Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Sep 14, 2008.
Greenspan has the right answer:
"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.
Everything goes to the chopping block that is not a Constitutional Federal requirement.
And we should start with entitlement programs.
What about Faith based initiatives?
All programs should go through the state. It makes no sense to take money from the states only to send it back to the states but with less money than went out and ungodly rules attached to it.
Are you saying we should reduce Federal tax and raise State tax?
NO.Why would you think so?
YES! eliminate the federal income tax and let the states collect at the local level. The worst result of the national tax is the voters in each state think that the money they get from the feds is being ripped off from people in other states. Why should the people in Texas pay for bridges in Oregon?
So you advocate cutting the programs all together.
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
I wonder if you know what that word "charity" actually means since you are quoting the KJV. It doesn't make your point to be sure. And as you know I am against wealth redistribution. The government is a poor way to handle life.
Love and Charity are interchangeable. They are so closely tied together they have the same meaning and KJV chose charity. Inserting Love doesn't change the meaning of this verse.
But it changes the context.