Presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently reiterated his belief that the marketplace should determine one's level of success. "Inequality is part of the American system and it should stay that way".
He is for income inequality and equal opportunity.
He is correct since the American capitalistic experiment has produced the greatest wealth of any economy.
Perceived negative inequality (poverty) is not the result of failure of capitalism.
However those in need should be encouraged with compassion.
The current regime is using class warfare, and ultra progressive tax policies to descredit the capitalistic economy.
The people that are waging class warfare are the uberrich. It is not the uberrich that are being foreclosed on. It is not the jobs of the uberrich that are being outsourced to foreign countries. It is not the uberrich whose kids are finding it harder to pay for college. It was the uberrich who benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. It was the uberrich who have benefited most from the income disparity. Prisons are not full of uberrich. Why? Because they can afford the best lawyers.
Why do folks always look for scapegoats? Your concerns are really about bad choices.
The people that are waging class warfare are the uberrich.
No, President Obama is making bad choices and gone against the premise of his campaign speeches of being a "uniter."
It is not the uberrich that are being foreclosed on.
No, the likes of Barney Frank and the democrats thought that every American family should own a home. That is a ludricous, irresponsible, and not even logical choice that $0 down is going to reward Americans without savings into a liability as large as a home. It didn't work, and that bad choice will cost us hard working Americans trying to get ahead our savings accounts.
It is not the jobs of the uberrich that are being outsourced to foreign countries.
I don't like it either. Neither does Rick Santorum. Mr. Obama can talk all he wants about jobs. He continues to make bad choices and continues to make bad choices by not supporting US corporations remaining in the US.
It is not the uberrich whose kids are finding it harder to pay for college.
I don't like it either. Maybe college is a bad choice for some families. Maybe trade schools, community colleges, and certification programs would be a lower cost option to reduce their debt and make a good living.
It was the uberrich who have benefited most from the income disparity.
No, they worked hard, smart, took risks, and made some good choices. Besides, even if low to mid-class Americans don't have discretionary income leftover, business owners and corporations can't sell their products.
Prisons are not full of uberrich.
The uberich you blame did not make the bad choices here. Cmon Gramps, bad decisions and not be being responsible American citizens has brought that up themselves.
Ordinary citizens, even low-income african Americans are getting off. Bad choices somewhere here too. Probably a lack of responsibility for actions again though.
Shar M wrote: Equality was tried once. It didn't work. The USSR is no longer.
I expect this sort of nonsense from calan and opto, but you're better than this, Shar.
Barack Obama ain't taking this country to Marxism or Communism or even Western European-style democratic socialism. If you really believe that Obama is taking us there, I would suggest you don't really know what those terms mean.
Barack Obama's tax policies are to the right of Bill Clinton. Rich people did really well under Bill Clinton. The top 1% grew their share of national income by 4% under Clinton, to levels unseen since the Great Depression (and later topped under Bush and Obama).
Funny, I thought the Declaration of Independence said something like "We hold these truths to be self evident ... that all men (and women) are created equal."
I am not saying the rich need to give up everything for the poor. I am saying they have to pay their fair share of the tax burden. I am saying they should have to follow the laws which apply to all the people. I am saying the rights of the middle class and poor need to be strengthened and protected. I am saying the youth of the middle class and the poor need to be able to get the type of education they deserve in order to raise their own status.
Sorry, not buying into your pity party Gramps. We are certainly not rich. My oldest daughter has worked her way thru an expensive college, with less than 10,000 debt. She busted her a** and has no regrets. She decided she did not want debt. It can be done. Stop blaming everything else with your whanning and start teaching accountability!
Re: Santorum's Inequality
Feb 18, 2012 2:41 PM
in response to: calan
Calan, your daughter is to be commended for her investment in her own future.
I imagine that Calan's daughter gave the extra effort in school because the money was coming out of her pocket, and the sweat was from her pores. She is better off, but many did not have even the meager assets that he did, and many lack good parental figures such as I take him and his wife to be. Some kids need to study more, and cannot be working until midnite, some have parents who never 'got around' to either saving for the child's education, or in inculcating a good work ethic in the offspring.
You want heaven on earth. Unfortunately, due to this whole "sin" thing that has infected humanity and the earth completely, such a world will never exist. It's a humanist fantasy.
No matter what form of government one goes with it is going to be effected negatively by sin. The thing is, the current system gets a lot done simply because it appeals to the sinful nature's greed for more. It does create disparity in classes, but it gets a lot done. Socialism, or governments that make use of a greater quantity of social programs, face problems because they run into another problem of the sinful nature (laziness - 7th commandment issues). People generally will not work if they can receive their needs for free (St. Paul had to tackle that same attitude in one of his epistles). Less gets accomplished in a society like that because accomplishments are not rewarded (it doesn't appeal as much to greed).
Neither method is going to eliminate the poor in our nation (as Jesus said, "the poor you will always have among you"). It used to be that people, especially families and churches, helped their own who had need. Is it possible that because of our own selfish sinful natures we are trying to replace the help we should be offering with government programs?
Charity is no longer charity when it is being forced by the government.
And in all this, What happened to Paul's words about being content with your station in life? Sure, I may never be President of the US or run a Fortune 500 company...but instead of carrying a chip on my shoulder, I can rejoice with the opportunities I do have (sharing God's Gospel full time) which in my opinion is far more rewarding.
Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and first earth had passed away.
Also, this new heaven is not created by politics. It is created by Christ who has prepared his "heaven" for his believers (John 14:3). Peter in his epistles talks about how the current world will be destroyed by fire. Heaven is then given to all those who had faith in Jesus as their Savior (once again, nothing to do with politics). This social gospel which tries to make heaven on earth is a bunch of hogwash and is doomed to fail because it forever ignores sin and its consequences.
From the time I was a child I had thought of heaven as a "place" somewhere up,up,up beyond the clouds and sky.
Then I heard a LCMS Pastor speak of it being on this earth we live on with a loving Christ at the "center" so to speak. No more death, illness, no more bad stuff.
Of course it will be for those who believe in a risen Christ who forgives our sins. The blood of the lamb makes us "whiter then snow."
Re: Santorum's Inequality
Feb 19, 2012 6:07 AM
in response to: Turtletoes2
It won't be on this earth, since this earth is going to be destroyed (pass away) or as Peter said be "destroyed by fire." As the passage you pointed me to says, we will go to a "new earth". You are right, however that Christ will be at the center and we will rejoice in his presence.
Ok, so you agree with my point that politics is not a route in which we try to create heaven on earth. The sinfulness of those hear on earth will always mess things up. Also, like I said, I think we want the government to force charity (especially from the wealthy) because it allows us to be somewhat lazy in how we as Christians help those in need. It used to be that churches and families took care of the needy. Now we are trying to fill that need with government programs. I don't know how that fits in the role of a government, which Romans 13 says is to punish evil and reward good.
santolaguna wrote:It used to be that churches and families took care of the needy. Now we are trying to fill that need with government programs.
The nostalgia here is a little fuzzy.
The reality is that government programs were created because churches and families weren't able to meet the entire need. Before the creation of programs like Social Security, elderly poverty was a huge problem. Today, the elderly are the least likely age group to find themselves in poverty. Are the programs themselves perfect? No, but they are better than what was there before. Would it be great if people voluntarily stepped up and took care of these problems? Yes. But history has shown that we're not up to that challenge of doing it in that way.
Re: Santorum's Inequality
Feb 19, 2012 4:21 PM
in response to: Sean
It just shifted the burden from the elderly to those of working age. Imagine what the poverty levels would be like if people weren't having 15% removed from their check every paycheck. That's almost the proportion of money that lenders suggest to budget for housing payments (22%). It is a fairly significant tax burden to bear, and most recognize that if that money were freed up for personal investment that a person would do far better in the long run.
In essence it is a tax that protects those who are incapable of forming a budget and planning how to wisely use their money and save for retirement, It is a program that works to the disadvantage of the intelligent and hard working.
It is debateable whether we are better off with Social Security. It depends how responsible of a person you are.
I do think you nailed it on the head though when you said all this came into play as love grew cold amongst churches and families. Modern society is much less caring than society of the early 1900s IMO.
I don't know if I would say that society is any less caring than when it was in 1900. I don't know how you could even measure that.
One thing that I do know that was influencial in the development of Social Security was the migration of families leading. More and more the members of the extended family were moving away from hometowns. Sons and daughters were not in the area to take care of Mom and Dad in their old age. Even if they were often times they could not afford to do so (remember this was the Depression)
Time was 2/3 of all elderly were below poverty. Now less than a third are. This has shown to be very successful. Likewise Medicare has been very successful in helping elderly maintain their quality of life.
Oh, and 15% of a individuals income is not taken out of a paycheck. It is only 7.5% The employer has to match the contribution--and don't tell me if an employer did not have to make a matching contribution it would be added to the employees paycheck. There is no proof this would happen.
"It won't be on this earth, since this earth is going to be destroyed (pass away) or as Peter said be "destroyed by fire." As the passage you pointed me to says, we will go to a "new earth". You are right, however that Christ will be at the center and we will rejoice in his presence."
According to the LCMS Pastor who said it, it will be on this earth but this earth will be transformed. Perhaps by fire, I don't know. That's Gods business which is way beyond my understanding but I trust God.
Also, like I said, I think we want the government to force charity (especially from the wealthy) because it allows us to be somewhat lazy in how we as Christians help those in need. It used to be that churches and families took care of the needy. Now we are trying to fill that need with government programs. I don't know how that fits in the role of a government, which Romans 13 says is to punish evil and reward good.
Depends what you call force and most Christians still help those in need regardless of Gov. aid. One way for a Christian to care for the needy as God asks is to petition the Gov.for help for those in jail, the hungry, no place to live, etc. along with their own assistance.
Look, I donate to my church in various ways. That doesn't stop me from helping the needy on my own. One of my favorite charities outside my Church is The Fistula Foundation. Because of the distance the only way I can assist is with a donation.
Closer to home I've helped a person who was between a rock and a hard place with cash and frequently listening to this person and letting her use some of my stuff.
I don't think I'm different in that respect then other caring people Christian or not.
From the above: "Santorum appears to be on a mission to be a one-man Council of Trent, the 16th Century Catholic ecumenical council that defined Protestants as heretics. In a 2008 speech rediscovered this week, Santorum said Mainline Protestants ┐ about 45 million Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists and others ┐ are ┐gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.┐"
If I as an individual or as a member of a church body, out of gratitude for Christs sacrifice for me, help those in need, it doesn't necessarily amount to "social gospel".
There are many Bible passages asking us to help the poor. Matt. 25:34 is a good place to consider "doing unto others."
Perhaps we should be careful about pigeon holing and labeling . I don't intend giving up giving of time and talent when there are so many Bible passages asking/requiring it. It's almost a knee jerk reaction to Gods sacrifice and love for us.
I'm curious, at what time does caring and giving fall into the catagory of Social Gospel and Politics ?
Re: Santorum's Inequality
Feb 19, 2012 4:06 PM
in response to: Turtletoes2
In answer to your question, when it takes presidence over the great commission. Christians will always care for the poor and needy, that's a given. Faith naturally produces good works. But it is not the primary purpose of the church. Many people lose sight of that in their pursuit of making this world a perfect place with no poverty (an impossible goal).
In answer to your question, when it takes presidence over the great commission. Christians will always care for the poor and needy, that's a given. Faith naturally produces good works. But it is not the primary purpose of the church. Many people lose sight of that in their pursuit of making this world a perfect place with no poverty (an impossible goal)
Don't recall the question but If I understand you rightly, I agree..
Sorry, turtletoes, but I have to disagree with you and even with calan. Despite what our constitution says, we are not all born equal. Some are born with way more intellectual ability and some with way more financial ability. But we are all required to do our very best with what God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us. Way too many people don't do that. That's where choice comes in.
You're looking for "an equal playing field." We're not born with an equal playing field but we do have equal opportunity using the gifts we've been given. I was born to a poor family who could not possibly afford college, yet I had the opportunity to go to college if I was willing to work hard enough and long enough.
But, of course, it's sometimes the wealthy people who don't work hard. Paris Hilton can live her life of luxury on the earnings from her parents and grandparents and pay a lower tax rate than people who work hard everyday trying to move up the ladder.
That's why we need to go back to wisdom of the Reagan tax reform of 1986 and treat a dollar of income as a dollar of income for the purpose of the income tax.
Oh, you had to bring up Paris Hilton, didn't ya? I agree with you, Sean. A dollar of income should be taxed as a dollar of income. I am not in favor of special tax breaks for the rich. The loopholes and tax dodges need to be gone. But as long as the tax code is what it is, the wealthy would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
It was me who said all men and women are created equal--actually it is the Declaration of Independence that says that. This was in response to a privilege few claiming to have the divine right of rule over others. It was a very radical statement in the 1700's. Still is today.
From your posting, you seem to be looking for a scapegoat; i.e,"the likes of Barney Frank" (homophobe?); check out Wikipedia.
Boy, where do you get your info from? The "uberrich" don't generally "work"; they are making "good choices" for them - keeping the 99% below their status. I can't comment on "smart" as this seems to just be an adjective thrown in.
"Besides, even if low to mid-class Americans don't have discretionary income leftover, business owners and corporations can't sell their products." Class and income ARE NOT synomous. What point are you trying to make? Ever hear the term FIFO? Could the fact that products, according to you, were not sold was due to FILO or stock was depleated. Or, may be the products were not worth purchasing, poor quality, obsolete, etc. Where's your source of information?
"Ordinary citizens, even low-income (hurray, you caught on) africian (sic) Americans are getting off." ( Are you speaking of the pleasure principle?) Are you aware of the FACT that there are MORE poor caucasians than AAs?
See www.census/gov.compendia/statab/2012/tables/1250711.pdf. Since this was tabulated during Mr. Obama's "regime", I wonder if you will doubt the data.
You have my heartfelt apology. I initially concluded, based on your posts, that you are a misanthrope. How mistaken I was. You are a misogynist.
I neither need nor want any sympathy, especially from you or your fellow zealots who have to resort to demeaning slurs to get their beliefs out there. I would suggest you try a little empathy.
Guess what, you are so wrong in so many areas.
Your statement that I "attacked" you? Could that be the result of different levels of education? How do you know what "hand" I was dealt or what I did with it? Very arogant on your part, not to mention inaccurate.
I am not jealous. I no longer shop at the original Tiffany and Co. because I do not need any more bobbles.
Your law-and-order stance suggests that perhaps you are a prison guard? I have had the "pleasure" of knowing some, including the top administrators. Unfortunately, too often the only difference is the possession of the keys.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself behind bars...the facility will get the "job done", not attorneys
I also would suggest that your belief that brains are the same needs some research.
By the way, our society is not black and white; there are also Latinos and Asians and wonderful variants. Again, you are confusing facts: race and culture are not the same. The world is full of all nationalities adding to the diversity*.* Only your thinking is black and white.
Just an aside, do you even know how many lawyers are in Congress? (Not including all on the Supreme Court or the President and his wife.) Some job they have done.
Yep, it is like a shell game where the dealer will palm the ball as he is moving the cups around, then asking the victim to pick a cup. The victim will always make the bad choice.
The uberrich have learned to stack the deck against the middle class and the poor forcing the middle class victim to make a bad choice.
I recently posted a story about a financier in Denver who got only six months probation for stealing six million dollars vis a vis a poor black man in South Carolina who spent nearly thirty years in prison for stealing a black and white television that was worth $150 dollars.
You can't tell me the uberrich are above making bad choices. There is a axiom in law school that says the one who can afford the best lawyer will generally win.
It is not the uberrich whose kids are finding it harder to pay for college. I don't like it either. Maybe college is a bad choice for some families. Maybe trade schools, community colleges, and certification programs would be a lower cost option to reduce their debt and make a good living.
We are not talking about families. We are talking about equal opportunity for students. Your statement assumes there are two classes of people. Those who can afford college, and those who can't. If you can't get a trade and live with it. Deal of it is, so many of the trades have been shipped overseas.
Ever since the 50's it has been assumed if a student wants to get a four year degree, they should have the opportunity to do so. That is why we came up with the GI Bill for veterans, Pell Grants for lower middle class, scholarships based on merit and student loans.
I would also like to point out that they were/are NOT the ones whose children fought/fight on foreign soils to preserve the rights of ALL Americans, including the arrogant and greedy, to return home in flag-draped caskets.
"Perceived negative inequality (poverty)" is often employed to convey lack of moral fiber and disregard for others.
What is you definition of "encouraged with compassion"?
Please elaborate on your view that "the current regime is using class warfare, (sic) and ultra progressive tax policies to discredit the capitalistic economy."
I would suggest that Santorum is a wannabe super rich. Sorry Rick, the 1% don't have time, interest, or room for you. And that may be the real source of his "inequality if part of the American system".
opto86 wrote: He is for income inequality and equal opportunity.
Then, what is he going to do ensure equal opportunity? Because it doesn't exist today.
The current regime is using class warfare, and ultra progressive tax policies to descredit the capitalistic economy.
Seriously, if such patently absurd nonsense is all you've got, you should really just stop and save yourself the embarrassment.
The FACTS are: Barack Obama's tax proposals in his 2013 budget would have a lower rate of revenue collection than Clinton-era tax rates. There's nothing "ultra-progressive" about it.
The FACTS are that every Republican candidate is proposing huge cuts that benefit the wealthy. The average millionaire under Santorum's plan would have their tax rate cut more than in half and pay $581,000 less in taxes. That, my friends, is class warfare.
Sean- I don't believe you make any sense at all when you speak of Mr. Obama and a ......budget? Get real!
Tax cuts, less regulation will create and keep jobs. Tell us Sean, how does the federal government create jobs? How do the feds pay for the jobs? With the deficit already out of sight, where can Mr. Obama keep getting the funds to borrow us into employment?
calan wrote:Tax cuts, less regulation will create and keep jobs.
Have you been asleep the last decade? What you propose is exactly what we've been doing since 2000. It hasn't worked!
Tell us Sean, how does the federal government create jobs?
The federal government creates jobs by creating the proper conditions for the economy to grow. The proper conditions for the economy to grow, however, means far more than the tax code -- which is what conservatives have become ignorant of.
The partisan stalemate in Washington suggests that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. But today┐s lawmakers could do worse than to follow the Industrial Commission┐s broader example of democratic debate. The national conversation about inequality is already underway. The least they could do is listen.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, He is a fool - shun him
He who knows not and knows he knows not, He is simple - teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, He is asleep - wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, He is wise; follow him.