One Issue Voters

How can we afford to feed any other country when we are in debt to our ears. We need to withdraw all outside help until we get our debt under control.

 

How is this not really just the argument that "since we're better than others, we do not need to change."?

The point is not how other nations fare in relation to generosity to the US.

The American Christian voter should want something better than (perhaps, and I repeat perhaps) being "the most generous" of a set of wealthy nations that all fall well short of the Scriptural standard.

My initial point in all this was that neither candidate would be satisfactory in respect to enacting the kingdom of God values that we Christians are called to advocate for in the political domain.

And the point stands. To the extent that Mr. McCain places America's interests ahead of those in the rest of the world, he is "doing power the world's way". And that is not the gospel way.

A candidate that truly represented the kingdom would never stand a chance.

 

This may be a good point. I am no economist and I do not know how to evaluate a "bottom line" measure of wealth that takes debt into account. But the point is that truly Christian leadership would do all sorts of things that neither candidate would do. It would be political suicide to make kingdom of God values the platform for a party. It would involve things like:

1. Changes in environmental policy that hurt;

2. Increases in taxes to fund foreign aid (please note: even if you believe the US is the most generous nation, that is not the point);

3. Not taking military actions unless they were absolutely necessary.

Let's look at number 3 for a moment. Suppose that a president is given strong intelligence that Osama is known to be a certain location in Pakistan. But the Pakistani government, for some reason refuses to grant the US permission to send cruise missiles into Pakistan. And the Pakistanis are not willing to go get him. And suppose it is also true that Osama is deemed to pose little immediate threat to the USA.

Should the US send some cruise missiles into his compound, knowing these things and that there may be some "innocent" people there as well?

I suggest the Christian answer under these circumstances is probably "no". Bringing OBL to justice is a good thing. Damaging relations with Pakistan, establishing a bad precedent of violating another country's sovereignty, and risking killing innocent people is not.

But, and perhaps I am being cynical here, a president would be committing suicide politically if he or she did not send the cruise missiles.

The American people (and others) understandably want justice to be brought to OBL. But, under the stated circumstances, other considerations should over-rule. But I suspect they would not. But this is just my opinion.

 

Here are better options:

1. No new taxes
2. Stop all entitlement programs and unnecessary spending not related to the deficit
3. With draw all foreign aid
4. Return most all control over commerce, highways, and public assistance to the states where it constitutionally belongs.
5. Drop Federal Representatives salaries dramatically
6. Put term limits on all representatives
7. At the end of the deficit stop most federal taxes excluding enough to cover small salaries for federal pres, the military, and protection within our borders
8. Leave any foreign aid up to individual states
9. Leave all entitlement programs, highway concerns and commerce up to individual states
10. Never carry either a deficit or a surplus

 

That sounds exactly like the direction we've been taking for several generations!

America has been greatly blessed but America has shared its blessings with the rest of the world and in some cases not so wisely.

Let's be real about this assessment!

 

You lie a lot. Why would I respond to your lies?

Until you are truthful about what I actually said, that is all the response you will get.

 

That seems to be his habit recently. The desperation is growing with the libs this political season.

 

deleted own post

 

One word: Iraq.

There was no military need to go into Iraq.

 

Round and round we go! I don't agree with the conclusion that there was "no military need to go into Iraq" because there were many as detailed in the US Congressional resolution that authorized the intervention and war to carry it out. However, I'm rather pleased that you brought this up because by your own standards we were absolutely right to have intervened in Iraq if for no other reasons that to save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator - to help them because we could. The UN - that "wonderful" agency that represents the "world" whose interests should, by your standards, come first - wanted us to enforce their resolutions being powerless to do so on their own and lacking members with the political will to do so. Either the good old USA doing what none other will and few can! By your standard it would not matter whether or not it was in America's best interest because we shouldn't be thinking about that. We, in effect, accomplished the result of liberating the people of Iraq from their dictator but we also did for what we sincerely believed were our own best interests. I happen to still believe it was in our own best interests provided we stay with it to a full and complete end and don't let all the quitters change the outcome.