Compared to its not about helping anyone it is about wealth redistribution. And it is evil.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Death Panels You Say?
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
Compared to its not about helping anyone it is about wealth redistribution. And it is evil.
Back to addressing your non answer:
7 reasons why higher tax rates hurt economic growth
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services
Economics, Taxes and Spending
7 reasons why higher tax rates hurt economic growth (A response to Diamond and Saez)
James Pethokoukis | April 24, 2012, 11:22 am
In the Wall Street Journal today, liberal economists Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez (better known for his income inequality work with Thomas Piketty) argue for sharply higher income tax rates. Once factoring in payroll and state and local taxes, they conclude “that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s.”
Diamond and Saez argue that high tax rates tend to “go with higher economic growth.” As evidence, they note that per capita GDP growth averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were “relatively low,” while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when rates were at or above 70%. In addition, they find “no clear correlation between economic growth since the 1970s and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.”
There are a number of serious problems with this analysis:
1. The high growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s occurred at a time when the U.S. had a tremendous competitive advantage over other advanced economies that were still recovering from World War II.
2. Effective tax rates were far lower than the statutory ones Diamond and Saez point to.
3. Economic growth slowed almost everywhere after 1973.
4. Look at what just happened in Great Britain.
5. And recall the 1993 Clinton tax hikes.
6. Raising investment taxes is the wrong way to go.
7. Diamond and Saez show a profound lack of academic humility
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/7-...onomic-growth-a-response-to-diamond-and-saez/
7 reasons why higher tax rates hurt economic growth
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services
Economics, Taxes and Spending
7 reasons why higher tax rates hurt economic growth (A response to Diamond and Saez)
James Pethokoukis | April 24, 2012, 11:22 am
In the Wall Street Journal today, liberal economists Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez (better known for his income inequality work with Thomas Piketty) argue for sharply higher income tax rates. Once factoring in payroll and state and local taxes, they conclude “that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s.”
Diamond and Saez argue that high tax rates tend to “go with higher economic growth.” As evidence, they note that per capita GDP growth averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were “relatively low,” while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when rates were at or above 70%. In addition, they find “no clear correlation between economic growth since the 1970s and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.”
There are a number of serious problems with this analysis:
1. The high growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s occurred at a time when the U.S. had a tremendous competitive advantage over other advanced economies that were still recovering from World War II.
2. Effective tax rates were far lower than the statutory ones Diamond and Saez point to.
3. Economic growth slowed almost everywhere after 1973.
4. Look at what just happened in Great Britain.
5. And recall the 1993 Clinton tax hikes.
6. Raising investment taxes is the wrong way to go.
7. Diamond and Saez show a profound lack of academic humility
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/7-...onomic-growth-a-response-to-diamond-and-saez/
So What If Taxing Rich Hurts the Economy? (And creates more poor?)
Townhall ^ | 11/22/2012 | Larry Elder
Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:09:46 PM by SeekAndFind
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says." But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but were retained for everybody else -- economic growth would still increase, but by 1.25 percent.
In other words, raising taxes would result in less economic activity, not more. Herein lies the key to understanding why the left wants higher taxes for "the rich." To the rich-should-pay-more crowd, the question of whether raising taxes hurts economic growth is less important than the issue of "fairness."
Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, in 2008, was asked why he insisted on pushing a capital gains tax increase given that, historically, higher capital gains rates meant less revenue:
ABC News' Charlie Gibson: "You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
Then-Sen. Obama: "Right."
Gibson: "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent."
Obama agreed, "Right."
"And in each instance," Gibson continued, "when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
Obama explained: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness (emphasis added). We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2962205/posts
Townhall ^ | 11/22/2012 | Larry Elder
Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:09:46 PM by SeekAndFind
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says." But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but were retained for everybody else -- economic growth would still increase, but by 1.25 percent.
In other words, raising taxes would result in less economic activity, not more. Herein lies the key to understanding why the left wants higher taxes for "the rich." To the rich-should-pay-more crowd, the question of whether raising taxes hurts economic growth is less important than the issue of "fairness."
Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, in 2008, was asked why he insisted on pushing a capital gains tax increase given that, historically, higher capital gains rates meant less revenue:
ABC News' Charlie Gibson: "You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
Then-Sen. Obama: "Right."
Gibson: "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent."
Obama agreed, "Right."
"And in each instance," Gibson continued, "when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
Obama explained: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness (emphasis added). We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2962205/posts
Obama Tax Plan Kills Pro-Growth Policies
President Obama’s tax plan extends the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all families that earn less than $250,000 a year ($200,000 a year for singles). His plan increases taxes on families, small businesses, and investors whose income is above that threshold.
If Congress passes the President’s tax plan, the following anti-growth tax hikes will occur:
Marginal income tax rates rise for families and small businesses making more than $250,000 a year:
the 35 percent bracket rises to 39.6 percent, and
the 33 percent bracket rises to 36 percent;
Capital gains rate rises from 15 percent to 20 percent;
Dividends tax rate rises from 15 percent to 20 percent;[1] and
Certain exemptions and itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers are eliminated.
The following policies will remain in place:
Lower marginal income tax rates:
28 percent bracket versus 25 percent, and
31 percent bracket versus 28 percent;
10 percent income tax bracket for all;
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold indexed for inflation;
Marriage penalty reduction; and
Child tax credit increased from $500 to $1,000.
President Obama regularly states that his plan extends the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for 95 percent of Americans, only calling on the top 5 percent to pay more. Such class warfare is economically mis*guided.
Raising taxes is more than just a matter of fiscal policy and deficits. It is not just a bookkeeping exer*cise. Raising taxes deprives citizens of their prop*erty. Raising taxes has important results as higher taxes discourage the forces of economic growth, thus spreading their consequences far and wide in terms of lost jobs, wages, and opportunities.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-bad-for-all-americans
President Obama’s tax plan extends the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all families that earn less than $250,000 a year ($200,000 a year for singles). His plan increases taxes on families, small businesses, and investors whose income is above that threshold.
If Congress passes the President’s tax plan, the following anti-growth tax hikes will occur:
Marginal income tax rates rise for families and small businesses making more than $250,000 a year:
the 35 percent bracket rises to 39.6 percent, and
the 33 percent bracket rises to 36 percent;
Capital gains rate rises from 15 percent to 20 percent;
Dividends tax rate rises from 15 percent to 20 percent;[1] and
Certain exemptions and itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers are eliminated.
The following policies will remain in place:
Lower marginal income tax rates:
28 percent bracket versus 25 percent, and
31 percent bracket versus 28 percent;
10 percent income tax bracket for all;
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold indexed for inflation;
Marriage penalty reduction; and
Child tax credit increased from $500 to $1,000.
President Obama regularly states that his plan extends the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for 95 percent of Americans, only calling on the top 5 percent to pay more. Such class warfare is economically mis*guided.
Raising taxes is more than just a matter of fiscal policy and deficits. It is not just a bookkeeping exer*cise. Raising taxes deprives citizens of their prop*erty. Raising taxes has important results as higher taxes discourage the forces of economic growth, thus spreading their consequences far and wide in terms of lost jobs, wages, and opportunities.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-bad-for-all-americans
BERKELEY – The United States now has the highest statutory corporate-income tax rate among developed countries. Even after various deductions, credits, and other tax breaks, the effective marginal rate – the rate that corporations pay on new US investments – remains one of the highest in the world.
In a world of mobile capital, corporate-tax rates matter, and business decisions about how and where to invest are increasingly sensitive to national differences. America’s relatively high rate encourages US companies to locate their investment, production, and employment in foreign countries, and discourages foreign companies from locating in the US, which means slower growth, fewer jobs, smaller productivity gains, and lower real wages.
Continue Below
A high corporate-tax rate is an ineffective and costly tool for producing revenues
According to conventional wisdom, the corporate-tax burden is borne principally by the owners of capital in the form of lower returns. But, as capital becomes more mobile, relatively immobile workers are bearing more of the burden in the form of lower wages and fewer job opportunities. That is why countries around the world have been cutting their corporate-tax rates. The resulting “race to the bottom” reflects intensifying global competition for capital and technological knowhow to support local jobs and wages.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...tax-code-special-tax-provisions#ixzz2NqfknVkJ
In a world of mobile capital, corporate-tax rates matter, and business decisions about how and where to invest are increasingly sensitive to national differences. America’s relatively high rate encourages US companies to locate their investment, production, and employment in foreign countries, and discourages foreign companies from locating in the US, which means slower growth, fewer jobs, smaller productivity gains, and lower real wages.
Continue Below
A high corporate-tax rate is an ineffective and costly tool for producing revenues
According to conventional wisdom, the corporate-tax burden is borne principally by the owners of capital in the form of lower returns. But, as capital becomes more mobile, relatively immobile workers are bearing more of the burden in the form of lower wages and fewer job opportunities. That is why countries around the world have been cutting their corporate-tax rates. The resulting “race to the bottom” reflects intensifying global competition for capital and technological knowhow to support local jobs and wages.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...tax-code-special-tax-provisions#ixzz2NqfknVkJ
New research released today by the NFIB suggests that allowing tax relief on the top individual rates to expire will hurt job creation and the economy.
The report, published by Ernst & Young and authored by Dr. Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante, estimated the effects of the policy advocated by President Obama and some Members of Congress to allow the top tax rates paid by small-business owners to rise sharply starting January 1, 2013. It finds that over time the economy would be 1.3 percent smaller and there would be 710,000 fewer jobs. More than 72 percent of S corporation income is earned by the half-million S corporation owners who pay the top two rates.
Increasing individual rates directly impacts small businesses organized as S corporations, partnerships, LLCs and sole proprietors, also known as “pass-through” businesses. NFIB research shows around 75 percent of all small businesses are organized in such a manner.
Together with the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income introduced in the health care reform law, the study finds that the top tax rate on pass-through business income would skyrocket from 35 to nearly 45 percent.
Other studies suggest that such a 10% marginal tax rate increase will decrease start-up activity by 15-20%.
http://www.drjeffcornwall.com/2012/07/17/high-tax-rates-stifle-entrepreneurship/
The report, published by Ernst & Young and authored by Dr. Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante, estimated the effects of the policy advocated by President Obama and some Members of Congress to allow the top tax rates paid by small-business owners to rise sharply starting January 1, 2013. It finds that over time the economy would be 1.3 percent smaller and there would be 710,000 fewer jobs. More than 72 percent of S corporation income is earned by the half-million S corporation owners who pay the top two rates.
Increasing individual rates directly impacts small businesses organized as S corporations, partnerships, LLCs and sole proprietors, also known as “pass-through” businesses. NFIB research shows around 75 percent of all small businesses are organized in such a manner.
Together with the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income introduced in the health care reform law, the study finds that the top tax rate on pass-through business income would skyrocket from 35 to nearly 45 percent.
Other studies suggest that such a 10% marginal tax rate increase will decrease start-up activity by 15-20%.
http://www.drjeffcornwall.com/2012/07/17/high-tax-rates-stifle-entrepreneurship/
Your surprise ObamaCare taxes of the week
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a “sleeper issue” with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
“Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, [companies will] be hit with a multimillion-dollar assessment without getting anything back for it,” said Mr. Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.
Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.
The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/15/your-surprise-obamacare-taxes-of-the-week/
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a “sleeper issue” with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
“Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, [companies will] be hit with a multimillion-dollar assessment without getting anything back for it,” said Mr. Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.
Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.
The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/15/your-surprise-obamacare-taxes-of-the-week/
There has been wealth redistribution but not in the way you think. In real terms, the income of the Middle Class and in fact the bottom 98% of the population, has remained constant for at least the last 20 years. The income of the top 2% has RIPLED in that time frame! That is evil. The strength of America used to be the Middle Class. Now the middle class is dying thanks to the 2% robber barons. But you say Reagan told us about a "trickle down effect." The facts show that has never happened. Also, Reagan's economics which was called voodoo economics by George HW Bush, was exactly that. It never did work and never will. All it did was to initiate thre death of the middle class.
...The latest example of this curious phenomenon can be found in the recent announcement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that it plans to cut an extra 2.2 percent from the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. This new cut, which came as a surprise to everyone except Obama’s health care commissars, will be added to the $200 billion in cuts Obamacare has already mandated for MA. What does this have to with low-income and minority seniors? The administration’s new Medicare cuts will come directly out of their pockets.
MA is a health coverage vehicle created for seniors as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. It permits private health plans to provide Medicare coverage to seniors and requires these carriers to compete with one another for the business of retired Americans looking for an affordable alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One of the ways in which MA plans compete is by offering comprehensive coverage that requires low out-of-pocket expenses, a feature that would obviously appeal to anyone on a modest fixed income.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/18/obama-shafts-poor-and-minority
MA is a health coverage vehicle created for seniors as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. It permits private health plans to provide Medicare coverage to seniors and requires these carriers to compete with one another for the business of retired Americans looking for an affordable alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One of the ways in which MA plans compete is by offering comprehensive coverage that requires low out-of-pocket expenses, a feature that would obviously appeal to anyone on a modest fixed income.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/18/obama-shafts-poor-and-minority
Wow! How many extreme liberal talking points can you fit into one post. Maybe we should keep stats on things like that.
Of course using the force of government to make the wealthy poorer is the solution right?
And there has been welath redistribution in the way that I know and it the primary motivation behind all of Obama's economic policies. I have posted sources to back that up here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Households Give Better Data and a Better Outlook
A new study in the National Tax Journal by Richard Burkhauser, Jeff Larrimore, and Kosali Simon argues that the methods used to determine that productivity gains have been unequally distributed don’t properly measure the economic well-being of the middle class.
And, according to the conclusions of their study, it appears the middle class may be doing just fine.
You see, the depressing statistic about the middle class stagnancy comes primarily from the research of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Piketty and Saez took the sensible and direct approach of analyzing IRS tax returns to determine how middle class incomes have fared.
While they didn’t make any errors, and I don’t believe that they had any ideological agenda to advance, there are nevertheless several phenomena that cannot accurately be represented by the IRS data.
This new research ditches the IRS tax returns, and instead uses an annual data set from the Census Bureau taken each March called the Current Population Survey (CPS). This is a wide-ranging sample of data on households, including the number of people who live there, the household’s income and the forms of that income.
Now, the CPS data and the IRS data, insofar as they cover the same data points, give very similar results. For example, if you consider tax return data alone, for the period from 1979 to 2007, the CPS data would show that median income has risen only 3.2% (and that’s total change, not growing 3.2% per year), a result very similar to the IRS data.
This is important, because the IRS data verifies that the CPS data doesn’t include inherent errors based on the sampling method or questions.
But the CPS data has much more information than the IRS’s, which allows the researchers to try and measure the well-being of the middle class with greater accuracy.
You see, Piketty and Saez use what’s called a “tax unit” for its analysis. That is, each person who filed a tax return is treated as a separate income.
Burkhauser, Larrimore and Simon, however, use the household unit for analysis. That is, the combined income of all household members. Which makes sense. After all, members of a household generally benefit equally from that household’s total income.
http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2012/04/13/the-middle-class-dying-or-thriving/
A new study in the National Tax Journal by Richard Burkhauser, Jeff Larrimore, and Kosali Simon argues that the methods used to determine that productivity gains have been unequally distributed don’t properly measure the economic well-being of the middle class.
And, according to the conclusions of their study, it appears the middle class may be doing just fine.
You see, the depressing statistic about the middle class stagnancy comes primarily from the research of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Piketty and Saez took the sensible and direct approach of analyzing IRS tax returns to determine how middle class incomes have fared.
While they didn’t make any errors, and I don’t believe that they had any ideological agenda to advance, there are nevertheless several phenomena that cannot accurately be represented by the IRS data.
This new research ditches the IRS tax returns, and instead uses an annual data set from the Census Bureau taken each March called the Current Population Survey (CPS). This is a wide-ranging sample of data on households, including the number of people who live there, the household’s income and the forms of that income.
Now, the CPS data and the IRS data, insofar as they cover the same data points, give very similar results. For example, if you consider tax return data alone, for the period from 1979 to 2007, the CPS data would show that median income has risen only 3.2% (and that’s total change, not growing 3.2% per year), a result very similar to the IRS data.
This is important, because the IRS data verifies that the CPS data doesn’t include inherent errors based on the sampling method or questions.
But the CPS data has much more information than the IRS’s, which allows the researchers to try and measure the well-being of the middle class with greater accuracy.
You see, Piketty and Saez use what’s called a “tax unit” for its analysis. That is, each person who filed a tax return is treated as a separate income.
Burkhauser, Larrimore and Simon, however, use the household unit for analysis. That is, the combined income of all household members. Which makes sense. After all, members of a household generally benefit equally from that household’s total income.
http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2012/04/13/the-middle-class-dying-or-thriving/
Lets talk about facts rather than name-calling, OK. Your argument is only weakened by resorting to ad hominem arguments.
There was no name calling. I suggest you reread that post.
To quote you:
"Wow! How many extreme liberal talking points can you fit into one post. Maybe we should keep stats on things like that."
I know that you regard "liberals" as a slander. Who do you serve, Jesus Christ or the Republican party? No man can serve two masters.
Just for the record it is obvious from your posts that you have a liberal world view. But I simply described your talking points. No name calling. And it is also true that I call a conservative a conservative.
And I despise your world view regardless of what it is called. But it is a fact that your view point on this issue comes from the basis of your world view, which is liberal.
I am sure that even as a liberal you are trying to serve the Lord the best way you know how. And I do not believe that you love the Lord less because you are a liberal.
Thank you. We can agree on our faith and I take that to be the most important thing in my life. Twice in my life I've actually had people say to my face that it was impossible for a Democrat to be a Christian. In reality, I believe that my political view is consistent with my faith but you don't have to agree with that. If we agree that Jesus Chist is our Lord and Savior that's good enough for me.
I do, but I find that supporting a party that has one of its tenants as part of its platform the slaughter of unborn children to be a major problem that cannot be reconciled. Even with a liberal world view supporting organizations and parties that support such an action is irreconcilable.
You know what. There have been periods in which the Republican party held most of the power in Washington and what did they do about abortion. My perspective is that they will never do anything about it because it's an issue that holds the fundamentalist vote. I don't support large scale abortion either. I take that one step further. I support upholding the sanctity of life in general. That means providing medical care and food for the poor, not supporting meaningless wars like Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and being against capital punishment.
Besides, it was a Republican Supreme Court that passed Roe vs. Wade headed up by a Republican Supreme Justice. The majority opinion was written by a Republican. So which party is responsible for abortion?