Economy

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Lord of Alcohol I do not quite understand why so many middle class people are so willing to let the rich escape paying taxes while they take up the slack. Misology seems to rule them.

Yep... But the thing ruling them are/is (?) the words of their supposed, alleged representatives who tell them what to think whilst taking lobbying money from those who are rich.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Why not end welfare for the rich before taking it from the least privileged among us? Social welfare is necessary and unavoidable. The poor, sick, elderly, and indigent will cost us money whether we have a program in place to manage their needs or not. But yeah, I guess cutting money off from the poor rather than raising taxes on the rich from their 50year low would be exactly what Jesus would do.

For a man who doesn't believe you sure have a lot to say about what Jesus would do. Interesting very interesting.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by John D Harris For a man who doesn't believe you sure have a lot to say about what Jesus would do. Interesting very interesting.

I do not deny the existence of the man or his philosophy. I may not think he's a diety, but that doesn't keep me from thinking about what he had to say. At least I don't claim to believe in the guy and then spit on his name by spitting on the poor. But that's okay, apparently sometime in the last 2000 years someone discovered a needle with a really large eye.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Why not end welfare for the rich before taking it from the least privileged among us? Social welfare is necessary and unavoidable. The poor, sick, elderly, and indigent will cost us money whether we have a program in place to manage their needs or not. But yeah, I guess cutting money off from the poor rather than raising taxes on the rich from their 50year low would be exactly what Jesus would do.

By all means, yes--there should never have been programs in place to give money back, in any form, to those who are already on the upper end of the income distribution curve.

On a personal level, we are responsible for the poor, sick, elderly, and/or indigent in our own families, which is precisely what Christ taught. I can see, though, allowing for a collective way to give some care for those people--that was simply one of the things the framers didn't consider because in their day you took care of your family members and not anyone else.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis I do not deny the existence of the man or his philosophy. I may not think he's a diety, but that doesn't keep me from thinking about what he had to say. At least I don't claim to believe in the guy and then spit on his name by spitting on the poor. But that's okay, apparently sometime in the last 2000 years someone discovered a needle with a really large eye.

hmmm spitting on the poor where are the socall WWJD crowd doing that? IS Government programs the only way to take care of the poor? WOW???? Since you think about what he said prehaps you could show me where he said that we are to give to the government so they can give to the poor? I haven't read that I have read where he spoke about giving to the poor, but nothing about giving to the government so they can give to the poor. Supply the evidence for that...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by John D Harris hmmm spitting on the poor where are the socall WWJD crowd doing that? IS Government programs the only way to take care of the poor? WOW???? Since you think about what he said prehaps you could show me where he said that we are to give to the government so they can give to the poor? I haven't read that I have read where he spoke about giving to the poor, but nothing about giving to the government so they can give to the poor. Supply the evidence for that...

The fact that Jesus didn't specify from a political science perspective how we implement the moral system he was teaching doesn't carry the argument. The question is how do we spend government money, and the answer from a WWJD perspective is that caring for the poor, elderly, and sick is an important item to include.

Between two choices, cutting spending for the poor vs. cutting spending from anything else, one is more obviously a winner from the WWJD perspective. The same is true if you compare cutting spending for the poor vs. raising taxes on millionaires a scooch up from 50-yr. lows.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis The fact that Jesus didn't specify from a political science perspective how we implement the moral system he was teaching doesn't carry the argument. The question is how do we spend government money, and the answer from a WWJD perspective is that caring for the poor, elderly, and sick is an important item to include. Between two choices, cutting spending for the poor vs. cutting spending from anything else, one is more obviously a winner from the WWJD perspective. The same is true if you compare cutting spending for the poor vs. raising taxes on millionaires a scooch up from 50-yr. lows.

So...are you really advocating that we spend government money according to Christian principles? I am just trying to clarify this so that we are on the same page.

Now...to address this supposed "default" we are facing on 2 August. The debt ceiling is nothing more than the limit of the total outstanding securities that can be issued by the Treasury. Right now the Social Security Administration is holding sufficient Treasury securities to sell some, issue the payments that they are by law required to make, and thus allowing the Treasury to sell more securities without passing through the debt ceiling. Not only is this not surprising, it is how the government normally functions all the time. It even tells us right here, on the SSA's site, that the agency holds money not needed in the current year and specifies the correct strategy to apply:

A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.

Also...as we all know, the amount of money withheld from paychecks used to be 6.2% but got lowered to 4.2% in 2010. Although nearly everyone thought this would be a great idea--more money in pocket and less going to the government is always a good thing--a good conspiracy theorist would be telling us that Washington lowered those taxes just so a debt ceiling crisis would emerge at some point, pushing people to react wildly out of emotion. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

What Washington is really fearing is not default but a government shutdown--Federal agencies will have to close and furlough employees until money becomes available.

It was almost funny to see President Obama talking about how important it is to raise the debt ceiling in his little address, which was short on detail but long on quasi-campaigning. If raising the debt ceiling is so important, I ask this again: why did he vote against it--twice--while he was a Senator during Bush's last term?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred I ask this again: why did he vote against it--twice--while he was a Senator during Bush's last term?

He's answered this directly. He said it was a political vote by a naive young Senator. Stewart teased him on that one, since it was only a couple of years ago and unless he found a time machine he's not much older or wiser now.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred So...are you really advocating that we spend government money according to Christian principles? I am just trying to clarify this so that we are on the same page.

No, just the good ones.

[Azred]

Well spoken, sir.

I'm getting the popcorn ready and waiting for the impending governmental shutdown--I think it will actually be good for us. It won't be the first time and we never crashed and burned any other time.

Seriously, though, the markets are not really reacting to the lack of budget deals because they know that someone at the last minute will blink and that some sort of deal will be signed. Politicians always talk tough but they really don't have the moxie to back up their talk.