ZOT!
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?
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.
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. That’s 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. Isn’t he? I bet that W’s faith is deeper, stronger, and in every way more real than is your pastor’s. 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......
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!
Us rich Republicans cannot get our camels through the eye of a needle ...Do not let this happen to you ...stay poor and pray...also give away all your money so you can get poor and happy
As a Christian, I do my part to help the poor among us and as a busness owner, I help the poor by providing jobs. If I'm sending all my money to Washington I can't afford to help anyone.
The govt might provide much for the poor but it costs twice or ten times as much as when it is done in the private sector.
When I was a girl I went to an Episcopal church and had no choice but to listen to sermons that consisted of little more than tirades about Vietnam, every single Sunday. Got me so sick of church I stopped going until I found out, fifteen years ago, that there is such a thing as a conservative nondenominational Spirit-filled church.
The "gap" argument is phony. The solution is not to have less rich people, but more. The problem is that the poor aren't doing their share by getting rich. If they did, the gap would disappear too.
It is said that even if we redistributed ALL wealth evenly, within a very short time, an imbalance would reappear simply based upon individual abilities, inclination and motivation. Think about people you know. Would they ALL use their money the same, or would some spend, some invest, some gamble, some start businesses, etc.?
The Liberals seem to think that the rich have money that somehow should and would have gone to the poor
Bull
If we killed all the rich people and buried their money with them, the gap would narrow too, but the poor would actually be worse off because the rich wouldn't be there buying stuff to create jobs, or banking their excess wealth to provide loans.
The only people that have money in the bank (to make loans) are people that have extra money they are willing to rent out to people who need to finance homes, cars etc.
Otherwise we go back to the early 1900s where most people paid cash for those things. Capitalism assumes some people have surplus, unproductive money, that they are willing to rent to others who can make the money more productive, even after paying interest (rent).
Jesus never held a sword to a rich man's head. OTOH the United States government has.
Something I read recently -paraphrased and edited that may help you:
After years of pondering questions framed in such polarized presupposition, I've come to the conclusion that it really is a psychological thing. Most of the liberals I know pride themselves on what they view as their "compassion", their "charity", their "kindness." Their entire self-image is that they are the ones who care about "the poor", the "downtrodden", the "oppressed." And so, their actions and attitudes, their beliefs, are molded, are defined, by dividing the world up between those who "have power" and those they perceive as not having power, the "powerless."
The liberals analyze, therefore, not on the basis of principles, or foundational beliefs, but rather on the basis of deciding who is powerful and who isn't. Those they deem with power are naturally, logically by their 'system', wrong. And those without power are naturally, logically by their system, right.
The morally relative basis liberals employ to determine and pursue justice is inherently and severely flawed -IT is at the root of all great injustice suffered upon man by man....
I have noticed most liberals ( not all, but most) are not real big on charities. They think the government should take care of everyone.
It is my feeling that those who preach about the poor, put their money where their mouth is and donate some money to some of those organizations that help the poor.
If the church would be doing what they are commanded to do, there would be many community projects to take care of the underprivileged. I would rather pay less taxes and be able to donate my money where I see a need.
Whenever anyone uses this statement you have immediately won the argument. Simply ask them if they wish their ability to apply logic and reason to be based on that statement. If they say no, then scold them for arguing with a statement they won't stand behind. If they say yes, point out that the gap between the rich and poor always grows larger, logic and reason dictate it.
Take the case of the poor person making $15,000 per year and the rich fella making $2 million. The gap between them is $1,985,000. If the poor person making $15,000 per year doubles his income (100% increase)it grows to $30,000. If the millionaire increases his by 4%, it grows to $2,080,000. The gap between them has grown to $2,050,000. The gap between them has grown by $65,000 even though the poor person has increased his income by a rate 25 times greater than the rich person
Now, what is the logic that the minister would like to apply? The poor person isn't better off having twice the income? The rich person is evil for having increased his income by barely more than the inflation rate? Even if the millionaires income had increased by only 2%, less than the rate of inflation, the gap between them would still have grown by $10,000. The use of the "growing gap between rich and poor" as the basis for an argument is totally devoid of logic.
Make people defend their logic based on hard math and their argument will fall apart.
Your premises is all out of wack. What am I talking about? The way you ask the following question, "is the Bush tax cut good for the poor?" First you are assuming that its the government's money. Its not! All government does is take from the producers, and redistributes money for votes to remain in power. The Bush tax cuts simply allows people to keep more of their money they earned. Wow isn't that generous by our government! Not! Nevertheless, the short simple answer to that is yes. By allowing tax payers to keep more of the money. The better it is for the economy. That in turn is better for the poor for getting a job. Just ask your Preacher this? What is a better way to help a poor person. To make them dependent on government to take care of them, or to get them a job so they can provide for their selves. When someone is truly independent then their own confidence goes up. Its a win win for everyone.
Do me a favor and ask your pastor what the new slogan of the Methodist church means. "Open Hearts, open minds." I get the open hearts but just what do they mean by open minds???