Get E-Mail Updates

Our Moral Audit of the Budget

Four years ago, faced with a disastrous federal budget proposal, Sojourners coined a phase, "budgets are moral documents." That phrase has now entered the common lexicon, but it remains our fundamental principle. Budgets reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. They tell us what is most important and valued to those making the budget. So, it is important that we do a "values audit" of President Obama's proposed budget, a "moral audit" of our priorities. Who benefits in this budget, what things are revealed as most important, and what things are less important? America's religious communities are required to ask of any budget: what happens to the poor and most vulnerable -- especially, what becomes of the nation's poorest children in these critical decisions?

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The values of the American people should also be applied to the budget, e.g. fairness (everyone paying their fair share); opportunity for all Americans; fiscal, personal, and social responsibility; balancing important and different priorities; defining security more broadly than just military considerations, as it is related to economic and family security too; compassion and protection for the vulnerable; building community; and upholding the common good.

That's a principle that has been forgotten in the past years. We have trusted in "the invisible hand" of the market to make everything turn out all right, but things too often haven't turned out all right. The invisible hand let go of some things, like the common good. The idea that policies which benefit the wealthiest will eventually benefit everyone has proven false. The president's budget is a step toward restoring the value of the common good to our policy. It is a step to rebalance our priorities, protect the vulnerable, and strengthen the middle.

It contains major investments in the president's three priorities: significantly expanding health care coverage, focusing on climate change reduction and developing renewable energy, and investing in education -- early childhood programs, strengthening and reforming public schools, expanded opportunities for college -- all of which will benefit low-income people. There are also specific changes in important areas such as tax policy, food and nutrition programs, housing, needed aid to veterans, prisoner re-entry, global food security, and increased foreign aid for combating pandemic disease. It's a budget aimed at redressing the imbalances.

The growing inequality in America over decades is a sin of biblical proportions, and it's time to bring our principles of social justice to bear. As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote,

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth. Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

It is that question that should guide our moral audit of the budget. The fundamental moral question in the upcoming budget debate is whether to begin to reverse the rapid and massive increase in American inequality which has grown over the past thirty years -- and has dramatically increased during the past eight. I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich, under the now demonstrably false assertion that this will then benefit the rest of us. When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)-something has gone terribly wrong in America. The new Obama budget is the first and dramatic step to fix all that, and turn the nation in a different direction.

The new budget proposed by the White House is a dramatic step in the direction of the common good, with strong support for the middle of America, real help for the poorest among us, and the proposition that the wealthiest pay their fare share. And my prediction is that many in the faith community, especially those on the front lines of serving the poor, will rally around the principles and priorities of this budget, bringing their energy and advocacy to bear on the debate that now lies ahead. Because this will not just be a policy debate, but also a moral one; the prayers of the faithful -- along with their watchful eyes, willing hands, and ready feet -- will surround the congressional budget process over the next few months.

This post comes from Jim's remarks at a media teleconference today. Click here to listen to the call.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: leeh1128

03-06-2009 @ 3:46pm

Isn't it immoral that the top 1% of income earners take home 18% of the income in this country and pay 40% of the income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 5% of wage eaners take home 32% of the income and pay 67% of all income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 7% take home 40% of the income in this country and pay 95% of all income taxes? The top 5% are 80% of all small business owners in this country. So why are we penalizing them? That is immoral. The lower income earners need to stop relying on Government to solve their problems and make something of themselves.

by: leeh1128

03-06-2009 @ 1:46pm

Isn't it immoral that the top 1% of income earners take home 18% of the income in this country and pay 40% of the income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 5% of wage eaners take home 32% of the income and pay 67% of all income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 7% take home 40% of the income in this country and pay 95% of all income taxes? The top 5% are 80% of all small business owners in this country. So why are we penalizing them? That is immoral. The lower income earners need to stop relying on Government to solve their problems and make something of themselves.

by: zuskie

03-06-2009 @ 5:12am

Jim - I'm sad to read this. Since when is it moral to approve a budget that spends unimaginable amounts of money that we don't have...thus passing more debt to future generations? Spending more than we have is what got us into this mess (individually, corporately, and governmentally).

I had hoped that the criticism you've had of government in the past years would not be partisan & would continue into this administration. But apparently you think it's moral to toss money at insolvent/failed institutions and to spend what we don't have in amounts that have never been seen before.

And then to imply that it's immoral to oppose such a budget is too much for me.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me as a reader.

by: reahti

03-06-2009 @ 12:44am

The good nuns at NETWORK have long been using that language and it's
embedded in Catholic social teaching. Maybe Sojo gets the press, but
they didn't coin the phrase and the folks there would do well to
remember those who came before them better.

I used to be a Sojo fan until they started acting like they were the
only progressive faith gig in town and developed a huge personality
cult around Wallis. I don't deny that the message is often right, but
it has indeed been said before by others out pounding the pavement
rather than looking for a media splash.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-06-2009 @ 12:08am

How has Sojo taken credit for the work of others??

Who else used the phrase more than four years ago??

Is it possible for two persons to have the same thought??

by: Doer

03-05-2009 @ 10:24pm

"When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)..."

Shame on you for twisting the facts.

We have to start with the truth. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay 3 percent of the income taxes.

by: reahti

03-05-2009 @ 7:30pm

Just FYI - Sojourners didn't coin the phrase "budgets are moral documents" - several others in the progressive faith community have been using it for YEARS. Rather typical of Sojo to take credit for the work of others.

by: jrn

03-05-2009 @ 7:02pm

Again, the country is broke. The Stimulus is spending money we do not have. The omnibus bill contains billions of dollars of port, financed by deficit spending. Where is the change we can believe in? Where is the new politics?

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 5:27pm

I can't answer for the logic of different taxation rates between capital gains and so-called "ordinary" income. It could be there's no particular logic--it's just that Congress passed and the IRS implemented the different parts of the tax code at different times.

I think taxing investment transactions directly would have the undesirable effect of discouraging investment that DITE is concerned about. Taxing only the gains in value at the time of sale still helps discourage speculation without discouraging investment in the first place. Remember, if the investor never sells the asset, it is never taxed, no matter how much gain in value it has made.

by: xfree9

03-04-2009 @ 2:33pm

I think this story is a good one to remember. I'm not sure what your entire point is, but in the United States today, those who bought homes were not previously without some dwelling place, whether rented or living with relatives or some other arrangement. When they agreed to the terms of a loan, they signed their name to a document that promised to pay back the loan. It was a contract on terms both decided were mutually beneficial. They were wiling to pay X% interest because they decided that the interest was worth the gain in having a home to call their own. That's what we all do.

"But they were lied to and the contract was tricky and hard to understand!" you may say. But I'm curious, if anybody is going to buy a home for, say, $50,000 and up (my hunch is these homes are mostly going for more than that), wouldn't it make sense, if you felt unsure you were understanding things properly, to hire a lawyer at $500 or $1,000 to confirm your suspicions and look after your best interest? I acknowledge and will agree that there are those who were preyed upon by lenders, but there are other considerations to take into account; why would those lenders lend to risky buyers if not given an incentive to make risky loans?

by: xfree9

03-04-2009 @ 2:27pm

Bill, unfortunately Wallis somehow believes money grows on trees. He doesn't realize that the government does not have a single penny, for it earns nothing. It must take from the people in the name of "taxes" and then hide the fact that it is plunder by providing "common good services" as its excuse for making us pay for it at gunpoint.

I think your description of "mass murder" is interesting. I used to be a "big defense" sorta guy, but now I'm seeing the folly. Good reference to Orwell!

by: xfree9

03-04-2009 @ 2:26pm

" Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives."

I think this is an apt point, though I'm not quite so sure "conservative" is a good label for those opposing Obama's budget. Both conservatives and progressives alike want their own modicum of control over the lives and finances of others. Libertarians want no such thing but rule of law and protection of fraud and initiation of unwanted force.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-04-2009 @ 1:21pm

I do not understand much about these issues. Is there reason for taxing different methods of making money at different rates??

Is there a logic for taxing gains instead of taxing transactions if it is the speculative/volatile investing we want to modearte?

by: Barryb64

03-04-2009 @ 11:43am

I was doing a study of Neh 5:1-13 and could not help but notice the similarity between the situation described there and what is happening today.

Nehemiah was the governor of Judea. It seems the people in that area were in dire strait. One group were in desperate need of food, another group went into debt so as to buy food from Jeish nobles and a third went so far as to send their kids into slavery for the same reason. The second group, by the way, mortgaged their home to raise the money to buy the grains.

All three groups were being exploited by the nobles in that society. What did they do? They were charging interest on top of the loan payments. The interest was high enough so as to make it difficult or impossible to pay back what is owed.

Sound familiar?? I was thinking of the current housing and larger financial crisis. I already had compassion but my heart was crying out even more after reading the above bible passage. Nehemiah represented the government of his day and God used him as an instrument of righteousness and justice. He demanded that the nobles restore to the poor what was stolen.

I didn't stop at just reading the surface story. I looked for the underlying principles that were being violated here. The nobles were not supposed to be charging interests on their countrymen. In fact, they were not to take the person's home as their own or their cloaks as their own.

To be fair, the borrower is to pay back what is owed and yet isn't to be made nearly impossible.

by: BillSamuel

03-04-2009 @ 11:02am

Not a prophetic voice, but the voice of an apologist for an Administration.

Is mass murder moral? Obama proposes spending 52% of the discretionary budget for mass murder (virtually identical to the prior Administration) - what is called, in Orwellian doublespeak, "defense." Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

Are massive deficits, which serve to transfer money from ordinary people to investors, immoral? The budget proposed unprecedented deficit spending. Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

And these things are closely related. A major reason for deficit spending is the obscene amounts we spend for wars and preparations for wars. Where is the prophetic voice against this? I remember the early days of Sojourners, joining them in protests at arms bazaars and the like. They once did have a prophetic voice. But that has seemed to take a back seat to cozying up to the powerful.

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:43am

One more thing:
This is one reason why reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains is not a conservative position. Conserving investment assets and discouraging speculation is the true conserve-ative position. Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives.

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:37am

DITE wrote:
"I'll walk you through one of the conservative solutions slowly.

"The problem with our economy right now is a credit crunch, right? We need more investment expenditures to increase long term economic growth. So, the logical thing to do would be to make investment more attractive. Still with me? We could do this by making the price of investment cheaper. Government can do this by reducing the punishment it places on investment success. This could be done by a reduction in the capital gains tax. It's an easy and logical solution if you want the economy to do better, which liberals claim they want. But it seams this has become second priority of the Left after making sure the rich do worse."

DITE and other lassaiz-faire folks here, I'll walk you through the logic of taxing capital gains.

One does not pay capital gains taxes on investing. One only pays capital gains taxes on investment gains after the investments are sold. So capital gains taxes do not discourage investment. What taxing capital gains does discourage is the very kind of overheated, speculative buying and selling of investment assets that is demonstrably one of the causes of the current financial meltdown.

When investors have to consider the tax consequences of selling any investment assets, investors will be encouraged to be more cautious and less speculative. Investors will be encouraged to conserve investment assets rather than exploit them; thus investors are encouraged to create and maintain a solid foundation for building true wealth instead of financial houses of cards.

Reasonable capital gains taxes that discourage speculation and encourage asset conservation should be seen as one means for reestablishing a solid, lasting prosperity.

Peace,
D

by: justintime

03-02-2009 @ 11:05pm

I agree with everything Jim said so I went ahead and did a moral audit of the budget.

I found a boatload of money in there for bailing out insolvent banks on Wall Street.
All those taxpayer dollars are being dumped down a bottomless rat hole with no stimulus to the economy whatsoever and certainly no benefit to the jobless and the homeless in America.

Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Geitner are desperately trying to save their Wall Street buddies from total ruin at the expense of American taxpayers and our childrens' future.
This is clearly an immoral and futile attempt to revive the walking dead.

We the people should take over the 'zombie' banks, fire the greedy managers, throw stockholders and their toxic assets under the bus.
Then we can use our wealth to start credit flowing again under the direct control of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The vast wealth this would save will pay for a lot of social programs.
The longer Geitner/Obama waits to do this, the more wealth will be wasted and the greater suffering by the American people.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:26pm

Throw stockholders under the bus?

Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who "purchased" homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:30pm

I guess we are progressing to government budgeting under Obama not only as a matter of politics and policy, but framing so that if you oppose the budget, you are taking an immoral position.

Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.

by: cpd

03-02-2009 @ 11:47pm

"I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich..." Who, exactly, are the "undeserving rich"?

This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons - but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 12:24am

This is a very telling post. Giving moral stamp of approval to the Obama budget. Suddenly it is moral to increase the national debt to even more unprecedented percentages (not to mention actual dollars) than ever before? That is not moral in my view of all that the scripture teaches about finances.
And it is moral it increase taxation on those who pay 80% of the income tax even though they make only 20% of the income? I've even heard that 40% of the working people don't pay ANY income tax? This is moral?
And we have been fighting the war on poverty since the 60"s and yet it continues to grow worse. Would it not be moral to stop and analyze if the programs are working? Or are they making them more dependent on government, hence building a greater voting block?
And it is moral to seek to destroy private charitable organizations by decreasing the deductions the "undeserving rich" can get for them. (cpd post a very good question on this above). This whole scenario is contrary to the sharing described in Acts where Christians voluntarily gave to help their poor (only those who wer among them) and as the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows, they were free to keep their property and once sold to give as much as they wanted. They were executed by God for the lie that they had given all, not whether or not, nor how much they gave. Again I find Jim's moral yardstick poorly calibrated with the Scripture.
Lastly, IF through government we could "save" all from poverty, but could not also present the gospel of Jesus Christ (as our government cannot) to save their souls, is that not immoral in light of what Christ came to do?
My suggestion would be that if Jim truly wants to help the poor, he would seek government policy that would encourage giving to the local church so that it could reach the poor in their community with physical needs and the gospel.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-03-2009 @ 12:45am

"Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?"

Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

For clarity's sake--I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration--the redistribution of wealth.

And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month--there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure--what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation--but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

The capacity to bring "balance" in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit--and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice -- but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 2:11am

I agree with your post. the following is a quote I believe shows a great deal of wisdom. I wish more people would apply wisdom as well as empathy to help the poor.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it"

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:16am

I would hug you if you were in the same room as me. That quote is succinct, poignant, and apt.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:20am

Forget the redistribution part, what about the immoral amount of spending of money the government doesn't have. Forget that the government "earns" no income anyway, we're running A DEFICIT people!

Does anybody have a moral conscience when it comes to such a "moral document" as a budget?! It's absolute insanity the amount we're spending. This is not only more of the same of the past eight years, it's a jump further off the cliff of insanity.

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:26am

If only IRS audits were this cavalier.

Q1) Do you have good intentions?

A) Yes sir!

Q2) Do you agree with our political viewpoints?

A) Absolutely.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 3:41am

:-)

Consequences matter more than intentions. Unfortunately the consequences of such a bill only stimulates the politically well-connected and not everyone.

Hey Wallis, if you're about equal tax burden, how about a flat tax for all adults, with no special favors for being single or being married?

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:53am

That's my thing. Every big business has a public affairs arm. Do people think governmental affairs officials exist to make sure Congress does nothing? I've worked on at least two-dozen public affairs campaigns. Only once was I arguing for the status quo.

by: SisterMarie

03-03-2009 @ 1:05pm

On the other hand, we could return to the policies of Tricky Dick Nixon who used the IRS to investigate the tax returns of his political opponents and in which Pat Buchanan and Chuck Colson helped to ensure that Thomas Eagleton's bout with depression was publicized.

by: NMRod

03-03-2009 @ 6:26pm

The Three Penny Opera gang of billionaire financial finaglers and their "Rush" to reward themselves for their Madoff mendacities are trying to saddle everyone else with the debts they have sown to the wind, have everyone else reap thir whirlwind.

Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune, while the super-rich exploiters are simply enjoying the just rewards of a generous God for their own obvious moral infallibility.

Well-versed in the temptations of great wealth, they have such moral concern for the character of the poor that they do everything they can to make sure that those will never be similarly tempted and fail. Generous to many faults, they take that enormous burden of the corrosive properties of great wealth upon their own sacrificial selves.

To Bernie and the legion of mini-Madoffs, the Puritans' Wealth Jesus proclaims: "Well done, My just and faithful servants!"

"Well done, Sirs, well done! And as my servant Conrad Black has observed, (he being currently engaged in penitence and contemplation) 'What a splendid conveyance of wealth it has been!'"

by: cpd

03-03-2009 @ 6:39pm

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune..." I never said it was from Calvin - seems like common sense to me.

You're talking about three specific people - I'm talking about are the regular people who have worked hard, earned money that now the government wants to take. Not billionaires. Regular folks who own the businesses or work for businesses to support their families. Where does the scripture ever say wealth raiding is permissible? People are to contribute individually.

Sorry you're so mad about this. I wonder why that is?

by: Eric77

03-03-2009 @ 8:14pm

Come on, you know that Madoff and other crooks are really the norm. Everyone who acquired wealth did so by ripping someone else off. It's so much easier to make argument this way. :)

by: JoannaCW

03-04-2009 @ 12:06am

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. " Yes indeed. When some people are considered 'too good' to do manual labor and yet expect to receive physical sustenance--not to mention a lot of luxury goods--then other people are forced to to more than their share of physically taxing work for little compensation. Taking a few luxuries from the former group, and providing better health care and somewhat more of a safety net for the people in the latter group, does not remedy this basic injustice, but at least it's a palliative measure.

by: squeaky

03-04-2009 @ 1:04am

"Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? "

Have you?

by: datroxell

03-04-2009 @ 2:48am

"Thine, O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O Lord, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone." I Chronicles 29:11, 12
If we believe that God is sovereign, then you are concluding that government would do better than God at being just. I don't think that you could produce evidence that any of the many socialist states in existence are doing that.
You also make an assumption that all rich only exploit those they hire/manage, either directly or indirectly. And you also make a corollary assumption that all poor work hard. Both are assumptions are false.

by: cpd

03-04-2009 @ 3:22am

Yep. That's why the bulk of our giving outside our church offering goes to Compassion kids. Compassion has a track record of actually doing what they say they'll do - they feed, clothe and educate kids who, through no fault of their own, are in extreme poverty.

As I mentioned above by citing the movie Pursuit of Happyness, there is precious little reason to be poor in America. Will it be difficult to get a good education if you're a latch-key kid who never knows when his next meal will come? Of course. I'm not naive. But it is not impossible.

by: kevin47

03-04-2009 @ 4:39am

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage"

Um, he did...

by: leeh1128

03-06-2009 @ 3:46pm

Isn't it immoral that the top 1% of income earners take home 18% of the income in this country and pay 40% of the income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 5% of wage eaners take home 32% of the income and pay 67% of all income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 7% take home 40% of the income in this country and pay 95% of all income taxes? The top 5% are 80% of all small business owners in this country. So why are we penalizing them? That is immoral. The lower income earners need to stop relying on Government to solve their problems and make something of themselves.

by: justintime

03-02-2009 @ 11:05pm

I agree with everything Jim said so I went ahead and did a moral audit of the budget.

I found a boatload of money in there for bailing out insolvent banks on Wall Street.
All those taxpayer dollars are being dumped down a bottomless rat hole with no stimulus to the economy whatsoever and certainly no benefit to the jobless and the homeless in America.

Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Geitner are desperately trying to save their Wall Street buddies from total ruin at the expense of American taxpayers and our childrens' future.
This is clearly an immoral and futile attempt to revive the walking dead.

We the people should take over the 'zombie' banks, fire the greedy managers, throw stockholders and their toxic assets under the bus.
Then we can use our wealth to start credit flowing again under the direct control of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The vast wealth this would save will pay for a lot of social programs.
The longer Geitner/Obama waits to do this, the more wealth will be wasted and the greater suffering by the American people.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:26pm

Throw stockholders under the bus?

Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who "purchased" homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?

by: leeh1128

03-06-2009 @ 1:46pm

Isn't it immoral that the top 1% of income earners take home 18% of the income in this country and pay 40% of the income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 5% of wage eaners take home 32% of the income and pay 67% of all income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 7% take home 40% of the income in this country and pay 95% of all income taxes? The top 5% are 80% of all small business owners in this country. So why are we penalizing them? That is immoral. The lower income earners need to stop relying on Government to solve their problems and make something of themselves.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:30pm

I guess we are progressing to government budgeting under Obama not only as a matter of politics and policy, but framing so that if you oppose the budget, you are taking an immoral position.

Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.

by: zuskie

03-06-2009 @ 5:12am

Jim - I'm sad to read this. Since when is it moral to approve a budget that spends unimaginable amounts of money that we don't have...thus passing more debt to future generations? Spending more than we have is what got us into this mess (individually, corporately, and governmentally).

I had hoped that the criticism you've had of government in the past years would not be partisan & would continue into this administration. But apparently you think it's moral to toss money at insolvent/failed institutions and to spend what we don't have in amounts that have never been seen before.

And then to imply that it's immoral to oppose such a budget is too much for me.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me as a reader.

by: cpd

03-02-2009 @ 11:47pm

"I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich..." Who, exactly, are the "undeserving rich"?

This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons - but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.

by: reahti

03-06-2009 @ 12:44am

The good nuns at NETWORK have long been using that language and it's
embedded in Catholic social teaching. Maybe Sojo gets the press, but
they didn't coin the phrase and the folks there would do well to
remember those who came before them better.

I used to be a Sojo fan until they started acting like they were the
only progressive faith gig in town and developed a huge personality
cult around Wallis. I don't deny that the message is often right, but
it has indeed been said before by others out pounding the pavement
rather than looking for a media splash.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 12:24am

This is a very telling post. Giving moral stamp of approval to the Obama budget. Suddenly it is moral to increase the national debt to even more unprecedented percentages (not to mention actual dollars) than ever before? That is not moral in my view of all that the scripture teaches about finances.
And it is moral it increase taxation on those who pay 80% of the income tax even though they make only 20% of the income? I've even heard that 40% of the working people don't pay ANY income tax? This is moral?
And we have been fighting the war on poverty since the 60"s and yet it continues to grow worse. Would it not be moral to stop and analyze if the programs are working? Or are they making them more dependent on government, hence building a greater voting block?
And it is moral to seek to destroy private charitable organizations by decreasing the deductions the "undeserving rich" can get for them. (cpd post a very good question on this above). This whole scenario is contrary to the sharing described in Acts where Christians voluntarily gave to help their poor (only those who wer among them) and as the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows, they were free to keep their property and once sold to give as much as they wanted. They were executed by God for the lie that they had given all, not whether or not, nor how much they gave. Again I find Jim's moral yardstick poorly calibrated with the Scripture.
Lastly, IF through government we could "save" all from poverty, but could not also present the gospel of Jesus Christ (as our government cannot) to save their souls, is that not immoral in light of what Christ came to do?
My suggestion would be that if Jim truly wants to help the poor, he would seek government policy that would encourage giving to the local church so that it could reach the poor in their community with physical needs and the gospel.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-06-2009 @ 12:08am

How has Sojo taken credit for the work of others??

Who else used the phrase more than four years ago??

Is it possible for two persons to have the same thought??

by: letjusticerolldown

03-03-2009 @ 12:45am

"Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?"

Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

For clarity's sake--I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration--the redistribution of wealth.

And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month--there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure--what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation--but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

The capacity to bring "balance" in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit--and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice -- but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.

by: Doer

03-05-2009 @ 10:24pm

"When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)..."

Shame on you for twisting the facts.

We have to start with the truth. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay 3 percent of the income taxes.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: justintime

03-02-2009 @ 11:05pm

I agree with everything Jim said so I went ahead and did a moral audit of the budget.

I found a boatload of money in there for bailing out insolvent banks on Wall Street.
All those taxpayer dollars are being dumped down a bottomless rat hole with no stimulus to the economy whatsoever and certainly no benefit to the jobless and the homeless in America.

Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Geitner are desperately trying to save their Wall Street buddies from total ruin at the expense of American taxpayers and our childrens' future.
This is clearly an immoral and futile attempt to revive the walking dead.

We the people should take over the 'zombie' banks, fire the greedy managers, throw stockholders and their toxic assets under the bus.
Then we can use our wealth to start credit flowing again under the direct control of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The vast wealth this would save will pay for a lot of social programs.
The longer Geitner/Obama waits to do this, the more wealth will be wasted and the greater suffering by the American people.

by: justintime

03-02-2009 @ 11:05pm

I agree with everything Jim said so I went ahead and did a moral audit of the budget.

I found a boatload of money in there for bailing out insolvent banks on Wall Street.
All those taxpayer dollars are being dumped down a bottomless rat hole with no stimulus to the economy whatsoever and certainly no benefit to the jobless and the homeless in America.

Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Geitner are desperately trying to save their Wall Street buddies from total ruin at the expense of American taxpayers and our childrens' future.
This is clearly an immoral and futile attempt to revive the walking dead.

We the people should take over the 'zombie' banks, fire the greedy managers, throw stockholders and their toxic assets under the bus.
Then we can use our wealth to start credit flowing again under the direct control of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The vast wealth this would save will pay for a lot of social programs.
The longer Geitner/Obama waits to do this, the more wealth will be wasted and the greater suffering by the American people.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:26pm

Throw stockholders under the bus?

Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who "purchased" homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:26pm

Throw stockholders under the bus?

Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who "purchased" homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:30pm

I guess we are progressing to government budgeting under Obama not only as a matter of politics and policy, but framing so that if you oppose the budget, you are taking an immoral position.

Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 11:30pm

I guess we are progressing to government budgeting under Obama not only as a matter of politics and policy, but framing so that if you oppose the budget, you are taking an immoral position.

Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.

by: cpd

03-02-2009 @ 11:47pm

"I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich..." Who, exactly, are the "undeserving rich"?

This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons - but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.

by: cpd

03-02-2009 @ 11:47pm

"I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich..." Who, exactly, are the "undeserving rich"?

This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons - but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 12:24am

This is a very telling post. Giving moral stamp of approval to the Obama budget. Suddenly it is moral to increase the national debt to even more unprecedented percentages (not to mention actual dollars) than ever before? That is not moral in my view of all that the scripture teaches about finances.
And it is moral it increase taxation on those who pay 80% of the income tax even though they make only 20% of the income? I've even heard that 40% of the working people don't pay ANY income tax? This is moral?
And we have been fighting the war on poverty since the 60"s and yet it continues to grow worse. Would it not be moral to stop and analyze if the programs are working? Or are they making them more dependent on government, hence building a greater voting block?
And it is moral to seek to destroy private charitable organizations by decreasing the deductions the "undeserving rich" can get for them. (cpd post a very good question on this above). This whole scenario is contrary to the sharing described in Acts where Christians voluntarily gave to help their poor (only those who wer among them) and as the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows, they were free to keep their property and once sold to give as much as they wanted. They were executed by God for the lie that they had given all, not whether or not, nor how much they gave. Again I find Jim's moral yardstick poorly calibrated with the Scripture.
Lastly, IF through government we could "save" all from poverty, but could not also present the gospel of Jesus Christ (as our government cannot) to save their souls, is that not immoral in light of what Christ came to do?
My suggestion would be that if Jim truly wants to help the poor, he would seek government policy that would encourage giving to the local church so that it could reach the poor in their community with physical needs and the gospel.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 12:24am

This is a very telling post. Giving moral stamp of approval to the Obama budget. Suddenly it is moral to increase the national debt to even more unprecedented percentages (not to mention actual dollars) than ever before? That is not moral in my view of all that the scripture teaches about finances.
And it is moral it increase taxation on those who pay 80% of the income tax even though they make only 20% of the income? I've even heard that 40% of the working people don't pay ANY income tax? This is moral?
And we have been fighting the war on poverty since the 60"s and yet it continues to grow worse. Would it not be moral to stop and analyze if the programs are working? Or are they making them more dependent on government, hence building a greater voting block?
And it is moral to seek to destroy private charitable organizations by decreasing the deductions the "undeserving rich" can get for them. (cpd post a very good question on this above). This whole scenario is contrary to the sharing described in Acts where Christians voluntarily gave to help their poor (only those who wer among them) and as the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows, they were free to keep their property and once sold to give as much as they wanted. They were executed by God for the lie that they had given all, not whether or not, nor how much they gave. Again I find Jim's moral yardstick poorly calibrated with the Scripture.
Lastly, IF through government we could "save" all from poverty, but could not also present the gospel of Jesus Christ (as our government cannot) to save their souls, is that not immoral in light of what Christ came to do?
My suggestion would be that if Jim truly wants to help the poor, he would seek government policy that would encourage giving to the local church so that it could reach the poor in their community with physical needs and the gospel.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-03-2009 @ 12:45am

"Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?"

Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

For clarity's sake--I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration--the redistribution of wealth.

And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month--there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure--what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation--but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

The capacity to bring "balance" in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit--and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice -- but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-03-2009 @ 12:45am

"Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?"

Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

For clarity's sake--I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration--the redistribution of wealth.

And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month--there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure--what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation--but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

The capacity to bring "balance" in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit--and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice -- but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 2:11am

I agree with your post. the following is a quote I believe shows a great deal of wisdom. I wish more people would apply wisdom as well as empathy to help the poor.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it"

by: datroxell

03-03-2009 @ 2:11am

I agree with your post. the following is a quote I believe shows a great deal of wisdom. I wish more people would apply wisdom as well as empathy to help the poor.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it"

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:16am

I would hug you if you were in the same room as me. That quote is succinct, poignant, and apt.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:16am

I would hug you if you were in the same room as me. That quote is succinct, poignant, and apt.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:20am

Forget the redistribution part, what about the immoral amount of spending of money the government doesn't have. Forget that the government "earns" no income anyway, we're running A DEFICIT people!

Does anybody have a moral conscience when it comes to such a "moral document" as a budget?! It's absolute insanity the amount we're spending. This is not only more of the same of the past eight years, it's a jump further off the cliff of insanity.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 2:20am

Forget the redistribution part, what about the immoral amount of spending of money the government doesn't have. Forget that the government "earns" no income anyway, we're running A DEFICIT people!

Does anybody have a moral conscience when it comes to such a "moral document" as a budget?! It's absolute insanity the amount we're spending. This is not only more of the same of the past eight years, it's a jump further off the cliff of insanity.

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:26am

If only IRS audits were this cavalier.

Q1) Do you have good intentions?

A) Yes sir!

Q2) Do you agree with our political viewpoints?

A) Absolutely.

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:26am

If only IRS audits were this cavalier.

Q1) Do you have good intentions?

A) Yes sir!

Q2) Do you agree with our political viewpoints?

A) Absolutely.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 3:41am

:-)

Consequences matter more than intentions. Unfortunately the consequences of such a bill only stimulates the politically well-connected and not everyone.

Hey Wallis, if you're about equal tax burden, how about a flat tax for all adults, with no special favors for being single or being married?

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 3:41am

:-)

Consequences matter more than intentions. Unfortunately the consequences of such a bill only stimulates the politically well-connected and not everyone.

Hey Wallis, if you're about equal tax burden, how about a flat tax for all adults, with no special favors for being single or being married?

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:53am

That's my thing. Every big business has a public affairs arm. Do people think governmental affairs officials exist to make sure Congress does nothing? I've worked on at least two-dozen public affairs campaigns. Only once was I arguing for the status quo.

by: kevin47

03-03-2009 @ 3:53am

That's my thing. Every big business has a public affairs arm. Do people think governmental affairs officials exist to make sure Congress does nothing? I've worked on at least two-dozen public affairs campaigns. Only once was I arguing for the status quo.

by: SisterMarie

03-03-2009 @ 1:05pm

On the other hand, we could return to the policies of Tricky Dick Nixon who used the IRS to investigate the tax returns of his political opponents and in which Pat Buchanan and Chuck Colson helped to ensure that Thomas Eagleton's bout with depression was publicized.

by: SisterMarie

03-03-2009 @ 1:05pm

On the other hand, we could return to the policies of Tricky Dick Nixon who used the IRS to investigate the tax returns of his political opponents and in which Pat Buchanan and Chuck Colson helped to ensure that Thomas Eagleton's bout with depression was publicized.

by: NMRod

03-03-2009 @ 6:26pm

The Three Penny Opera gang of billionaire financial finaglers and their "Rush" to reward themselves for their Madoff mendacities are trying to saddle everyone else with the debts they have sown to the wind, have everyone else reap thir whirlwind.

Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune, while the super-rich exploiters are simply enjoying the just rewards of a generous God for their own obvious moral infallibility.

Well-versed in the temptations of great wealth, they have such moral concern for the character of the poor that they do everything they can to make sure that those will never be similarly tempted and fail. Generous to many faults, they take that enormous burden of the corrosive properties of great wealth upon their own sacrificial selves.

To Bernie and the legion of mini-Madoffs, the Puritans' Wealth Jesus proclaims: "Well done, My just and faithful servants!"

"Well done, Sirs, well done! And as my servant Conrad Black has observed, (he being currently engaged in penitence and contemplation) 'What a splendid conveyance of wealth it has been!'"

by: NMRod

03-03-2009 @ 6:26pm

The Three Penny Opera gang of billionaire financial finaglers and their "Rush" to reward themselves for their Madoff mendacities are trying to saddle everyone else with the debts they have sown to the wind, have everyone else reap thir whirlwind.

Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune, while the super-rich exploiters are simply enjoying the just rewards of a generous God for their own obvious moral infallibility.

Well-versed in the temptations of great wealth, they have such moral concern for the character of the poor that they do everything they can to make sure that those will never be similarly tempted and fail. Generous to many faults, they take that enormous burden of the corrosive properties of great wealth upon their own sacrificial selves.

To Bernie and the legion of mini-Madoffs, the Puritans' Wealth Jesus proclaims: "Well done, My just and faithful servants!"

"Well done, Sirs, well done! And as my servant Conrad Black has observed, (he being currently engaged in penitence and contemplation) 'What a splendid conveyance of wealth it has been!'"

by: cpd

03-03-2009 @ 6:39pm

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune..." I never said it was from Calvin - seems like common sense to me.

You're talking about three specific people - I'm talking about are the regular people who have worked hard, earned money that now the government wants to take. Not billionaires. Regular folks who own the businesses or work for businesses to support their families. Where does the scripture ever say wealth raiding is permissible? People are to contribute individually.

Sorry you're so mad about this. I wonder why that is?

by: cpd

03-03-2009 @ 6:39pm

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune..." I never said it was from Calvin - seems like common sense to me.

You're talking about three specific people - I'm talking about are the regular people who have worked hard, earned money that now the government wants to take. Not billionaires. Regular folks who own the businesses or work for businesses to support their families. Where does the scripture ever say wealth raiding is permissible? People are to contribute individually.

Sorry you're so mad about this. I wonder why that is?

by: Eric77

03-03-2009 @ 8:14pm

Come on, you know that Madoff and other crooks are really the norm. Everyone who acquired wealth did so by ripping someone else off. It's so much easier to make argument this way. :)

by: Eric77

03-03-2009 @ 8:14pm

Come on, you know that Madoff and other crooks are really the norm. Everyone who acquired wealth did so by ripping someone else off. It's so much easier to make argument this way. :)

by: JoannaCW

03-04-2009 @ 12:06am

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. " Yes indeed. When some people are considered 'too good' to do manual labor and yet expect to receive physical sustenance--not to mention a lot of luxury goods--then other people are forced to to more than their share of physically taxing work for little compensation. Taking a few luxuries from the former group, and providing better health care and somewhat more of a safety net for the people in the latter group, does not remedy this basic injustice, but at least it's a palliative measure.

by: JoannaCW

03-04-2009 @ 12:06am

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. " Yes indeed. When some people are considered 'too good' to do manual labor and yet expect to receive physical sustenance--not to mention a lot of luxury goods--then other people are forced to to more than their share of physically taxing work for little compensation. Taking a few luxuries from the former group, and providing better health care and somewhat more of a safety net for the people in the latter group, does not remedy this basic injustice, but at least it's a palliative measure.

by: squeaky

03-04-2009 @ 1:04am

"Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? "

Have you?

by: squeaky

03-04-2009 @ 1:04am

"Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? "

Have you?

by: datroxell

03-04-2009 @ 2:48am

"Thine, O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O Lord, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone." I Chronicles 29:11, 12
If we believe that God is sovereign, then you are concluding that government would do better than God at being just. I don't think that you could produce evidence that any of the many socialist states in existence are doing that.
You also make an assumption that all rich only exploit those they hire/manage, either directly or indirectly. And you also make a corollary assumption that all poor work hard. Both are assumptions are false.

by: datroxell

03-04-2009 @ 2:48am

"Thine, O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O Lord, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone." I Chronicles 29:11, 12
If we believe that God is sovereign, then you are concluding that government would do better than God at being just. I don't think that you could produce evidence that any of the many socialist states in existence are doing that.
You also make an assumption that all rich only exploit those they hire/manage, either directly or indirectly. And you also make a corollary assumption that all poor work hard. Both are assumptions are false.

by: cpd

03-04-2009 @ 3:22am

Yep. That's why the bulk of our giving outside our church offering goes to Compassion kids. Compassion has a track record of actually doing what they say they'll do - they feed, clothe and educate kids who, through no fault of their own, are in extreme poverty.

As I mentioned above by citing the movie Pursuit of Happyness, there is precious little reason to be poor in America. Will it be difficult to get a good education if you're a latch-key kid who never knows when his next meal will come? Of course. I'm not naive. But it is not impossible.

by: cpd

03-04-2009 @ 3:22am

Yep. That's why the bulk of our giving outside our church offering goes to Compassion kids. Compassion has a track record of actually doing what they say they'll do - they feed, clothe and educate kids who, through no fault of their own, are in extreme poverty.

As I mentioned above by citing the movie Pursuit of Happyness, there is precious little reason to be poor in America. Will it be difficult to get a good education if you're a latch-key kid who never knows when his next meal will come? Of course. I'm not naive. But it is not impossible.

by: kevin47

03-04-2009 @ 4:39am

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage"

Um, he did...

by: kevin47

03-04-2009 @ 4:39am

"Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage"

Um, he did...

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:37am

DITE wrote:
"I'll walk you through one of the conservative solutions slowly.

"The problem with our economy right now is a credit crunch, right? We need more investment expenditures to increase long term economic growth. So, the logical thing to do would be to make investment more attractive. Still with me? We could do this by making the price of investment cheaper. Government can do this by reducing the punishment it places on investment success. This could be done by a reduction in the capital gains tax. It's an easy and logical solution if you want the economy to do better, which liberals claim they want. But it seams this has become second priority of the Left after making sure the rich do worse."

DITE and other lassaiz-faire folks here, I'll walk you through the logic of taxing capital gains.

One does not pay capital gains taxes on investing. One only pays capital gains taxes on investment gains after the investments are sold. So capital gains taxes do not discourage investment. What taxing capital gains does discourage is the very kind of overheated, speculative buying and selling of investment assets that is demonstrably one of the causes of the current financial meltdown.

When investors have to consider the tax consequences of selling any investment assets, investors will be encouraged to be more cautious and less speculative. Investors will be encouraged to conserve investment assets rather than exploit them; thus investors are encouraged to create and maintain a solid foundation for building true wealth instead of financial houses of cards.

Reasonable capital gains taxes that discourage speculation and encourage asset conservation should be seen as one means for reestablishing a solid, lasting prosperity.

Peace,
D

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:37am

DITE wrote:
"I'll walk you through one of the conservative solutions slowly.

"The problem with our economy right now is a credit crunch, right? We need more investment expenditures to increase long term economic growth. So, the logical thing to do would be to make investment more attractive. Still with me? We could do this by making the price of investment cheaper. Government can do this by reducing the punishment it places on investment success. This could be done by a reduction in the capital gains tax. It's an easy and logical solution if you want the economy to do better, which liberals claim they want. But it seams this has become second priority of the Left after making sure the rich do worse."

DITE and other lassaiz-faire folks here, I'll walk you through the logic of taxing capital gains.

One does not pay capital gains taxes on investing. One only pays capital gains taxes on investment gains after the investments are sold. So capital gains taxes do not discourage investment. What taxing capital gains does discourage is the very kind of overheated, speculative buying and selling of investment assets that is demonstrably one of the causes of the current financial meltdown.

When investors have to consider the tax consequences of selling any investment assets, investors will be encouraged to be more cautious and less speculative. Investors will be encouraged to conserve investment assets rather than exploit them; thus investors are encouraged to create and maintain a solid foundation for building true wealth instead of financial houses of cards.

Reasonable capital gains taxes that discourage speculation and encourage asset conservation should be seen as one means for reestablishing a solid, lasting prosperity.

Peace,
D

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:43am

One more thing:
This is one reason why reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains is not a conservative position. Conserving investment assets and discouraging speculation is the true conserve-ative position. Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives.

by: BuckeyeDon

03-04-2009 @ 10:43am

One more thing:
This is one reason why reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains is not a conservative position. Conserving investment assets and discouraging speculation is the true conserve-ative position. Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives.

by: BillSamuel

03-04-2009 @ 11:02am

Not a prophetic voice, but the voice of an apologist for an Administration.

Is mass murder moral? Obama proposes spending 52% of the discretionary budget for mass murder (virtually identical to the prior Administration) - what is called, in Orwellian doublespeak, "defense." Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

Are massive deficits, which serve to transfer money from ordinary people to investors, immoral? The budget proposed unprecedented deficit spending. Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

And these things are closely related. A major reason for deficit spending is the obscene amounts we spend for wars and preparations for wars. Where is the prophetic voice against this? I remember the early days of Sojourners, joining them in protests at arms bazaars and the like. They once did have a prophetic voice. But that has seemed to take a back seat to cozying up to the powerful.

by: BillSamuel

03-04-2009 @ 11:02am

Not a prophetic voice, but the voice of an apologist for an Administration.

Is mass murder moral? Obama proposes spending 52% of the discretionary budget for mass murder (virtually identical to the prior Administration) - what is called, in Orwellian doublespeak, "defense." Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

Are massive deficits, which serve to transfer money from ordinary people to investors, immoral? The budget proposed unprecedented deficit spending. Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

And these things are closely related. A major reason for deficit spending is the obscene amounts we spend for wars and preparations for wars. Where is the prophetic voice against this? I remember the early days of Sojourners, joining them in protests at arms bazaars and the like. They once did have a prophetic voice. But that has seemed to take a back seat to cozying up to the powerful.

by: Barryb64

03-04-2009 @ 11:43am

I was doing a study of Neh 5:1-13 and could not help but notice the similarity between the situation described there and what is happening today.

Nehemiah was the governor of Judea. It seems the people in that area were in dire strait. One group were in desperate need of food, another group went into debt so as to buy food from Jeish nobles and a third went so far as to send their kids into slavery for the same reason. The second group, by the way, mortgaged their home to raise the money to buy the grains.

All three groups were being exploited by the nobles in that society. What did they do? They were charging interest on top of the loan payments. The interest was high enough so as to make it difficult or impossible to pay back what is owed.

Sound familiar?? I was thinking of the current housing and larger financial crisis. I already had compassion but my heart was crying out even more after reading the above bible passage. Nehemiah represented the government of his day and God used him as an instrument of righteousness and justice. He demanded that the nobles restore to the poor what was stolen.

I didn't stop at just reading the surface story. I looked for the underlying principles that were being violated here. The nobles were not supposed to be charging interests on their countrymen. In fact, they were not to take the person's home as their own or their cloaks as their own.

To be fair, the borrower is to pay back what is owed and yet isn't to be made nearly impossible.

by: Barryb64

03-04-2009 @ 11:43am

I was doing a study of Neh 5:1-13 and could not help but notice the similarity between the situation described there and what is happening today.

Nehemiah was the governor of Judea. It seems the people in that area were in dire strait. One group were in desperate need of food, another group went into debt so as to buy food from Jeish nobles and a third went so far as to send their kids into slavery for the same reason. The second group, by the way, mortgaged their home to raise the money to buy the grains.

All three groups were being exploited by the nobles in that society. What did they do? They were charging interest on top of the loan payments. The interest was high enough so as to make it difficult or impossible to pay back what is owed.

Sound familiar?? I was thinking of the current housing and larger financial crisis. I already had compassion but my heart was crying out even more after reading the above bible passage. Nehemiah represented the government of his day and God used him as an instrument of righteousness and justice. He demanded that the nobles restore to the poor what was stolen.

I didn't stop at just reading the surface story. I looked for the underlying principles that were being violated here. The nobles were not supposed to be charging interests on their countrymen. In fact, they were not to take the person's home as their own or their cloaks as their own.

To be fair, the borrower is to pay back what is owed and yet isn't to be made nearly impossible.