Why can't Chritians have free speech?

Preface: An article came out today showing that the red states are more charitable than blue states. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41409

I think we ought to care for the needy... I simply reject the idea that the best vehicle for that is government.

Nope. Prior to 1994 the GOP had not controlled the House for 40 years. They only controlled the Senate for 2 years under Reagan.

Such as? As the gap between the poor and wealthy is wider than ever, and more are under the poverty line than ever, with little to no safety netas in place... I have no idea what you're referring to.</font>[/QUOTE] Sorry but you're wrong again. You can't look at simple dollars nor even at income. You have to look at wealth relative to the value of the dollar. Additionally, you have to look at opportunity for upward mobility.

BTW, the term "poverty" has become relative. In the US, the average person living below the poverty line owns a home, multiple tv's, has cable, has access to the internet, owns at least one car, washer/dryer, microwave, always has clothes, always has sufficient food, etc. "Poverty" has been redefined to mean something that much of the world would consider "wealthy".

Further, the poverty line if I am not mistaken has been tied to the US COLA. So up until a few years ago, that line was rising much faster than the actual rate of inflation. In other words, our poverty numbers are inflated.

The one thing that can be said though is that recessions cause an increase of the number below the poverty line. New jobs, like the 327,000 created last month and over 2 million in the last year, shift that figure back in the other direction.

Not blame. Just facts. Clinton could not have prevented the recession. Liberals just shouldn't be dishonest about it.

Our economy cycles. Federal policy on taxes and regulations can help or hurt to a degree... but they cannot stop the cycles.

What is unshown is that they across the board tax cut is not having a very positive effect on our economy right now. What is unshown is that by percentage of income the wealthy benefited more than the middle class. What is unshown is that investors at more cake because they got a tax cut rather than investing it in business activities that are now producing American jobs.

Neither of these things are true. Outsourcing is not the problem many claim although I think it is not something to ignore completely.

What should we do? Demand gov't action? No. Refuse to buy or use services that come from outsourced jobs. I have resolved to ask customer service people where they are from now on and refuse to use those who are off shore.

Small business is actually leading the recovery while many large corporations are still trying to "right size" and find some footing. Small businesses have proven to be much more nimble in responding to changing economic factors. They are also less encumbered by organized labor which chokes many large corps.

 

We're just going to have to disagree on this point, methinks...</font>[/QUOTE] Why? You aren't interested in proof? Socialism doesn't work... except it makes everyone equally worse off.

And appealing to wedge issues is not another form of this, except without the benefits? Families are in need, and liberals are for helping them; if lower and middle-class families were willing to listen to real issues rather than wedges... </font>[/QUOTE] Wedge issues steal votes? There is nothing dishonest about espousing a position on public policies concerning abortion or gay marriage. There is extreme dishonesty in promising a bigger gov't check if a politician gets elected. That's called buying votes with other people's money.

But nothing says it cannot be done... and these principle's importance is in that these people in need get helped, not on how its done. </font>[/QUOTE] Wrong twice. God condemns the act of trusting in man and man's system. He prescribes that the church is to couple evangelism with caring for the needy.

Further, God does care about how things get done. He does care about whether men get the glory or He gets the glory. In fact, it is just the opposite of what you said. It is quite the opposite of God's purposes when secular charity impedes opportunities for the church to fulfill the mission He gave it. We are impeded as gov't provides another option using money that is taken from us.

Idea: why can't we have a direct tax credit for money we put toward adding the poor?

No one says you cannot evangelize; you simply cannot use common resources for that specific purpose, given the different faiths and beliefs that put into this common goal of social justice!</font>[/QUOTE] In other words, my money should be taken to help the poor but my beliefs must be silenced concerning that "charity".

This is filled to the brim with fallacies;</font>[/QUOTE] Then why don't you actually cite one.

What? That is an incoherent statement that doesn't even answer my contention at all. Small businesses are still starting and succeeding. Immigrants are still entering the US and achieving success. Natives are still building businesses and careers. Corporations don't even hold or control the majority of the wealth in our country.

You need to get out of the classroom and into the real world. I went through the education system including 4 years of college. I have worked for companies of various size. I have never been with a company that didn't want employees who were willing to work for success. Most new business start-ups spin off of existing companies with people thinking they have ideas and philosophies that can succeed. Gov't doesn't breed new businesses... businesses do.

Corporate and business oversight is a legitimate function of gov't. But taxing productive businesses to reward unproductive people for doing nothing but voting a certain way, is harmful to the welfare of all of us.

It is a universally true axiom that you get more of whatever you are willing to pay for. If we pay for people to be unproductive and irresponsible, we won't solve those problems rather they will become worse. If we give people a helping hand with the clear understanding that the assistance is temporary to let them get on their feet, fine.

That is categorically untrue... You obviously have a misunderstanding about whose money we are talking about. It isn't yours. It isn't the those who you think needs it. It isn't the gov't's.

It belongs to those who have earned it- who haven't sat around whining and complaining about obstacles but have used every ounce of effort, strength, and knowledge they have to overcome those obstacles.

Who do you think YOU are to say how other people's money should be spent or distributed? If you want something that doesn't belong to you, you ask for it... not demand it.

They have a fair chance. They have an even better chance than most of the people in American history who have suceeded.

Who are you to say what is fair? Is it fair that someone who grew up in my neighborhood with exactly the same opportunities but squandered them should now get a share of what I earn?

I paid for my own education.

I provide my own health care, child care, etc. I did/do what is necessary within the ethical/moral/legal bounds to provide for mine. How is it fair that you get to take part of my earnings and give them to someone who has not done this?... Someone who thinks I (through the gov't) owe them the things you mentioned and much more.

What do liberals and their beneficiaries give in return? They resent people like me and our values rather than giving us respect for being successful... partly because of those values.

I grew up in southern Appalachia. I borrowed and earned scholarships to go to college. I made sacrifices to achieve success. My life is the classic, comprehensive rebuttal to your insenuation that the reason people can't get ahead is because government isn't relieving them of enough of their personal responsibilities.

BTW, Where do you propose these people get "employment opportunity"? You don't think Presidents or the gov't really create the jobs do you? What do you think will make them productive? Gov't or a well managed, well funded business?

I do. You obviously have no grasp on how to do this. Hint: you can't doing it by increasing the size and scope of government.

I am not. Neither do I resent those who have been blessed with wealth. They provide opportunities for the rest of us and pay our salaries... including yours as a teacher through taxes.

 

Last warning before closure.

 

Last warning before closure. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry. I had been working on my response when you posted the first warning.