Jesus is? Does he have orthodox views or not? If not, I'd go someplace else.
Hope it all works out. I honestly don't know how long the UMC can continue like it is. I'm afraid it's a major split waiting to happen.
Ann
Here's a fact, Rev. Jack.
You're proposing a confiscatory tax scheme not unlike those in place in Western Europe for the past generation. It's not a coincidence that Western Europe has had double digit unemployment rates for the past generation.
Following the rundown of Clinton recession of 2000-2001, the 9/11 attacks posed the most significant threat to the US economy since the Civil War. Bush's tax cuts were the classic prescription to invigorate the economy.
Do you want to alleviate poverty or do you really want more of it? Governments have a great track record of perpetuating poverty; free markets have a great track record at growing economies. Why bet on a losing pony?
They keep playing a commercial on my satellite radio (one of those "public service" ads) about the poor kids who are forced to eat ketchup soup (?!) because there's not enough money for anything else. Never mind the fact that I can buy 2 cans of tuna for the price of a bottle of ketchup, given the numbers of shelters and soup kitchens and food stamps and free food at DSS and other places, how anyone can even suggest that someone would "have" to eat ketchup soup for dinner is just ridiculous. And sadly, I'm sure some bleeding hearts believe that tripe.
It seems like two issues have gotten mixed up in this discussion. The first is that all the evidence I have seen supports: (1) Poverty increased significantly since 2000;(2) more families in poverty than ever before work and work hard, that is, the working poor, and (3) the gap between rich and poor, looking at either income or wealth, is greater today than 4-5 years ago. The facts support no other claims.
The second issue in discussion is the role of government, families, and individuals. Here we get murky. Giving money to people does not end poverty, unless of course it is a huge amount of money. Shifts in poverty have more to do with the larger economic picture than particular policies. The one significant exception is social security, which has helped keep millions out of poverty. Indeed, since our government became concerned about poverty, the only significant reduction of poverty has been among the elderly.
Policies and programs (private and public)can be matched much better to actual needs.
Define poverty. To call our poor, poor is a crock. The poorest poor in our country is rich by both average world standards and by historical standards. There is a whole lot of really poor folks who would give there right arm to change places with the poor in our country. In fact those who are poor in our country would be considered wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of folks who were wealthy in the 1800's in our country,
This is total crap. SS takes from the poor and gives them back their own money at a terrible return on investment.
Jeez, talk about touchy. Southern Baptist refers only to the identity of the organization.
I know, BT, but I couldn't resist reacting to your tagline.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps, like most altruists, talking a big game is a lot more rewarding than living the real thing. After all, there's nothing like condeming your fellow man to make yourself feel perfectly wonderful.
http://www.freedomkeys.com/gap.htm
Higher taxes and increased regulation, and more government intrusion into private lives, tends to create one kind of civilization, a bureaucracy. When a society is heavily ruled by its government, then everyone is poor, excepting their elite rulers. Thats Marxism, and it is still taught in our colleges. Practically, it means that everyone has to stand in line and wait, sometimes for hours, to buy toilet paper, excepting the nomenklatura.
Your pastor is a leftist; it is quite possible that he has lost his faith in God. He believes that government should take the place of God in important human activities. Maybe you should confront him on his faith; maybe you can help guide him back to God.
The Bush tax cuts (there were two of them) brought immediate relief to the poor and the middle class; its indirect effect, one very successful, was to flood the economy with money. And these tax cuts were very helpful during the 9/11 years in building a prosperous economy.
There are people who felt no relief at all from such wonderful tax cuts. They are an entire class of people who work in some capacity for the government, mostly taking care of those people who received these huge tax cuts. That includes college professors, high school teachers, elementary school teachers, government unions, welfare administrators. You find a lot of them in the media, as television anchors, columnists, journalists.
But W. is winning any way. Isnt he? I bet that Ws faith is deeper, stronger, and in every way more real than is your pastors. Guide him back to God.
Meme: George W's tax cuts only benefited the very wealthy.
Fact: The average $20,000 per year wage earner pays 28% less in taxes in 2004 than he did in 2001. (A $90,000 pays 15% less.)
Source: Aon Consulting: Retirement Ratio Study 2004.
See http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/11/meme-fighting-on-taxes.html
For one thing, the Bush tax cuts kept enough money circulating in the hands of the public that the Clinton recession, which started in late 1999, turned out to be only a mild downturn before the economy started to pick up again, saving and then returning jobs which allowed millions to continue to support themselves and their families; thus was poverty short-circuited by the Bush tax cuts......
Even if that were true, SO WHAT???? Are you one of those people who sees a fat person next to a thin person and automatically assumes the fat person stole food from the thin person?
| THE FIXED QUANTITY OF WEALTH FALLACY | The fixed quantity of resources fallacy | | THE FIXED QUANTITY OF RESOURCES FALLACY |
|
The reality is that it would only be a very small incremental increase in addition to existing programs that have NOT solved the problem for 40 years, vs economic incentive that apparently HAS accomplished its stated purpose; now, and in the past.
Perhaps a more correct description, but you lose the moral high ground. This is the universal Liberal "setup". The Left always wants to debate how to "fairly" divide the pie.
You need to reframe the issue. He has structured his proposition so that he can't lose, even if you "win".
No matter what rationale or argument you provide, in the end you are the one giving poverty the lower priority. He tried to frame his position is as petty greed vs noble charity.
You lose.
You can restate the issue as incentive vs charity. Charity is noble, but doesn't solve the problem that caused the poverty.
As part of the overall economic incentive, integrate the Biblical adage about "giving a man a fish" vs "teaching a man to fish". Charity eases the pain of poverty, but doesn't cure it, and demeans the recipient (i.e. we need to give you money since the labor market considers you worthless).
Illustrate how your position contributes to the cure, vs numbing the pain.
If the economy benefits show how those in poverty get direct or indirect benefit.
Growth creates more jobs. To fill those new jobs, demand for labor increases, the labor pool must increase and unemployed/poverty pool decreases. Without the growth, only choice is to transfer wealth. Use the Clinton years if you must. Welfare reform, strong economy....
You win, with the superior morally and economic solution.
It's not a matter of what you debate, rather a natter how you debate.
ZOT!
PING
Why was the person who started this thread zotted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.