A 'Truth-telling' Ministry for People of Faith

Then we disagree.

Safe travels.

Voluntary giving would be wonderful. There was a huge tax decrease about 8 years ago and one would have thought the people who benefited from that would have increased their charitable donations. Not only did those tax cuts not lead to trickle down prosperity, the bottom 50% of income earners in this country saw their wages stagnate and their health care costs skyrocket. The economic storm should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Did you see the latest release on how much income inequality has increased during the last eight years? It is unbelievable what happened to the middle class and the working poor.

By the way, I will be gone for two weeks in Japan, starting Monday. My internet access will be quite limited. So I may not be here to respond very much.

"some argue that it should be voluntary, rather than through coercion, ie, taxation. I understand both sides of the debate. On the one hand, you want to see the best care available for everyone; on the other, you want people to have the freedom to be giving, as did the Good Samaritan, who wasn't coerced to do so."

I believe much more in voluntary giving rather than through taxation. What I believe is that there should be 100% tax deductions and exemptions for anyone or any agency who voluntarily gives health care to those who cannot afford it.

"I do struggle with this. it is becoming clearer to me that in the context of this time and place, there is no excuse for people not having access to affordable health care."

I agree with you. I believe that access to health care is a Right to Life issue.

I'm just leary of having the government do it. There is no excuse for disabled people not having access to disability payments of some kind. However, the way the government does it, disabled people are denied all of the time.

I'd rather have some regulation and tax breaks for private agencies to help with health care access. Rather than another government bureaucracy.

I agree fully that we need reform. I agree also that we must insist on calm, rational debate. But I do not agree that current plans for reform are hitting resistance only because of the politically motivated attacks of right-wingers. The president laid the groundwork for the current unrest when he used fear tactics to push through his stimulus bill and then tried to do the same with health-care reform ("There's no time to wait; it has to be done now.") In addition, his own (and his party's) past positions on sanctity of life issues and on the desirability of a single-payer health-care system rendered it inevitable that masses of people would suspect that he wants a) taxpayer funding of abortion, b) bureaucratically designed rationing of health care for the dying, and c) a "public option" as a means to move the country gradually toward a single-payer system. Attacking skeptics by claiming that they are being manipulated by talk-show hosts, and that they are manufacturing "lies," is no way for the White House to restore confidence in the process or in the president himself. And Mr. Wallis does not boost his own credibility by ignoring the Democrats' own culpability in producing the train wreck that is this current health-care debate.

Great. A "Ministry of Truth" to save our souls from the storm troopers on the radio.

Does the truth simply consist of vilifying the other side? We keep hearing about how we're going to get the real scoop, but all we're getting is the same post over and over, with various (usually nazi-related) insults lobbed at Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

What I don't get is how Jim can keep saying this or that provision isn't in the bill (funding of abortion, "death panel" rumors, etc) but here he says "there isn't even a bill yet". Either there's a bill with specific provisions in it or not in it or there's no bill.

It's similar to how Obama goes around talking about broad idealistic reforms he'd like to see and seems to ignore the fact there are very real, detailed plans emerging from Congress and he doesn't want to deal with the reality that they differ from his ideals. He doesn't want to have to take positions on whether he supports or opposes what's in them. Jim is in a similar situation.

Oh, and I miss when "mob rule" was called "civil disobedience" or "telling truth to power"

I know it is strange .The other side is a "mob" so if you disagree your linked to a mob. Eric actually SOJO has avery small religious influence except on the left which they had anyway . But the government control area is small with believers for reasons they do no not understand . But part of it God is in control , and Believers tend to see Government as trying to intrude into God;s domain . The left can not understand how it effects the conscience to have a state supported program that uses our tax dollars to kill the unborn effects us . Instead they will call us a mob, facists and not understand or be concerned about our conscience . I don't get that with someone who says Jesus Christ is Lord of their Lives . Not that they can not believe in bigger government controls , just that they can not understand the whammy on the conscience of another believer . Disagree , vote another way , but to continue to insult and call it truth finding ?

. Their attempt to recruit was lost not on their concern of opening up the conversation , but as this essay does close off the conversation to the I am right , God is on my side , your against God if you disagree mentality that the religious right had that turned so many off.

How can anyone say this reform will cause everything to get better and nothing will be worse . No one can say that with truth , and the aspects of what may not work better may be on people's hearts more then another because we are all different

.

I'm a libertarian. I don't want a single payer plan. I am leary of the so-called "public option." I want free-market reform of the insurance and health care industries. I believe that access to health care is a right-to-life issue, not just for people who haven't been born, but also for those who already have been born.

And I have plenty of fears. What I fear is the return of a big-government regime similar to that which preceded Mr. Obama. Where were these same people trumpeting out fears of government intrusion when we had unprecedented government snooping, intrusion, and intervention in foreign affairs during the previous regime?

"My. Wallis, the reality is that many, many Americans are very concerned about the intrusion of the government into their daily lives"

And where were these people when government was intruding into peoples' phones, doing wiretapping?

"American's concerned about the ever growing size and scope of their government."

Where were these people when soldiers were sent overseas on huge government missions, costing untold trillions in wars that were unnecessary, that didn't involve defense of our own country?

"promote lies and misinformation"

And where were all of these allegedly liberty-loving folks when the previous President told us about the "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't exist, for which thousands of Americans lost their lives and tens of thousands more were maimed?

I know where the Becks, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the O'Reillys were. Along with their hero, George W. Bush. They all were staunchly defending all of the government intrustions and lies, telling the rest of us who pointed out these lies that we were "unpatriotic" and "disloyal."

I was originally a Ron Paul supporter. I read and heard Dr. Paul being castigated for his views opposing the wiretapping, the stripping of our civil liberties, the carnage in Iraq. After Dr. Paul dropped out of the race, I became an "Obama-con." I ended up joining the majority in electing our current President. No, I emphatically do not agree with him on all issues, or even most issues; of course he depends too much on the role of government. But he is a ray of sunshine compared with the previous autocratic, authoritarian, big, intrusive government regime of his predecessor.

Many of these current people who are howling and drowning out people were completely silent (or else yelling loudly in support) in the face of big-government neo-"conservatism." The hypocracy of Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity, and their ilk is absolutely appalling.

There are some sincere people who have legitimate issues with the current health care plans being put out on the table. They also had legitimate issues with the autocratic big-government policies of the previous regime. I'm truly surprised at the smaller-government free-market people who think that they truly have any more than peripheral, coincidental views in common with Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Palin, etc.

Once more, from the Cato Institute, one of the few voices of reason:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800

Once more, the relevant excerpt:

"Conservatism itself has changed markedly in recent years, forsaking the old fusionist synthesis in favor of a new and altogether unattractive species of populism. The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions."

I agree fully that we need reform. I agree also that we must insist on calm, rational debate. But I do not agree that current plans for reform are hitting resistance only because of the politically motivated attacks of right-wingers. The president laid the groundwork for the current unrest when he used fear tactics to push through his stimulus bill and then tried to do the same with health-care reform ("There's no time to wait; it has to be done now.") In addition, his own (and his party's) past positions on sanctity of life issues and on the desirability of a single-payer health-care system rendered it inevitable that masses of people would suspect that he wants a) taxpayer funding of abortion, b) bureaucratically designed rationing of health care for the dying, and c) a "public option" as a means to move the country gradually toward a single-payer system. Attacking skeptics by claiming that they are being manipulated by talk-show hosts, and that they are manufacturing "lies," is no way for the White House to restore confidence in the process or in the president himself. And Mr. Wallis does not boost his own credibility by ignoring the Democrats' own culpability in producing the train wreck that is this current health-care debate.

Yes yes yes
a working solution

My. Wallis, the reality is that many, many Americans are very concerned about the intrusion of the government into their daily lives via the current healthcare proposals or through any other means. This view has been shared by like minded American's going back to the very beginning of the country. The position is best summoned up by Thomas Paine who said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." It only took a few times of me waiting in line at the DMV to understand the basic truth of Thomas Paine's words.

I have not been to a town hall meeting, but I did go to the Tea Party held in Atlanta earlier this year. I am going to assume that the people who attended both events are one and the same. Based on my experience this blog has done nothing but promote lies and misinformation about normal American's concerned about the ever growing size and scope of their government. This website might not share the same concerns, but that is no reason malign good people. You actually summoned up my sentiments when you said, "I must personally share with you that I've had enough of the misinformation and, frankly, misleading statements

Great. A "Ministry of Truth" to save our souls from the storm troopers on the radio.

Does the truth simply consist of vilifying the other side? We keep hearing about how we're going to get the real scoop, but all we're getting is the same post over and over, with various (usually nazi-related) insults lobbed at Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

What I don't get is how Jim can keep saying this or that provision isn't in the bill (funding of abortion, "death panel" rumors, etc) but here he says "there isn't even a bill yet". Either there's a bill with specific provisions in it or not in it or there's no bill.

It's similar to how Obama goes around talking about broad idealistic reforms he'd like to see and seems to ignore the fact there are very real, detailed plans emerging from Congress and he doesn't want to deal with the reality that they differ from his ideals. He doesn't want to have to take positions on whether he supports or opposes what's in them. Jim is in a similar situation.

may you learn the gift of reaching out in tolerance and respect is not just those you have compassion for and identify with , but those that actually might be so far removed from morality and worthiness of being loved they actually vote republican. . There is great joy there , because it comes from God , not our own calculated compassion or denominational dos and don'ts .

Let's count the ad hominem arguments and guilt by associations made in this post.

What about people who don't listen to Beck, Limbaugh, etc., who aren't disrupting townhall meetings yet are still seriously disturbed by the reforms being mentioned by Obama and have misgivings that are based on facts, not misinformation? What about those who want reform but not the plans being mentioned by Obama?

These people make up the majority of the opposition, and it would be nice and honest of you to acknowledge our existence. The sanctimony, false outrage, and belittling of anyone who disagrees with you (read: Obama) is getting tired and old.

I know it is strange .The other side is a "mob" so if you disagree your linked to a mob. Eric actually SOJO has avery small religious influence except on the left which they had anyway . But the government control area is small with believers for reasons they do no not understand . But part of it God is in control , and Believers tend to see Government as trying to intrude into God;s domain . The left can not understand how it effects the conscience to have a state supported program that uses our tax dollars to kill the unborn effects us . Instead they will call us a mob, facists and not understand or be concerned about our conscience . I don't get that with someone who says Jesus Christ is Lord of their Lives . Not that they can not believe in bigger government controls , just that they can not understand the whammy on the conscience of another believer . Disagree , vote another way , but to continue to insult and call it truth finding ?

. Their attempt to recruit was lost not on their concern of opening up the conversation , but as this essay does close off the conversation to the I am right , God is on my side , your against God if you disagree mentality that the religious right had that turned so many off.

How can anyone say this reform will cause everything to get better and nothing will be worse . No one can say that with truth , and the aspects of what may not work better may be on people's hearts more then another because we are all different

.

really? you're going to equate Thomas Paine's words to standing in line at the DMV? I kinda stopped taking you seriously when you said that. Someone came across a little crass and you summed that up to the government being intolerable?

The truth is, the government will not leave the country's older citizens out to dry. If anything, it has done everything in the history of itself to help people as they age: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, retirement age, ... weren't those government-started or funded things?

I agree that not all conservatives are monsters (Wallis never even implied monsters- he's simply talking about the current rhetoric that a few big-named individuals have been using to manipulate their audience) but you have to agree that a little government assistance is not such a bad thing either. Think about all the infrastructure that good government has supplied our society. Really, next time you see road construction or a school or a piece of mail or a driver's license or a police officer or countless other things, think about why it's there - People working together for the common good and safety of all.

"Wallis never even implied monsters"

Storm troopers are pretty monstrous. But yes, we are just the proles manipulated by the monstrous, so ignorant are we that we sit and wait for marching orders from Glen Beck prior to forming an opinion about issues.

We are fortunate, in this country, that the DMV is among the worst examples of Paine's thesis. Nonetheless, the DMV is a pain.

I'm a libertarian. I don't want a single payer plan. I am leary of the so-called "public option." I want free-market reform of the insurance and health care industries. I believe that access to health care is a right-to-life issue, not just for people who haven't been born, but also for those who already have been born.

And I have plenty of fears. What I fear is the return of a big-government regime similar to that which preceded Mr. Obama. Where were these same people trumpeting out fears of government intrusion when we had unprecedented government snooping, intrusion, and intervention in foreign affairs during the previous regime?

"My. Wallis, the reality is that many, many Americans are very concerned about the intrusion of the government into their daily lives"

And where were these people when government was intruding into peoples' phones, doing wiretapping?

"American's concerned about the ever growing size and scope of their government."

Where were these people when soldiers were sent overseas on huge government missions, costing untold trillions in wars that were unnecessary, that didn't involve defense of our own country?

"promote lies and misinformation"

And where were all of these allegedly liberty-loving folks when the previous President told us about the "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't exist, for which thousands of Americans lost their lives and tens of thousands more were maimed?

I know where the Becks, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the O'Reillys were. Along with their hero, George W. Bush. They all were staunchly defending all of the government intrustions and lies, telling the rest of us who pointed out these lies that we were "unpatriotic" and "disloyal."

I was originally a Ron Paul supporter. I read and heard Dr. Paul being castigated for his views opposing the wiretapping, the stripping of our civil liberties, the carnage in Iraq. After Dr. Paul dropped out of the race, I became an "Obama-con." I ended up joining the majority in electing our current President. No, I emphatically do not agree with him on all issues, or even most issues; of course he depends too much on the role of government. But he is a ray of sunshine compared with the previous autocratic, authoritarian, big, intrusive government regime of his predecessor.

Many of these current people who are howling and drowning out people were completely silent (or else yelling loudly in support) in the face of big-government neo-"conservatism." The hypocracy of Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity, and their ilk is absolutely appalling.

There are some sincere people who have legitimate issues with the current health care plans being put out on the table. They also had legitimate issues with the autocratic big-government policies of the previous regime. I'm truly surprised at the smaller-government free-market people who think that they truly have any more than peripheral, coincidental views in common with Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Palin, etc.

Once more, from the Cato Institute, one of the few voices of reason:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800

Once more, the relevant excerpt:

"Conservatism itself has changed markedly in recent years, forsaking the old fusionist synthesis in favor of a new and altogether unattractive species of populism. The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions."

Who said we don't end up paying the tab anyway? inspite of our selves we end up paying the inflated price after the clean up.
Lets start doing something that is more proactive about the problem from the front end so it does not cost so much in the aftermath.