Check out the FRC’s latest ad opposing health-care reform:
Don’t you have to wonder the extent to which biblical priorities get lost in these debates between groups, all claiming to follow Jesus? Did we see ads like this when the deficit exploded as a consequence of the Bush tax cuts — labeled by some as the biggest inter-generational transfer of wealth ever? When those cuts were partially underwritten by cutting aid to the least of our neighbors, did we hear objection?
We do recall, don’t we, the centrality of Jesus’ call to care for the least — say, in Matthew 25? Or, even though the one we name as our Lord is called the Prince of Peace, did we see the FRC, or their partners, raise these sorts of objections to the incredible costs of the war in Iraq? I don’t recall seeing any, and thus, my puzzlement. Exactly what Bible are we reading?
Chuck Gutenson is chief operating officer for Sojourners.
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)
I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)
I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)
Guest
Cute kid . Thanks Chuck .
NMRod
"Family" is a loaded word, shorthand used to try to invoke high moral ground. Issues that affect family life both negative and positive go far beyond the "hot button" issues of any limited ideological agenda of either "right" or "left."
natcoz
It's unfortunate when uneducated people viewing these ads do so through the lens of their prejudice. It's true that this ad over-simplifies the issue, but it's a 30 second ad. What do we expect?
Ultimately, I think this ad is correct to point out a key issue...the fact that Gov't-run health care isn't free. Ultimately, a gov't-run system will be far more expensive even than what we have now...and what we have now is unacceptably expensive, and therefore unavailable for many people.
The best answer to provide health care for the needy is to address the economic issues that caused it to get so expensive in the first place. Our current system is a cross between fascism and socialism. A gov't-run system would push us further in that direction, making our current system's ridiculous inefficiency even more inefficient.
The Bush years "exploded" the deficit? I'm not a Bush guy, but deficit-speaking, if Bush's deficits were a single TNT stick, Obama's are an atomic bomb.
And for the record, tax cuts give the government more revenue. Reagan cut taxes from 77% to 28% and gained government revenue every year. The Bush tax cuts gained revenue as well...congress (and Bush) just spent more.
kansasmennonite
With that logic we could pay the rich people from the poor and we would be wealthier! Does that sound like it would work? Why not?
That wouldn't work, presumably, because the poor would get not get enough value in return (that is, the money the rich get wouldn't come back at a ration of "1" or higher).
In a way, the poor do pay the "rich"...if by rich you mean companies. This happens when we purchase products. The fallacy of your argument lies in the money going through the government; which simply isn't able to choose where to spend money the most efficiently.
cubfan19
Kansas, another problem with your logic is the fact that the poor do not pay taxes. In fact the top 20% in the income bracket pay 80% percent of the taxes, so if there is a tax cut they are logically going to get more. It is not a tax cut to give money to people who do not pay taxes. That is something completely different. It is not necessarily wrong, but it is not a tax cut.
kansasmennonite
Yes, indeed some poor people don't pay income taxes but pay other taxes. Depending on the definition of poor some would pay income taxes.
Time and time again we are in the realm of differences of percentages instead of logics. Politics does that! Last election the right was arguing about cutting the capital gains tax. They made it sound like there shouldn't be any but in reality were only arguing percentages of taxes. For instance Obama wanted to raise the capital gains to Raegan era taxes (correct me if I'm wrong) but portrayed it as if the repubs were for no taxes and dems for extremely high taxes. The truth was that they were only arguing for slight changes in percentages-not in the general idea of the tax. Same with progressive type income taxes. Same with the inheritance tax. Repubs made it sound like there shouldn't be any but in reality believed in something over 4 mil value and dems wanted tax over 2 mil or something like that. The ads made it sound like a small family farm would be affected and in reality only wealthier farms would be subject to the tax.
Guest
"The ads made it sound like a small family farm would be affected and in reality only wealthier farms would be subject to the tax."
In this case you are wrong . many times the property value of the farm could be millions beyond the tax exempt part , The Father dies , and the tax will have to paid . Problem the income the farm generates is not actually enough to pay the tax .That is just one of many reasons farms are being sold to bigger farms or to housing developers and such . The value of the property far exceeds the head ache of farming . Farm Bureaus in many states have taken a quite republican theme to them for just this reason in my opinion.
I would agree inheritance tax except for farming is not really a hugh problem. but the plight of the disappearing small farm bothers me , I wish their was an exemption for farmers.
Plus taxing something that already has been taxed bothers me on a moral basis . But what the heck , morals are over rated these days .
kansasmennonite
your idea of family farm and mine are different. Remember, farms pay no sales tax on equipment, etc. and usually get hefty subsidies (welfare).
cubfan19
So what should be considered a family farm. I have family members who own large farms, but get out a very small profit from farming. The land value, though, is amazing right now. So, are they rich or not. I would say no. So I assume that you mean the big farming businesses. Just owning a few thousand acres and farming that turns very little profit. I also do not think it matters that farmers do not pay sales tax on equipment if every other business gets write-offs for equipment. I worked as a window washer for a while and I wrote-off all the equipment I bought.
cubfan19
So the real answer is less taxes for all! Especially the poor!
No kidding... imagine that, more people in the country able to keep more of their hard-earned wages.
tam73
The FRC ad in question articulates a truth. The costs of the proposed HCR legislation will be horrific and greatly contribute to our nations indebtedness. Rather than attack the FRC, lets figure out a way to fix healthcare in the private sector. The Federal Government can't seem to do anything efficiently. Social Security started out as a trust system and has evolved into a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable. The government has disregarded actuarial data in the administration of the system. Likewise with Medicare. If we establish government run healthcare it will inevitably be underfunded with resultant budget defecits and rationing of healthcare due to limited resources. The short-sighted solution will be to tax the wealthy to a greater extent. When we kill that golden goose it will be very easy for government to justify withholding medical care from those who do not contribute to society or those groups that do not represent a significant voting block.
The charge of Matthew 25 is for us to help the poor... not to vote in a government that will tax the wealthy and help the poor on our behalf thus relieving us of our responsibility. I am afraid a great deal of our activism is really spent trying to get others to be benevolent on our behalf.
kansasmennonite
Quote:"The charge of Matthew 25 is for us to help the poor... not to vote in a government that will tax the wealthy and help the poor on our behalf thus relieving us of our responsibility. I am afraid a great deal of our activism is really spent trying to get others to be benevolent on our behalf."
Isn't that what a lot of churches do- IE "tax" the rich to help the poor? Your last sentence sums it up pretty good!
Now let's get to some more serious points. Do you think it's ok to tax the rich more than the poor? How many yrs has this been policy? Only since Obama has been in office:)? The last 25 yrs? The last 75 yrs? 200 yrs?
What needs to be done when something is underfunded?
Guest
Now let's get to some more serious points. Do you think it's ok to tax the rich more than the poor? How many yrs has this been policy? Only since Obama has been in office:)? The last 25 yrs? The last 75 yrs? 200 yrs?
Before making comments , research your opinions with facts. Socialism , racism , communism . all have had problems . Helping people is the goal of many here . Consider investigating in ways that may help , without putting authority in the hands of people you do not know,
I know you didn't ask me specifically, but my reason for saying that taxes should be equal is because people are equal. If we have to "bend the rules" for some people, perhaps those in poverty, but a progressive income tax is not fair any more than charging wealthy people more at a restaurant is fair. It also breeds disharmony and resentment among the classes. The rich pay the majority of the tax burden in this society already.
Guest
"The rich pay the majority of the tax burden in this society already". " yes and I believe the rich have always paid more then their share in this country. True it use to voluntarily . ;0) But I agree with your premise , but not on the ability to carry it out .
How would you suppose a fair tax to work . Any system you come up with the rich will pay more then their share ? I agree with taxes hurt everyone when excessive , its a short range plan to tax the wealthiest with incredibly high rates that ends up bringing our standard of life down for everyone. Plus unfair.
A flat tax would be a percentage of your earnings in any given year. It would have a flat rate (percentage). It would be understood that the rich pay more because they make more, but not because the government decided that it was "just" to take more percentage of one's income than another.
kansasmennonite
Let's say you make 50g a yr. Are you willing to pay more taxes so the rich can get a tax break?
I would venture by your response and other flat tax raters that they are probably fairly wealthy and want to be taxed less.
