You liberal! Quotes of the Day

Still, Fred Smith is proof we do not need bleeding heart liberals to perpetuate the poor and needy.

Without corporate America, where would we be?

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman:

The point is that a genuine Christian should be as outraged about poverty as he is about abortion. No one who disregards the needs of the poor and the needy can be a genuine Christian.

America would survive nicely without greed. And yes, much of the poverty we see in this country is caused by the greed of others. Greed is not a Christian virtue, no matter how you spin it.

 

My point is that neither the conservative, nor the liberal has a corner on greed when it comes to politics. Neither are immune from its clutches either.

So many just repeat buzz phrases without giving any thought to the workings of our national economy.

It is not the place of the govt. to provide for those who choose to remain in poverty. It is certainly not the purpose of our govt. to perpetuate that poverty in order to perpetuate the need of their presence.

Bro. Dallas

 

Well, that is certainly true.

 

Probably because they equate the Republican Party with the "religious right", likely due to the unfortunate fact that hyperconservative religious extremists have the biggest mouths. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, there's a real intelligent and thoughtful remark. I wonder how that applies to athiests having a tendency to be liberals.

Are you referring to Mr. Robertson?

 

Dear carpro,
Isn't it evident, that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?

Because there are conservatives who are extremist members of groups such as the KKK, there must therefore be liberals who are extremist against the reality of God.

Also, note that the Greek word for atheist means without God; it does not mean that one does not believe in God.

Therefore, even many of the KKK extremists are nothing less than atheist in reality.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Year by Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich

Citizens for Tax Justice, 202-626-3780
June 12, 2002
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children’s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010. Among the key findings:
• Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
• By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
• Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
• In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
o For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
o Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
• As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

As the President’s tax program moved through Congress in 2001, President Bush and his congressional allies struggled mightily to squeeze Bush’s $2.5 trillion ten-year tax cut into a $1.3 trillion budget target. They succeeded in doing so primarily by manipulating the dates on which the most expensive provisions will take effect. Since the most costly parts of the bill are the tax benefits for the very rich, the distribution of the tax cuts changes remarkably over time.
• From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive “only” 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
• From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
• By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill—including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates—are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.

 

The reason for this is that the only curseword we are
allowed to use is 'liberal'.

Recall the two dimensional politial sprectrum. It has Republicans
in the upper left, Democrats in the lower right, Libertarians
(who made the test in the first place) in the upper right, and
Authoritarians in the lower left. Democrats call the Republicans
'liberal' on Economic matters; Republicans call the Democrats 'liberal'
on social issues. Everybody calles the Libertarians Liberals (notice
how the first five letters of both words are the same ).

Anyway, in the past there was a one-dimentional left/right line
for politics in France. But in the US, which allowed multiple
Christian religions, that spectrum began to be used for Religion.

And just for good measure, both 'liberal' and 'conservative' were
used to denote relative directions as well as absolute positions.
So we can have sentences like: I'm a fundamentalist and those
moderates are liberal. I'm a liberal and those moderates are fundies.

The Political Spectrum:
Far Left (also ultra-liberal)
Liberal
Centrist (also Moderate)
Conservative
Far Right (also ultra-conservative)

Note that relative to the Far Right, a mere Conservative is liberal
Note that relative to the Far Left, a mere Liberal is conservative

The Religious Spectrum:

Ultra-liberal
Liberal
Moderate (sometimes Evangelicals)
Fundamentalist
Ultra-Fundamentalist

Note that relative to the Ultra-Fundamentalist a mere Fundamentalist
is liberal. Note that relative to the Ultra-liberal, the mere liberal
is conservative.

On other boards i've heard the BB (Baptist Board) called a 'liberal
board /they don't have any other cursewords either/. Sorry,
the Baptist Board (BB) is Fundamentalist.

I like my Pastor he is a political liberal leaning Centrist
(right on Kerry's left earlobe); religiously he is a Fundamentalist
and Baptist. Personally I'm a Political Centrist Republican and
and a Religous Fundamentalist Baptist.

When the SBC split so that Texas Baptists are now something
different from BGCO (Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma),
the split was between liberal Fundamentalists and moderate
Fundamentalists.

No odder than the fact:

most liberals are Christians

 

Now that was funny!!!


Regards,
BiR (always identified as a liberal - perpetually by some among us)

 

You can call me a liberal anytime, Brother Ed!!

Hope you and yours are doing well,
BiR

 

And double back what you
prayed for me.

OK, BiR, you are a liberal anytime.

 

I needed that!!

God's Blessings to you,
BiR

 

When the top 5% are paying 50% of all taxes, then a 1% tax cut is going to favor them in terms of actual dollars. But, they're still punished more for being successful. As a percentage of their income, the middle class received the greatest benefit of all the tax cuts.

No matter what, about 75% of all taxes are illegal, and are spent on illegal and immoral programs such as welfare, food stamps, etc.

The pro-growth aspects of the Bush tax cuts (growth is what will help the poor more than anything) should be viewed as only the primary step in tax reform.

If you want a fair tax that will truly benefit everyone in our nation, click here: The Fair Tax

 

Hey, I was just making an observation of perseption. I didn't say I agreed with with the perception. However, hyperconservative religious extremists do indeed tend to have the biggest mouths.

Sure, he fits, but it is by no means limited to him. For every Christian that volunteers at a homeless shelter, there's probably 50 that are willing to hold up "God hates fags" signs. Probably an exaggeration, and a poor analogy, but I think you get my point.

 

A bad idea, but a great topic for another discussion.

Regards,
BiR

 

I don't know anybody who chooses to remain in poverty. I do have a good friend who used to make $250,000/year and now is reduced to living on disability and food stamps due to an accident. He barely gets by and I help him out on occasion.

Are you saying there should be no help for this good Christian man either from the church or from the government? You would let him die of starvation in America?

 

Posted by Go Check:

link

 

How about the viewpoint of P.J. O'Rourke

The liberal is continually angry, as only a self-important man can be, with his civilization, his culture, his country and his folks back home. His is an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.

Gee, Hyannis port, Chappiquidic, Massachusetts, Senator, Mary Jo images come to mind.