Gain the senate?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#21
You were wrong: Republicans seize Senate, get full control of Congress - CNN.com

Oh how the Democrats worshipped their false messiah initially. They gathered by the tens of millions and sang songs and cheered him on. It was reminiscent of a religious revival. Having turned away from the true savior, they latched onto a false one. And, of course, all we have to show for their foolishness is a doubled national debt with skyrocketing annual interest payments that will push out benefits for all Americans within twenty years in a declining socio-economic model with an increasingly immoral society increasingly populated by non-Americans perched on top of it.

Now the GOP is back on the rise. But though their socio-religious model is better (they aren't really interested in finishing the destruction of the nuclear family, spreading sweeping immorality, murdering babies, persecuting Christians, etc...), their socio-economic model is seriously flawed with it's inherent monopoly capitalism, unfair trade/unfair trade agreements, and weak stance on immigration. Not to mention they have a history of expensive, unnecessary, war-mongering.

Certainly the Democrats greatly expanded monopoly capitalism, unfair trade/unfair trade agreements, illegal immigration, war-mongering, etc... too under the Obama Administration but if the GOP is also seriously flawed (and it is) then, materially speaking, our nation and society continue to decline. We just decline faster under the Democrats than the Republicans.

In order for this nation to succeed long-term, the GOP must be FULLY ideologically reformed and the irreparable ideology of the Democratic party scuttled into the waste bin of history. And, what are the odds that's going to happen in our lifetimes?

Now you are just getting ridiculous.
Labeling all democrats as worshiping Obama as a false messiah. Once again you fall to the false assumption of labeling everybody in a group as the same.

You do realize that there are a lot of democrats that do not like Obama, and want to see him out of office too.
Why do you think so many democrats helped to vote in republican candidates in this election. They are tried of the whole government system democrats and republicans alike.

They want a whole change up in the system. We the people want to see the president and all who are in congress before the election ousted. A lame duck president, and a do nothing congress is what our government was made of.
Now after this election we will see if anything finally gets done.

Plus you do realize that there has been some major issue's put forth to congress to be voted on, and have been on the board for 5 to 8 months now. And it has been the republicans that have refused to vote on them.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#22
'we' as if somehow this whole site agrees with your political ideologies.

I think the OP meant "we" as in Republicans not "we" the whole forum.I think you understood them.Thats how I understood it.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#23
I think the OP meant "we" as in Republicans not "we" the whole forum.I think you understood them.Thats how I understood it.
Never mind didnt read far enough.OP said what they meant.My bad.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#24
I think the OP meant "we" as in Republicans not "we" the whole forum.I think you understood them.Thats how I understood it.

I think one of the main issues with this type of debate is those who think that only Republicans are Christian, or at least are more Christian than Democrats. This is a false assumption, and if you go back through history, democrats have done just as much if not more for the middle, lower, and poor class of people as the Republicans have done.

If you use recent history from Regan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama you would see that Regan and the Bushes made life harder for middle to lower class, and Clinton made life easier. Obama besides lowering the unemployment rate, wanting to raise minimum wage so that people can afford to live, and even though put forth a bad medical plan that he had to make adjustments to in order for it to get passed. At least had a plan to work forward on the medical issue instead of just wanting to get rid of medicare program with nothing to replace it like Romney wanted to.

Kennedy had a lot of agenda's he had in place to help the middle to lower class, but was killed by those who didn't like his policies.

There are plenty of democrats who are Christians, and if you go by the bible it says those who have are to help those who do not.

So to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes, but lower them on the upper and rich classes is not Christian like as some of our past Republican presidents wanted or have done, and even some of their recent candidates like Romney wanted to do.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#25
Plus you do realize that there has been some major issue's put forth to congress to be voted on, and have been on the board for 5 to 8 months now. And it has been the republicans that have refused to vote on them.
^ i think you meant to say "for 5 to 6 years"
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#26
I think one of the main issues with this type of debate is those who think that only Republicans are Christian, or at least are more Christian than Democrats. This is a false assumption, and if you go back through history, democrats have done just as much if not more for the middle, lower, and poor class of people as the Republicans have done.

If you use recent history from Regan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama you would see that Regan and the Bushes made life harder for middle to lower class, and Clinton made life easier. Obama besides lowering the unemployment rate, wanting to raise minimum wage so that people can afford to live, and even though put forth a bad medical plan that he had to make adjustments to in order for it to get passed. At least had a plan to work forward on the medical issue instead of just wanting to get rid of medicare program with nothing to replace it like Romney wanted to.

Kennedy had a lot of agenda's he had in place to help the middle to lower class, but was killed by those who didn't like his policies.

There are plenty of democrats who are Christians, and if you go by the bible it says those who have are to help those who do not.

So to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes, but lower them on the upper and rich classes is not Christian like as some of our past Republican presidents wanted or have done, and even some of their recent candidates like Romney wanted to do.
So first off, you agree that republicans help lower and middle class but you argue that democrats help them just as much.

let me show your logic relies on a fallacy.


For instance you say
[form] Regan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama you would see that Regan and the Bushes made life harder for middle to lower class, and Clinton made life easier. Obama besides lowering the unemployment rate, wanting to raise minimum wage so that people can afford to live, and even though put forth a bad medical plan that he had to make adjustments to in order for it to get passed. At least had a plan to work forward on the medical issue instead of just wanting to get rid of medicare program with nothing to replace it like Romney wanted to.
Your reasoning is flawed, for instance you assume that medical issue is do to a lack of govt. intervention rather than a lack of secure income. You assume that Obama's mandate on medical issue is at least a step forward... Why do you assume this? For instance, in my state I have one of the biggest populations (per capita) of people who live under the poverty line. Of people who already have health care which is lower than 40% of the population, 4-10% of them will now be removed from their health care plans with out any alternative. EVEN THO THEY ARE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE AND WANT IT, THE GOVT IS REMOVING IT FROM THEM. So the money can go to lower privileged household incomes, if this is not destroying the lower-middle class than what is?

You also assert that Romney wanted to get rid of health care all together. THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT! What we know as "Obama care" was first proposed and used in Romney's own state when he was Governor of Massachusetts. In fact if you do some research you will find out, Romney Care was far more radical and assertive than Obama Care.



Kennedy had a lot of agenda's he had in place to help the middle to lower class, but was killed by those who didn't like his policies.
Such as what? Do you remember the Clinton's proposal of Education so extreme many left wingers considered it would be the death of american schools? What about his foreign policy on countries such as Yugoslavia. To assume he was a good president because many of his policies were disliked by the opposition is ridiculous. You might as well say Hilter was the best leader ever because he was the most hated ever.

There are plenty of democrats who are Christians, and if you go by the bible it says those who have are to help those who do not.
If anyone is arguing that you have to be a republican to be Christian, they are wrong. But you can not take the bible literally and be a democrat, for instance. The bible says you were made in your mothers womb, that you had life in the womb. Democrats advocate abortion. The bible says that homosexuals can not be married, Democrats say we must force Christians to marry them or face prison. If you consider this helping people then by all means, help them sin. But I will not help anyone sin, I will help them learn the truth of Christ and give them my shirt while doing so.

So to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes, but lower them on the upper and rich classes is not Christian like as some of our past Republican presidents wanted or have done, and even some of their recent candidates like Romney wanted to do.
How did you come to this conclusion? This is a non-sequitur. All studies have shown, when you raise taxes on the rich only, it raises taxes on the poor to a even higher percentage within 5 years. That is not Christian, that is not helping people...





The democrat mindset is like one of a drug addict. They assume since it hurts to go through withdrawals from abstinence of drugs. It is better to stick the needle in your arm and get as high as possible to feel as good as possible. I hate to tell you this, but not everything that is good for you is fun to do.
 
B

biscuit

Guest
#27
Yeah, but a bunch of Christians aren't declaring that the Democrats are the one and true party, and only true Christians vote for them.

That's the difference!
There isn't anything un-Christian about voting ... but it is not Christian-like to get involve with politics as indicated by 1 John 2:15-16.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#28
How did you come to this conclusion? This is a non-sequitur. All studies have shown, when you raise taxes on the rich only, it raises taxes on the poor to a even higher percentage within 5 years.
would you mind pointing me at just a single study that indicates that?
i've been searching and can find zero evidence to back up that statement.

what i've found is a few essays giving the opinion that when the rich are taxed to any greater extent, instead of taking the loss of profit, if they are in a position to do so, they pass the tax burden along to lower-income consumers. for example, if an industry is fined or required to spend more money in order to make their production processes cleaner and safer, instead of allowing the cost of doing so to reduce their overall yearly profit, they increase the price of their products, effectively shifting their monetary losses to the consumers, which are generally in much lower income brackets.

(for example when wal-mart was forced by law to offer insurance and other benefits to their full-time employees, instead of eating the cost of it, they reduced everyone's hours and slowed down the rate of regular pay increases. the family that owns stuff-mart enjoyed even greater yearly profits after doing this, while their low-income employees saw their overall wages and opportunities for advancement decrease)

it seems rather counter-intuitive to say that if a millionaire becomes taxed at a higher rate, within 5 years the taxes of a minimum-wage peon will naturally increase as a result. it makes sense to me that a business owner whose expenses increase will reduce the benefits of his employees, but that's not increasing tax burden; that's passing the buck, and that's caused by something wicked in the hearts of men, not by legislation.
 
Last edited:
B

biscuit

Guest
#29
[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 633, align: left"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 593, align: left"][h=1]How should a Christian view politics?[/h]
Question: "How should a Christian view politics?"

Answer:
If there is anything that will spark a spontaneous debate, if not an outright argument, it is a discussion involving politics—even among believers. As followers of Christ, what should be our attitude and our involvement with politics? It has been said that “religion and politics don’t mix.” But is that really true? Can we have political views outside the considerations of our Christian faith? The answer is no, we cannot. The Bible gives us two truths regarding our stance towards politics and government.

The first truth is that the will of God permeates and supersedes every aspect of life. It is God’s will that takes precedence over everything and everyone (Matthew 6:33). God’s plans and purposes are fixed, and His will is inviolable. What He has purposed, He will bring to pass, and no government can thwart His will (Daniel 4:34-35). In fact, it is God who “sets up kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21) because “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes” (Daniel 4:17). A clear understanding of this truth will help us to see that politics is merely a method God uses to accomplish His will. Even though evil men abuse their political power, meaning it for evil, God means it for good, working “all things together for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

Second, we must grasp the fact that our government cannot save us! Only God can. We never read in the New Testament of Jesus or any of the apostles expending any time or energy schooling believers on how to reform the pagan world of its idolatrous, immoral, and corrupt practices via the government. The apostles never called for believers to demonstrate civil disobedience to protest the Roman Empire's unjust laws or brutal schemes. Instead, the apostles commanded the first-century Christians, as well as us today, to proclaim the gospel and live lives that give clear evidence to the gospel’s transforming power.

There is no doubt that our responsibility to government is to obey the laws and be good citizens (Romans 13:1-2). God has established all authority, and He does so for our benefit, “to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-15). Paul tells us in Romans 13:1-8 that it is the government’s responsibility to rule in authority over us—hopefully for our good—to collect taxes, and to keep the peace. Where we have a voice and can elect our leaders, we should exercise that right by voting for those whose views most closely parallel our own.

One of Satan’s grandest deceptions is that we can rest our hope for cultural morality and godly living in politicians and governmental officials. A nation’s hope for change is not to be found in any country’s ruling class. The church has made a mistake if it thinks that it is the job of politicians to defend, to advance, and to guard biblical truths and Christian values.

The church’s unique, God-given purpose does not lie in political activism. Nowhere in Scripture do we have the directive to spend our energy, our time, or our money in governmental affairs. Our mission lies not in changing the nation through political reform, but in changing hearts through the Word of God. When believers think the growth and influence of Christ can somehow be allied with government policy, they corrupt the mission of the church. Our Christian mandate is to spread the gospel of Christ and to preach against the sins of our time. Only as the hearts of individuals in a culture are changed by Christ will the culture begin to reflect that change.

Believers throughout the ages have lived, and even flourished, under antagonistic, repressive, pagan governments. This was especially true of the first-century believers who, under merciless political regimes, sustained their faith under immense cultural stress. They understood that it was they, not their governments, who were the light of the world and the salt of the earth. They adhered to Paul’s teaching to obey their governing authorities, even to honor, respect, and pray for them (Romans 13:1-8). More importantly, they understood that, as believers, their hope resided in the protection that only God supplies. The same holds true for us today. When we follow the teachings of the Scriptures, we become the light of the world as God has intended for us to be (Matthew 5:16).

Political entities are not the savior of the world. The salvation for all mankind has been manifested in Jesus Christ. God knew that our world needed saving long before any national government was ever founded. He demonstrated to the world that redemption could not be accomplished through the power of man, his economic strength, his military might, or his politics. Peace of mind, contentment, hope and joy—and the salvation of mankind—is accomplished only through His work of faith, love, and grace.

Recommended Resources: Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem andLogos Bible Software.

[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]
Return to:

GotQuestions.org Home


How should a Christian view politics?​
[/TD]
[TD="width: 1, align: right"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 1, align: right"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 20, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 181, align: left"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 5, align: left"] [/TD]
[TD="class: text6, width: 160, align: left"] Audio/MP3/Podcast
Random Page
Citation
Contact Us

Serve with Us
Online Survey
Promote Us
Support Us





Follow us on








? of the Week

What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?




Verse of the Week

"Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."

1 John 4:4


Preferred Bible Version:
ESV GW HCSB KJV NASB NET NIV NIRV NKJV NLT




Got Books?









[/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: text7, width: 1000, align: center"]
© Copyright 2002-2014 Got Questions Ministries - All Rights Reserved.
Bible Questions Answered - Bible Questions Answered - Site Map
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#30
All studies have shown, when you raise taxes on the rich only, it raises taxes on the poor to a even higher percentage within 5 years.
this seems to directly contradict what you're saying .. ???

regardless of spikes in the tax rate of high-income brackets, the tax rate of the bottom 50% has steadily decreased over this 30 year period.. ???

taxes_averagetaxrates.jpg
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#31
would you mind pointing me at just a single study that indicates that?
i've been searching and can find zero evidence to back up that statement.

what i've found is a few essays giving the opinion that when the rich are taxed to any greater extent, instead of taking the loss of profit, if they are in a position to do so, they pass the tax burden along to lower-income consumers. for example, if an industry is fined or required to spend more money in order to make their production processes cleaner and safer, instead of allowing the cost of doing so to reduce their overall yearly profit, they increase the price of their products, effectively shifting their monetary losses to the consumers, which are generally in much lower income brackets.

(for example when wal-mart was forced by law to offer insurance and other benefits to their full-time employees, instead of eating the cost of it, they reduced everyone's hours and slowed down the rate of regular pay increases. the family that owns stuff-mart enjoyed even greater yearly profits after doing this, while their low-income employees saw their overall wages and opportunities for advancement decrease)

it seems rather counter-intuitive to say that if a millionaire becomes taxed at a higher rate, within 5 years the taxes of a minimum-wage peon will naturally increase as a result. it makes sense to me that a business owner whose expenses increase will reduce the benefits of his employees, but that's not increasing tax burden; that's passing the buck, and that's caused by something wicked in the hearts of men, not by legislation.
Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth | Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Have you ever read the fountain head by Ayn Rand

Furthermore you come to the same conclusion that I stated, when you tax the rich more heavily than everyone else, all that ends up happening is taxing the poor. You state this yourself
what i've found is a few essays giving the opinion that when the rich are taxed to any greater extent, instead of taking the loss of profit, if they are in a position to do so, they pass the tax burden along to lower-income consumers.

So why do you disagree with my statement if you hold it as true yourself?

If you tax the rich and only the rich, standard of living increases. If standard of living increases then the taxes on that living as well increase. You end up over taxing the poor and the poor take the brunt of the force, you then say "WE NEED TO TAX THE RICH TO MAKE IT FAIR" and continue with the circular destruction of the poor.
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#32
Furthermore you come to the same conclusion that I stated, when you tax the rich more heavily than everyone else, all that ends up happening is taxing the poor.
because that's not "taxing the poor" that's the effect of greedy and covetous hearts in men. i agree that wicked men will continue to rob the poor, but i disagree that that is tantamount to "taxation of the poor" and i do not think that evil fact is a good reason to instead pamper them. i think the way you phrased that is deceptive language.

say a rich man and a poor man are sitting at a table to eat, and the poor man has 10 pieces of bread and the rich man has 100. you need some of this bread to feed people who have no bread at all, so you take 5 pieces of bread from the rich man. if because of his greed, he takes 7 pieces of the poor mans bread, so his bread pile can continue to increase, and the poor man is now left with only 3 pieces of bread -- that is not because of your tax, it is because of the rich man's greed.

so if the rich will are not willing to stop getting richer, and we still need bread - what's the alternative? should we take 5 pieces of bread from the poor man instead? should we just let the people who have no bread at all go hungry, since the rich man, if we tax him, will only turn around and steal from the poor?

have a look at income inequality gap over the last 50 years -- steadily increasing, no matter what the tax rate of anyone is. the rich continue to rob the poor no matter what the tax rate is.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#34
this is about tax cuts, not tax hikes.

can you show me how raising taxes on the rich raises the tax rates of the poor within 5 years?
Did you not read the claims of the article? What is the abstract?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#36

the abstract of this one is contrary to your claim:

The article offers the author's insights concerning the move of eight states in the U.S. to increase the taxes of their rich people to balance budgets that are affected by the recession. The author argues that helping low-income families through lesser tax burdens can lessen poverty, promote more self-sufficiency, and promise a brighter future. Moreover, the author emphasizes that the idea to ask high income families to pay more taxes is just a matter of common sense.

^ i read: lowering the taxes of low-income families is beneficial and raising the taxes of high-income families is common sense.


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,825
13,187
113
#37
Did you not read the claims of the article? What is the abstract?
yeah, and it agrees with what i said, and doesn't substantiate what you said:

periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues.

the rich historically continue to get richer no matter what the tax rate is. if we tax the rich, they find other ways to keep their profit growth continuous, through loopholes that hide their income and at the expense of growth and employee wages and benefits. that's stagnation because of greed, not taxation of the poor.

and what i wanted to see was evidence that actual tax rates of low-income people increase as a direct result of tax increases on high-income brackets, within 5 years.

i think you're calling the steps that private individuals take to maintain steady profit growth "taxation of the poor" and that's not an accurate description IMO.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#38
So first off, you agree that republicans help lower and middle class but you argue that democrats help them just as much.

let me show your logic relies on a fallacy.


For instance you say
Your reasoning is flawed, for instance you assume that medical issue is do to a lack of govt. intervention rather than a lack of secure income. You assume that Obama's mandate on medical issue is at least a step forward... Why do you assume this? For instance, in my state I have one of the biggest populations (per capita) of people who live under the poverty line. Of people who already have health care which is lower than 40% of the population, 4-10% of them will now be removed from their health care plans with out any alternative. EVEN THO THEY ARE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE AND WANT IT, THE GOVT IS REMOVING IT FROM THEM. So the money can go to lower privileged household incomes, if this is not destroying the lower-middle class than what is?

You also assert that Romney wanted to get rid of health care all together. THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT! What we know as "Obama care" was first proposed and used in Romney's own state when he was Governor of Massachusetts. In fact if you do some research you will find out, Romney Care was far more radical and assertive than Obama Care.



Such as what? Do you remember the Clinton's proposal of Education so extreme many left wingers considered it would be the death of american schools? What about his foreign policy on countries such as Yugoslavia. To assume he was a good president because many of his policies were disliked by the opposition is ridiculous. You might as well say Hilter was the best leader ever because he was the most hated ever.

If anyone is arguing that you have to be a republican to be Christian, they are wrong. But you can not take the bible literally and be a democrat, for instance. The bible says you were made in your mothers womb, that you had life in the womb. Democrats advocate abortion. The bible says that homosexuals can not be married, Democrats say we must force Christians to marry them or face prison. If you consider this helping people then by all means, help them sin. But I will not help anyone sin, I will help them learn the truth of Christ and give them my shirt while doing so.


How did you come to this conclusion? This is a non-sequitur. All studies have shown, when you raise taxes on the rich only, it raises taxes on the poor to a even higher percentage within 5 years. That is not Christian, that is not helping people...





The democrat mindset is like one of a drug addict. They assume since it hurts to go through withdrawals from abstinence of drugs. It is better to stick the needle in your arm and get as high as possible to feel as good as possible. I hate to tell you this, but not everything that is good for you is fun to do.

First of all I did not say Romney wanted to get rid of health care all together.

What I said was that he came out and said he wanted to get rid of the medicade/medicare system all together, but did not have another solution to replace it with. As by getting rid of it without having something to replace it with would put thousands without health care.


Second, not all Democrats believe in abortion.

You again associate all people of a certain party with what a portion of it sides with.
The next thing is you must remember is that America is not a Christian only country. It is a diverse nation built up of different nationalities, beliefs, and standards. The laws therefore must accommodate all that live here, not just one group of individuals as us who are Christian.

Even though I would love to see all our laws based on biblical principals that is not economic to our society as others do not believe what we believe, so the laws must accommodate their beliefs as well. We are not to force our beliefs on others, as they should not be allowed to force theirs on us. Which is why the laws need to be put in place to accommodate all beliefs and applied only as a as need type basis and not a forced on you way. This applies to homosexual marriage as well as some do not believe as you and I believe that it is wrong.
Plus to add I know a lot of Democrats that don't believe in abortion or homosexual relations/marriage......
I also know some Republicans that support both, so you can't classify all the same....


Next, I grew up in a middle to lower class state in Missouri.
Most of our population in Missouri is middle to lower class, and the neighborhood I grew up in my family and others in that neighborhood struggled financially do to higher taxes and cost of living under the Regan, and Bushes tenor's. But got relief when Clinton got into office and gave tax breaks to the middle and lower class.

Clinton also put the mandate forward that keeps companies from firing employees do to health issues of them or immediate family members. FMLA act.
Before this companies could fire you for missing to much work no matter what the issue. The FMLA act prevents that.


Then my reasoning for raising taxes on the middle to lower class, and lowering them on the upper and rich is not Christian like is because of how the bible says those who have are to help those who do not.

We have a major deficit in our budget that needs to be corrected. Who would be best to take the money from, the middle to lower class that can not afford to have more money taken in taxes or have programs they need to survive taken away to put that money to the deficit.
Or raise taxes on the upper and rich class of people who can afford to have more money in taxes taken, and still live good wealthy lives and not cause those who are less fortunate to suffer even more.
Do you remember how Romney made the remark about the 47% of Americans that would be left without health coverage if medicare/medicade was done away with? He said he did not care about them.

Plus let me tell you another thing that has come out of some upper class Republicans mouths.
They have stated that the poor are a blight on society and should be imprisoned or put to death, and others have stated which has caused a big conspiracy theory that a percentage of the population should be killed off. Now I am not saying some Democrats have not said this to, but what I am saying and always have said not all believe the same as you and others would pen on them.

Not all Democrats think alike, and not all Republicans think alike.


Finally I will leave off with this that many forget that Obama's first medical plan that he put forth when he first took the office of president was a 100% government funded health care system. Meaning no premiums to pay, no out of pocket doctors bills to worry about, and no worry on how to afford the medicine.

It was denied and fought do to rich private doctors and other Republicans used a scare tactic that people would no longer be able to chose their own private doctors any more. And the private doctor's funded a campaign to not pass it because they would no longer be able to charge higher prices for the same operations/procedures that the county or public hospitals charge. They worried more about the money in their own pockets then people's health.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#39
yeah, and it agrees with what i said, and doesn't substantiate what you said:

periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues.

the rich historically continue to get richer no matter what the tax rate is. if we tax the rich, they find other ways to keep their profit growth continuous, through loopholes that hide their income and at the expense of growth and employee wages and benefits. that's stagnation because of greed, not taxation of the poor.

and what i wanted to see was evidence that actual tax rates of low-income people increase as a direct result of tax increases on high-income brackets, within 5 years.

i think you're calling the steps that private individuals take to maintain steady profit growth "taxation of the poor" and that's not an accurate description IMO.
How is it not accurate, I gave you an article that showed, in period where they focus taxes mainly on the rich the standard of living dropped.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#40
First of all I did not say Romney wanted to get rid of health care all together.

What I said was that he came out and said he wanted to get rid of the medicade/medicare system all together, but did not have another solution to replace it with. As by getting rid of it without having something to replace it with would put thousands without health care.


Second, not all Democrats believe in abortion.

You again associate all people of a certain party with what a portion of it sides with.
The next thing is you must remember is that America is not a Christian only country. It is a diverse nation built up of different nationalities, beliefs, and standards. The laws therefore must accommodate all that live here, not just one group of individuals as us who are Christian.

Even though I would love to see all our laws based on biblical principals that is not economic to our society as others do not believe what we believe, so the laws must accommodate their beliefs as well. We are not to force our beliefs on others, as they should not be allowed to force theirs on us. Which is why the laws need to be put in place to accommodate all beliefs and applied only as a as need type basis and not a forced on you way. This applies to homosexual marriage as well as some do not believe as you and I believe that it is wrong.
Plus to add I know a lot of Democrats that don't believe in abortion or homosexual relations/marriage......
I also know some Republicans that support both, so you can't classify all the same....


Next, I grew up in a middle to lower class state in Missouri.
Most of our population in Missouri is middle to lower class, and the neighborhood I grew up in my family and others in that neighborhood struggled financially do to higher taxes and cost of living under the Regan, and Bushes tenor's. But got relief when Clinton got into office and gave tax breaks to the middle and lower class.

Clinton also put the mandate forward that keeps companies from firing employees do to health issues of them or immediate family members. FMLA act.
Before this companies could fire you for missing to much work no matter what the issue. The FMLA act prevents that.


Then my reasoning for raising taxes on the middle to lower class, and lowering them on the upper and rich is not Christian like is because of how the bible says those who have are to help those who do not.

We have a major deficit in our budget that needs to be corrected. Who would be best to take the money from, the middle to lower class that can not afford to have more money taken in taxes or have programs they need to survive taken away to put that money to the deficit.
Or raise taxes on the upper and rich class of people who can afford to have more money in taxes taken, and still live good wealthy lives and not cause those who are less fortunate to suffer even more.
Do you remember how Romney made the remark about the 47% of Americans that would be left without health coverage if medicare/medicade was done away with? He said he did not care about them.

Plus let me tell you another thing that has come out of some upper class Republicans mouths.
They have stated that the poor are a blight on society and should be imprisoned or put to death, and others have stated which has caused a big conspiracy theory that a percentage of the population should be killed off. Now I am not saying some Democrats have not said this to, but what I am saying and always have said not all believe the same as you and others would pen on them.

Not all Democrats think alike, and not all Republicans think alike.


Finally I will leave off with this that many forget that Obama's first medical plan that he put forth when he first took the office of president was a 100% government funded health care system. Meaning no premiums to pay, no out of pocket doctors bills to worry about, and no worry on how to afford the medicine.

It was denied and fought do to rich private doctors and other Republicans used a scare tactic that people would no longer be able to chose their own private doctors any more. And the private doctor's funded a campaign to not pass it because they would no longer be able to charge higher prices for the same operations/procedures that the county or public hospitals charge. They worried more about the money in their own pockets then people's health.
You assume Christ was talking about taxes only as a way of helping the poor. I would argue and say Christ was talking about YOU PERSONALLY helping the poor, not relying on a non-human interaction means in order to help them.