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.
And the "go to bed hungry" stat you hear, well if Trump is too lazy to ring for a servant to fetch him a sandwich and he goes to be hungry BY CHOICE, that how the "milions go to bed hungry" stat is counted.
I'm not for people to be in misery or go hungry, but a lot of the liberal "guilt trip" they try and lay on us is bogus.
Here's what a Lutheran Minister has to say on the subject.
By the way, my late grandfather was a Methodist minister, and I believe he'd roll over in his grave if he saw what has become of the church today. Anyway:
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Tax Cuts Benefit Lowest Income Workers
by Joe Watkins
President Bush’s proposal to create jobs and stimulate economic growth is the perfect remedy to create jobs and fix the ailing economy. Contrary to what the Democrat mythmakers continue to say the President’s tax cut benefits lower income families the most. Don’t believe it? Check out the facts.
A recent report by the Treasury Department noted that workers earning under $30,000 a year will see an average 17% cut in their taxes. In contrast, those making over $100,000 a year would see their taxes cut an average 11%. Lower income workers will see a larger percentage of their wages returned to them than higher wage earners.
There is more good news, who benefits the most from President Bush’s proposal to eliminate the dividend tax cut - seniors living on fixed incomes. Roughly half of the money put back into taxpayers’ pockets by the dividend tax cut will go to seniors who rely on dividend income as a steady source of retirement income. Again, contrary to the Democrat mythmakers’ claims, these are not rich Americans. Over 40% of the taxpayers that will benefit from eliminating the double tax on dividends earn less than $50,000 a year.
Under President Bush’s jobs and growth plan, families with income under $50,000 will pay a smaller share of the nation’s total income tax burden than they do today, while those making over $100,000 a year will see their share increase to over 73% of the total income tax burden. While higher wage earners will see their taxes cut they will continue to carry the greatest tax burden for our nation.
This President understands that when government cuts taxes, all Americans benefit. Consumer confidence grows because people have more cash on hand to invest and spend. Businesses benefit from increased consumer spending, and are then able to increase their capital investment, which in turn creates more jobs. That’s not "trickle down" that is trickle up - consumers who have more of their own earnings spend more and fuel economic growth.
For those who need further proof of the soundness of the President’s plan there is the evidence of history. In the last forty years, the reduction of taxes has specifically resulted in a significant rise in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a drop in the rate of unemployment and a rise in federal revenues. This was true of both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. The Bush tax package will do the same for jobs and growth.
His plan includes tax relief that works for working families like reducing the marriage tax penalty, increasing the child tax credit, and accelerating already enacted rate reductions. These are right for the average taxpayer because it puts more money in their pocket and they are the right remedies for the overall economy because they spur consumer spending, thus boosting the economic recovery. Plainly put, President Bush is on our side.
If only the Kerry Edwards supporters would do two things, stop being hypocritres and act like Americans, there wouildn't be any poverty in the US.
The definition of poor has changed.
As someone who became fatherless in the depression I know what poor means. It was a struggle for food,clothing,and shelter and we went without a telephone until 1953.
Poor today means no cable,no computer,no summer camp,neo cell phone,and no "in" wardrobe or jewelry.
It boggles the mind.
Your pastor has probably adopted a social justice interpretation of the bible. This is a big problem. Smoke him out by asking if man can bring God's kingdom here on earth BEFORE Christ returns. Social justice folks think its their role to bring the kingdom ahead of Jesus. This is a very dangerous theology, not to mention flat out wrong.
Or if Kerry had been elected, "He is an enemy of the State."
"For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always"
Thats ridiculous, insofar as it insinuates that we should not care for the poor. The Bible clearly states that giving to the needy is extremely important. It also has plently of examples of the corroption that power brings. Charity is one of the great christian virtues. Government is the enemy of charity because it wastes money that would have been better spent and lulls people into thinking that they have no personal responsobility to alleviate suffering.
People who are saying that the liberal pastor will not listen to reason probably haven't spent a moment of their life talking reasonably to a liberal. Don't have so little faith in the ability of a person to see the light. People do, and they do because the rest of us don't give up. To assume you can't win someone over is to lose.
On the other hand, liberal churches rarely have much respect for the bible, so when it comes to the Christian growth of the poster, it may be good to find a different church.
Simply put, your preacher is evil liar. Go elsewhere.
Ask him if he has any idea of how much the federal government and the state governments give in "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons With Limited Income". Persons with limited incomes are the "poor".
See if he comes anywhere near the $437 billion (year 2000).
When you ask him, have in your pocket Table No. 540. Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons With Limited Income:
1999 and 2000 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, put out by the Census Bureau. You can find it at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/socinsur.pdf
Then ask him how much charities give to the poor. Have in your pocket a copy of Table No. 581 (scroll down on the linked page) Private Philanthropy Funds by Source and Allocation: 1990 to 2002 and show him how much of the over $200 billion in charitable contributions go the the poor.
Then tell him to STFU.
You must have flown to Europe since Sunday. With a sign up date of 12/2/04. Congretion=congregation, right?
Welcome to FR.
5.56mm
Welcome to FR.
Exactly. And they determine who is "poor" in this country by tax returns. So, if I made a million dollars one year & took off the next 3 years...I would have zero income....but be counted as one of the "poor".
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
I haven't read the other responses to this thread, so if I'm repeating one, please forgive me for the possible repitition of my opinion:
Taxes are the government's way of taking money FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR to finance it's operations. But in that process, certain favors are given and taken from industries and persons.
The fact that the government is taking money from the private sector is important. The monies in the private sector finance the operations in private sector, it's payroll, its raises, its new job creation, its savings...ad infinitum. If the government takes money from the private sector, it hurts the private sector.
I view the private sector as the creators of wealth. The government sector is a parasite. It cannot live unless it feeds off a host body.
The Bush tax cuts were the one of the two necessary steps in growing the economy. The second step is to make government efficient, constitutionally speaking. The liberals say the tax cuts were wrong, but they do this by saying that the government is the victim. The real victim of the tax code is the private sector.
The day that the government gives accountibility to the people the way that it demands of the people to the government is the day that we'll see our government improve. Fighting tax cuts is not the answer to that problem.
Your typing is terrible, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.
As with "cafeteria" Catholicism, they ignore the most important thing, one's soul.
I have been reading messages on FR for 6 months or so but just joined to be able to post this eve........and yes my speiling aint aliaways the greiatst bet thein Im ain okie...... red state okie at that
You'll have to do some searching, but IIRC President Bush's tax cuts took 2 million families off the tax rolls completely.
Gag me with a spoon.
Surely your pastor was referring to the verse from John chapter 3 where Jesus said give half of your earnings to Caoesar. Then leave it up to Caesar to do charitable works. < /sarcasm>
Your pastor's comments probably stem from his buying into the argument of Ron Sider in the much-revised "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger". Buy, or download your free copy of:
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider
by David Chilton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0930464044/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-6691930-7504701?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155
A couple of the favorable reviews (you can get the rest, and other not so favorable, at the amazon citation linked above):
If you buy and read only one book from the "Christian Reconstruction" movement, this should be it! The critical comments of others on here nowithstanding, Chilton totally demolishes those of the "Christian Left" (namely Sider, but there are many of his ilk!) by using the most incisive source book available....gasp....the Bible! It is Sider who picks and chooses passages and takes them out of context to make his socialistic points. Chilton slams them all one by one.
If we are to read the Bible with any understanding, we must read and learn the whole Bible, not just certain parts that justify our already held presuppositions. Taken as a whole, the Bible - the inspired, inerrent, infallible Word of God, has much to say about poverty. Yes, we should not love our material possessions more than we love Christ, as the rich young ruler obviously did. Yes, we Christians, both individually and collectively, must provide care for the poor. But we must do so per the Bible's own laws. I would ask those who think the story of the rich young ruler tells us all to sell all of our posessions and give them to the poor,"Have you sold yours? If so, where did you get the computer to write your review on? If you have no possessions, are you now naked, hungry, and unsheltered? If not, why not? Do you have a car? A TV? A microwave? Or are these rules only for certain people, not you?"
The Bible makes plain that while we will always have the poor with us, there are often reasons for their poverty - many times due to their own not living up to Biblical mandates. Biblical help must come with Biblical strings attached.
And do not be deceived into thinking the Bible, in either the Old or New Testaments, gives a mandate to the civil government to have a program of handouts, either foreign or domestic. Likewise, do not be fooled into thinking that God is 'always'on the side of the poor and 'oppressed'. God is *always* on the side of the righteous. Therefore, each of us has a mandate to righteousness.
There is a clear Biblical mandate - those who don't work, don't eat.
Does all this mean that Christians sit idly by while many suffer in poverty? Absolutely not! We are called to follow Biblical law. By the same token, those 'poor' do not sit idly by and expect the civil government to 'take care' of them.
There always will be those who, for one reason or another, find themselves in financial straights. The church (when functioning properly) is there to give aid and comfort. The civil government does play a role at times. But that Biblical role does not equal a welfare state.
Chilton and others of his ilk have produced many volumens on sound Biblical economics including sound money, sound welfare, sound foreign aid, and so on. There are many works I could cite, but like I said, if you buy and read only one, this should be it. But, I would wager, you'll come back for more!
Chilton was an excellent writer, and this book is filled to the rim withwit, wisdom, humor, satire, sarcasm, and clarity. I have several of his other books on my 'to read' list. He passed way too soon, but that is in God's Hands, not mine!
Of particular note, if you get the later version, is his response to Sider's so-called 'response.' Sider claimed to take on his critics in the second volume of his book. Unfortunately, he did not even bother to mention this full book length critique. He mentioned only a couple of writers who are in essential agreement with him, with minor disagreements around the edges. His 'updates' mainly included changing a few exclamation marks to periods! On this second edition, Sider really squirms!
Buy it, read it, love it!
From a former follower of Sider, Campolo, et al, January 10, 2002
Reviewer: Christopher Wiley "dennis-nazarene" (Dennis, MA USA) - See all my reviews
I grew up in the projects, on welfare, etc. I found the ideas of Sider & his Philadelphia friends inspiring.
Then I went to work in the inner city for 10 years as a minister and church-based activist and came to see that the antipathy to the free-market and legitimate profit through economic activity by church leaders and social activists is a huge barrier to real social change.
Sider is not simply wrong, he legitimates the very things that must be over come if the poor are to prosper.
The fact that "prosperity" is a four-letter word to the evangelical left says it all. The slogan "Live simply so others may simply live," if acted upon by a majority of people would not lead to heaven, it would lead us to economic disaster.
Leave envy, resentment and poverty behind. Abandon Sider and read Chilton.
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.