Your Family is $510,678 Deeper in Debt Than You Thought

Maybe Bush should have thought about this before he invaded Iraq!

 

Maybe liberals should have thought about this before creating this ridiculous wealth transfer system... but buying votes with taxpayer dollars and the dollars of future generations was just too good of a scam to pass up.

Terry, One of the legitimate roles of the Federal gov't is to defend the nation, ie. War on Islamofascism including Iraq.

Redistributing wealth is not a power vested to the Federal gov't in our Constitution... and should not exist... and will by all indications contribute to our demise as a nation and society.

 

I don't remember the U.S. being attacked by Iraq!

Too bad God instructed the Isralites to have a year of Jubilee every fifty years. I guess this led to their demise.

 

I don't remember the U.S. being attacked by Iraq!</font>[/QUOTE] The US wasn't attacked by Germany or Italy either. Technically, the Union wasn't attacked by the South since Fort Sumter was illegally held ground within a foreign nation.

FTR, everyone with information thought Saddam had WMD's. Only Bush is being blamed but the pre-war comments from both Dems and foreign heads of state prove this is true. Saddam openly supported terrorism against the west and Israel. Whether or not he had direct and active links to Al Qaeda is unresolved. However HE DID have direct ties to terrorists.

Saddam at any time could have avoided this by being fully open to inspectors. He played a game and lost.

However... Who are we fighting in Iraq? It is those who attacked us. So by design or accident, we have forced our enemy to put his army between our forces and a mutually valued objective. In this case the objective is a free and stable Iraq rather than a point on a map.

Too bad God instructed the Isralites to have a year of Jubilee every fifty years.</font>[/QUOTE] We aren't a theocracy nor are we subject to the OT law. However, we as Christians should support the principles positively presented in the NT. Land ownership and free enterprise are promoted. Unwillingness to work is not. Personal industry (productivity) like in the parable of the talents is clearly favored over a lack thereof. Personal charity to the poor is commanded... but at no place in the NT is it even remotely suggested that Christians use the power of gov't to take someone else's money and give it to people we think need it more... that would especially be true of taking money from future generations to fund goodies for people now.... just so certain politicians can play the hero and keep getting elected.

No. Sin, disobedience, and rejection of Christ did. Our nation is sinful. The church is disobedient. And instead of fulfilling our personal/corporate church responsibility to care for the poor and elderly, we have hired the gov't to rob others and do it for us so we don't have to be involved.

Yes. Rejection of Christ and godly principles will lead to the demise of our nation also.

 

Yes Yes Mr Scott, and so does ignoring the plight of the poor which the Bible clearly teaches, as does the second great commandment. As for your Constitution knowledge, the preamble does say its purpose is to promote the general welfare. It seems to me instead of worrying about the destitute, we should thank God for the guilty verdicts in the Enron case today.

 

http://members.cox.net/polincorr1/pol1.htm

This is a very interesting article that speaks about this subject.

 

The plight of the poor is the fact that many are forced to pay taxes that they can barely afford to go to others that may or may not be poor themselves. Whether or not the recipiant is poor is beside the point though since it is a total usurpation of authority to do so

 

Is it correctly inferred from these statements that you think the Bible is-- or should be-- our foundation of law?

 

My life expectancy (2003 figures) at age 63 (later this year)
is such that I expect to draw over $1,000,000 from my
US government requirement. So statistically, i get
$2 for very $1 my family owes. Charity begins at home, eh?

For the past 40 years I've been an advocate of:

All US Government and Oklahoma entitlement programs
should be ended - except those to which I am entitled!

Come on, if I had engineered smart products for private
industry, I'd have been paid more along the way
and have about the same retirement - but that private industry
would have put up some money to back the retirement requirement.
By contrast the US Government has hocked our future
So I have every right, having worked for the Government half
my life, to retire. Retirement is worth working for - you know.
Did I mention my retirement date is (first day off) 3 Aug 2006?

My family still owes $42,538 to service the national debt.
I was opposed to the national debt and signed the
Contract with America. I note Democrat Bill Clinton is the
only one who had a balanced budget of signifance.


My Family owes $25,443 for Military retirement benefits.
I'd pay it off today, if called upon, for the service of
the military, some of whom gave their life for me, was
well worth the freedom I have TO WORK WITHIN THE LAW for
my and my families well being.

 

I agree. It is the duty of every church and individual Christian to share with the poor. We generally, and I personally, do not do as good a job of it as we should. This charity should also be an occasion for the gospel. It should not simply be for the welfare of the physical man but for the whole man and moreover for the glory of God through the spread of the gospel.

When the state makes an entitlement to the poor out of the purse of those who work, it does two things. It nullifies charity. There is no love involved for the one forced to pay up. There is no appreciation but more often contempt for not getting a bigger share from the recipients. Second, it separates the gospel from the sharing... placing gov't in a position to 'make laws respecting the establishment of religion'.

As for your Constitution knowledge, that did not mean wealth redistribution at the time is was written. It referred to public projects/services such as Postal service and road projects.

It isn't an either/or. It is both. Wrong done en masse at low levels is no better than wrongs done on a massive scale at high levels.

That said, the Enron scandal won't sink our nation. It won't create unpayable bills. In fact, it will probably contribute to greater integrity in corporation financing. Social Security and other wealth transfer programs (OPM vote buying schemes) are a ticking time bomb that stand a very good chance of sinking our economy and nation.

 

BTW, thank you for a response that actually contributes to the conversation rather than simply poking at me personally.

 

More on the general welfare:

It was a limited power granted to Congress to meet limited ends, ie: to provide for the common defense, promote domestic tranquility, secure liberty, ensure justice.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991123.shtml
http://killdevilhill.com/constitutionlawchat/shakespearew/18.html

IOW's, Madison publicly scoffed at the notion that what has happened could happen.

Some accuse him of being inconsistent in his public and private opinions... but this is based primarily on inferences and conjecture.

The writings of the founders and especially Madison are the best source for determining what the Constitution means... unfortunately, the 1930's saw the ascendency of the idea that the Constitution was a "living document"... which allowed liberals to arbitrarily ignore Constitutional limits and the defining writings of the founders. Modern liberals have even used foreign rulings to justify ignoring the letter of the Constitution.

 

link?

 

Nope. Opinion based on recent citations by liberal members of international law.

 

Consumers who work at wealth producing jobs/enterprises eventually pay all taxes. The most efficient and fair tax would be some type of modified sales tax. Any politician who tries to tell you that he is for taxing the rich is lying. He is simply willing to introduce more inefficiency in the collection process to fool you into voting for him.

The wealthy collect taxes. They don't pay them. Increase their rates, they'll find a way to extract it from consumers or workers. Usually through higher prices or lower wages.

 

It is a mischaraterization to articulate the communist ideology that not providing for the poor through the government is ignoring the poor. That is clearly not true

 

Nicely said Rev.