nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
sharky said:
I think it was Keith Green who said, "Going to church makes you a Christian like going to McDonald's makes you a cheeseburger."
the Religious Left speaks out against the real war on Christmas
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think it was Keith Green who said, "Going to church makes you a Christian like going to McDonald's makes you a cheeseburger."
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
an editorial I read a few days ago
Scrooge in the House
By Derrick Z. Jackson | December 10, 2005
'Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the House, $50 billion was cut for those considered a mouse. Tax breaks instead hung by the chimney with care, for investors and CEOs, hands already there. America's rich nestled all snug in their beds as $95 billion danced in their heads.
IT WAS expected, of course, that the House of Representatives would do the deed they promised to do before Thanksgiving. They cut $50 billion last month from programs serving low-income Americans. This week they passed the final part of what amounts to $95 billion in tax cuts. It represents a height of taking from the poor to give to the rich. Out went billions for student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps. In came billions for stock dividends and capital gains.
Regardless of political leanings, economists know where the money is going.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that $70 billion of the $95 billion in tax cuts will go to households making over $100,000. That category accounts for 14 percent of households. According to the center, that 14 percent will get 74 percent of the money.
The Brookings Institution's and the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center calculate that the top 20 percent of American households would get 88.9 percent of the House's tax-cut benefits while the bottom 20 percent would get only 11.1 percent. Twenty-four percent of the benefits would go to Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Such people make up only 0.2 percent of the population.
This is not only Scroogian, it is, ''unmoral, uncaring and without compassion," said Georgia Representative John Lewis.
Lewis, a Democrat, can smell immorality as well as any of the 534 other members of the House and Senate, having risked his life in the civil rights movement. He added, ''We're ballooning the debt, selling our children and grandchildren with the deal."
It is a fire sale that betrays the piousness so many of the members pushing hardest for the cuts. For instance, Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, was one of 68 members of Congress who a couple of years ago signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the ''under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. He has voted to approve federal funds for church-based Head Start programs and against an amendment that would have prohibited religious discrimination by faith-based groups seeking community services block grants.
Representative David Dreier of California said that the Democrats' complaints about the Republican lack of compassion were ''pathetic arguments" and ''nothing but the ideological baggage of the past." The ideological baggage of the present, as Dreier sees it, is joining Hensarling on support of faith-based discrimination of federal funds.
This week, our faith-based president, George W. Bush, was in North Carolina for a pro-tax-cut speech. Throughout his presidency, Bush has referred to tax cuts and faith-based initiatives in the same speech. In one such speech this year, he said, ''We understand that government can't love. Government can pass law, government can hand out money, but government cannot put hope in a person's heart or a sense of purpose in a person's life.
''That's done when a loving citizen puts their arm around somebody who hurts and says, 'How can I help you? . . . the best way to bring hope into the dark corners of our country, the best way to bring optimism into people's lives, is to stand squarely on -- side by side with faith-based organizations and community-based organizations whose members have heard that call to love a neighbor just like you would like to love -- be loved yourself."
It is the foremost hypocrisy practiced by the Bush presidency outside of Iraq. Bush guarantees that government cannot show love by using it to cut the heart out of hope for the poor, then showers love on the most fortunate among us with unabashed displays of selfishness such as, ''I called on the United States Congress to let the people keep more of their own money, to cut their taxes and Congress responded. We lowered your taxes and gave you an opportunity to keep more of what you earn."
Odd, there are plenty of religious teachings that direct people to share time and money with the poor. There is no commandment that says, ''Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor With a Tax Cut."
'Twas two weeks before Christmas. The stockings hung by the chimney are full for the rich. The poor are even more invisible than a mouse. Their hopes smolder in the chimney, in the dimming lumps of coal.
Scrooge in the House
By Derrick Z. Jackson | December 10, 2005
'Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the House, $50 billion was cut for those considered a mouse. Tax breaks instead hung by the chimney with care, for investors and CEOs, hands already there. America's rich nestled all snug in their beds as $95 billion danced in their heads.
IT WAS expected, of course, that the House of Representatives would do the deed they promised to do before Thanksgiving. They cut $50 billion last month from programs serving low-income Americans. This week they passed the final part of what amounts to $95 billion in tax cuts. It represents a height of taking from the poor to give to the rich. Out went billions for student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps. In came billions for stock dividends and capital gains.
Regardless of political leanings, economists know where the money is going.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that $70 billion of the $95 billion in tax cuts will go to households making over $100,000. That category accounts for 14 percent of households. According to the center, that 14 percent will get 74 percent of the money.
The Brookings Institution's and the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center calculate that the top 20 percent of American households would get 88.9 percent of the House's tax-cut benefits while the bottom 20 percent would get only 11.1 percent. Twenty-four percent of the benefits would go to Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Such people make up only 0.2 percent of the population.
This is not only Scroogian, it is, ''unmoral, uncaring and without compassion," said Georgia Representative John Lewis.
Lewis, a Democrat, can smell immorality as well as any of the 534 other members of the House and Senate, having risked his life in the civil rights movement. He added, ''We're ballooning the debt, selling our children and grandchildren with the deal."
It is a fire sale that betrays the piousness so many of the members pushing hardest for the cuts. For instance, Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, was one of 68 members of Congress who a couple of years ago signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the ''under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. He has voted to approve federal funds for church-based Head Start programs and against an amendment that would have prohibited religious discrimination by faith-based groups seeking community services block grants.
Representative David Dreier of California said that the Democrats' complaints about the Republican lack of compassion were ''pathetic arguments" and ''nothing but the ideological baggage of the past." The ideological baggage of the present, as Dreier sees it, is joining Hensarling on support of faith-based discrimination of federal funds.
This week, our faith-based president, George W. Bush, was in North Carolina for a pro-tax-cut speech. Throughout his presidency, Bush has referred to tax cuts and faith-based initiatives in the same speech. In one such speech this year, he said, ''We understand that government can't love. Government can pass law, government can hand out money, but government cannot put hope in a person's heart or a sense of purpose in a person's life.
''That's done when a loving citizen puts their arm around somebody who hurts and says, 'How can I help you? . . . the best way to bring hope into the dark corners of our country, the best way to bring optimism into people's lives, is to stand squarely on -- side by side with faith-based organizations and community-based organizations whose members have heard that call to love a neighbor just like you would like to love -- be loved yourself."
It is the foremost hypocrisy practiced by the Bush presidency outside of Iraq. Bush guarantees that government cannot show love by using it to cut the heart out of hope for the poor, then showers love on the most fortunate among us with unabashed displays of selfishness such as, ''I called on the United States Congress to let the people keep more of their own money, to cut their taxes and Congress responded. We lowered your taxes and gave you an opportunity to keep more of what you earn."
Odd, there are plenty of religious teachings that direct people to share time and money with the poor. There is no commandment that says, ''Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor With a Tax Cut."
'Twas two weeks before Christmas. The stockings hung by the chimney are full for the rich. The poor are even more invisible than a mouse. Their hopes smolder in the chimney, in the dimming lumps of coal.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
oh poppycock
db9
db9
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Dreadsox said:
Why an either/ or?
We can be for private charity and spend time helping the poor and we can also ask the government help the poor. A combination would be best. You will not pay less taxes because you engage in private help. Here, the right combination could create a miracle of help - can we have a tax cut for those who invest their time and their money for the poor? Maybe more people would be inspired to help their brothers if they get a bonus.
I have the impression that government programs to help the needy (and only a few exist, see Mrs Springsteens editiorial) are important. Why cancel these, why not just add private charity, donations and time to this?
Last edited:
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
Good points, lots of idealism, but why not combine the help of the government agency and personal help? If poverty programs are cut, you also take away the meager handout. The poor would be totally dependent on the welfare of the rich, and that is not a good thing. A strong social security system can save you from starving.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
this is exactly what i'm saying.
and i feel like, many times, especially amongst the more well-to-do (religious or not), the donating of an afternoon or two during december to a food bank creates a sense of, "well, i've done my part" that, in turn, justifies voting for people who are going to lower taxes for you while at the same time cutting food stamps.
it must be a two-pronged attack -- good government programs and individual charitable work. ideally, one would compliment the other.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
sorry, but i find this very wishy-washy, feel-good thinking that does much for the person who spends one sunday in december at a food bank.
the important thing is that a hungry person gets fed. or that food stamps enable them to purchase food for hungry children (as people at my supermarket do every single time i go shopping).
i also want to point out the patronizing attitude in this paragraph -- that you, the rich person, are some sort of incentive for the poor person to better him/herself.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
when a govt starts legislating compassion, chairty, and hoping to be the cure all- cure to all things..
this is where they take away an indivual's rights and responibilty to choose and then we find ourselves as a people treading in scary territory.
db9
this is where they take away an indivual's rights and responibilty to choose and then we find ourselves as a people treading in scary territory.
db9
coemgen
Rock n' Roll Doggie
We all need to do our part. There's really no other way to put it. On the same token, we're all guilty for not doing our part.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I agree that this is not really an either/or proposition in reality, but the proposition was essentially: "voting against big government programs is worse than engaging in individual charity".
If government programs have large inefficiencies and perpetuate the problems instead of solving them, I fully understand the desire to channel both income and efforts to specific, effective charities.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I'm sorry you read so many negative implications into my words instead of asking for clarification.
The offering of hope has nothing to do with the wealth of the giver.
And I still find it better than staying home and paying taxes.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
Same could be said about morality as well. But then of course your party would have to look in the mirror, and we all know they're not too good at that.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
I don't think it's that HUGE.
There are big portions of this country who will never give their money away, no matter how much they make or "keep".
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
Why are both things (government programs vs. individual charity) compared and by who? Who profits from cutting government programs? Reply the question for yourself and think about it.
I agree with Irvine when he says that a charity afternoon in December does not make much of a difference - I only think that some people do engage a lot more than just giving their time on a Sunday in december.
I have not heard of a program against poverty (except of international programs like the World Bank´s PRSP etc.) that perpetuated the problems instead of solving them. Every government program will be inefficient to some extent, because it is a government program
- do things in a big perspective, in the macro-environment you will always have other problems than in the micro-environment. That´s natural, but not a reason to cut government programs.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
diamond said:
No, thats just not right in my opinion.
- unless you can name one individual right you lose because a government legislates anti-poverty program.
Responsibility to choose has nothing whatsoever to do with charity or hoping - I fail to see a connection.
Your view seems to be influenced by a general dislike for governmental action (no one is hoping to be the cure-all) - I would call that anarchist.
And I´ll add that we´re not talking about charity, but about justice.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
no, that was a false choice you set up.
the initial proposition was: "it is incorrect to believe that individual charity is enough to make up for the cutting of funding of government programs."
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
well, the best option would be to pay taxes and then go out and volunteer.
i'm sorry, but re-reading what you originally posted, i don't see what clarification i needed. if you have the time to volunteer in a soup kitchen, it's a fairly logical deduction that you have more time and money than those who would visit a soup kitchen seeking food. what kind of hope are you offering? we're dealing with an entirely economic situation, one is advantaged the other is disadvantaged, and, as your post laid out, for the disadvantaged to see the advantaged as evidence of hope is entirely patronizing.
what clarification would you offer?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I simply identified the value judgement you offered when you said "it's essentially one step forward two steps back" when performing charity, then voting for tax cutting politicians.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
this statement is correct.
so how did you come up with "voting against big government programs is worse than engaging in individual charity"?
i never set up a better/worse dichotomy, though it would aid your argument to think that people can only do one or the other, and that people who believe that they pay taxes for a reason and that government programs can and do work simply sit around and wait for the government to take care of everything.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I don't mean to be rude, but how much charitable work have you experienced?
First, you originally used the words "rich" and "poor". My experience has been that people from all socio-economic levels perform charitable work. And the needs are not only of those on the lowest level on the economic rung.
Second, the hope offered does not stem from one's income level. It stems from the simple act of showing care - reaching out to another human being. I highly doubt you find that level of care from behind a government counter or in a government form.
Again, I'm surprised by the judgemental nature of the "logical deduction" here.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Charity = forward
Vote for tax cuts (no big government) = back
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
i did volunteer work throughout high school and had to do 40 hours in order to be confirmed (worked in a nursing home). in college, i tutored in the local high school, and i spent a summer working with high-potential, traditionally under-served junior high school aged kids while living with a family who was on food stamps and received various forms of public assistance. i've done some volunteer work involved with the AIDS Walk, mostly organizing and setting things up.
[q]First, you originally used the words "rich" and "poor". My experience has been that people from all socio-economic levels perform charitable work. And the needs are not only of those on the lowest level on the economic rung.[/q]
while it's true that people from all socio-economic levels perform volunteer work, the recepiants of that charity are usually the poor or the very near poor. there's an inherent class dichotomy set up in all charitable work, it's only the degree of the inequality between giver and receiver that fluctuates.
[q]Second, the hope offered does not stem from one's income level. It stems from the simple act of showing care - reaching out to another human being. I highly doubt you find that level of care from behind a government counter or in a government form.[/q]
i think that's a nice thought. i also don't think people care who gives them their food stamps, it just matters that they get them. i also don't understand how you're using the word "hope" -- perhaps this is the source of misunderstanding. could you please explain?
[q]Again, I'm surprised by the judgemental nature of the "logical deduction" here.[/q]
how is it judgemental to make the deduction that if someone has the time and financial resources to volunteer, then they are most likely more advantaged than that person who is receiving the charity?
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
you're understanding is too linear.
it's the combination of thinking that charitable work is enough while voting for those who vote for tax cuts that is one step forward and two steps back. the charitable impulse is good, but there's been a net loss.
also, voting for tax cuts does not equal a smaller government, as the Bush administration has amply demonstrated.
Irvine511 said:
I am still hung up on the view that someone is advantaged if they can give time. This is amazing to me. The time I give is a sacrafice on my part. I am away from my family. My father gives me crap all the time because I have not finished projects I started years ago on my house. I make choices. My choices are based on the fact that I believe it is important for me to give back to the community to help those in need.
We have members who give the gift of time because that is what they can live. I live in a rural farming community of cranberry growers. We are not a wealthy community. We have members who do not give time. They make donations. Their donations are greatly appreciated but the fact is, the club could not survive without the gift of time.
One member donates $10,000 every year-year and a half. My project has now raised close to $8,000 in two years, but it is my time that I give collecting bottles and cans. 120 Turkeys were furnished to families by the club last month, with 120 more coming. We fund local food banks, and heifer project.
We have given back over 60,000 to the community in the last three years. It takes EVERYONE in the group to make it work.
We buy hearing aids, build handicapped ramps, deliver meals to the elderly, buy glasses for children, diabetes research, eye research....and on and on.
The fact is though....nothing....not a single thing we do is possible without the doers. And they volunteer time, and it is not because we are advantaged. We made CHOICES.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Hope comes from the knowledge that someone cares for (loves) them. As a person of faith, it is almost second nature stemming from the knowledge that God loves me (yes, even me).
This goes way beyond food stamps. It could simply be sitting and listening to someone, helping a child with their homework, painting a house, etc.
Irvine511 said:
I think the label "patronizing" was used.
The other reason I love the Lion's is because we are not a religious organization. WE all come from so many backgrounds and traditions.
It is just nice to know that we are in it together.
The pledge we take...
Not above you
Not beneath you
But With you.
It is just nice to know that we are in it together.
The pledge we take...
Not above you
Not beneath you
But With you.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
your explanation of how you intended to use the word hope helps to clarify why i used the word patronizing -- the way you had originally set up your statement, the volunteers in whatever organization should be symbols of hope, which i took to mean economic hope, that they were some sort of example set out for those less fortunate.
i also think that the patronizing nature of charitable work is simply part of charity -- and simply because you believe your actions to stem from a pure place that doesn't mean that that is how they will be interpreted. do you think that just because you intend to provide someone with hope that they will read your presence in the same way? that they might view it as patronizing, a way of assuaging guilt? would they be totally incorrect? would they be incorrect in assuming that, while your presence is nice, at the end of the day, you're going back to your warm house and though you've made yourself feel better, there's a harsh reality that they have to return to?
you had questioned how much time i've spent doing charitable work.
how much time have you spent in economically depressed areas -- urban, rural, or otherwise -- plagued by generations of poverty?
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Dread, i think all the work you do is very admirable, and i wish i had the same drive that you do. i do some work, go to fundraisers, but i can't say that i do nearly as much as you do.
but the point i am trying to make is that you are able to do these things both because you care and have made it a priority, but you're also not pushing a shopping cart up North Capitol Ave and talking to walls or sleeping on an air vent on K Street once all the lobbyists have gone home.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
sharky said:
This is my feeling too. Focus on the Family declared there three priorities were abortion, same-sex marriage, and getting justices on courts who support Focus on the Family's agenda.
I took a look through my Bible. As it turns out abortion is never directly mentioned (however, some do argue about the Commandment not to murder, let's debate that some other time), same-sex marriage is never mentioned, but getting justices who support Dobson's political and social agenda into courts was mentioned several times actually. Amazing.
Similar threads
