Seperation of Church-n-State

[Shogun]

This thread is pretty damn ironic after the 2004 "christians cant vote democrat" and "God WANTS W in the white house" crap.



The concept that ANY belief is a faith totally discounts the relevance of EVIDENCE. Kinda like how it is now EVIDENT that their 04 pony and the PR Machine that hooked em along wasn't so much god as it was the puppetmaster with a hand up to an elbow up their collective asses.

im going to have fun with this guy.

 

[Mr. Right]

Sounds like you are still blaming everyone else for your problems.

don't have any problems. I'm just evangelizing.

Has a government hand out ever made anyone independent or wealthy?

NO.

 

[Mr. Right]

Back to the subject;

Has any liberal social program ever eliminated poverty?

No.

Then why keep spending money on things that don't work?

The answer is, these things keep certain people in power.

The religious left is on the attack. They keep telling you that Atlantic City will be under water in 5 years.

So why isn't beachfront property up for sale at a discount?

Global Climate warming Change isn't happening.

They'll only change the name to suit what ever hysterical theory they have.

[I have a theory but it's about selling light-bulbs]

 

[busara]

no not at all.

I'm a simple truck driver who delivers to some of the most prestigious universities on the east coast. Like Wharton for instance.

Economics and hard sciences do not have the level of dogma that some other studies have.

I do listen to Denis Prager.


You have to know that there is something major brewing.

When groups of companies buy oil at double what the price should be, it tends to raise big red flags.

If the price tanks, all of your gas stations will go under.

They are buying at this price because they believe that if Obama is elected, the likelihood of an attack on oil supplies are more likely. The price might wind up at $200/barrel if there is an attack.

Plus, Saudi Arabia has bought into many of our banks and they have infiltrated our congress with laundered campaign money.

You only have to look at Bill Clinton's library. Hillary Clinton was unelectable. There is Saudi money flowing into her campaign. Obama has the tree huggers and welfare cases. Both of those groups have given him large amounts of cash. Plus the Clinton's are being thrown overboard by the radical left.

Don't worry, John McCain is a socialist too. You're going to get a democrat. It just wont be a radical leftist like Barrack.

McCain wins 45 states. landslide. [he'll die in office and Romney will have the next 8 years]

When Romnay is president and new age of American greatness will begin. Why?
EASY, He'll get the government out of your way by eliminating the tax code.

New Jersey will wind up with a republican governor and tolls will be done away with. The rest of the country will follow and we will show the world that America is the land of freedom.

We need to scrap socialist, Ponzi schemes like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare etc.

Only the free market can resolve itself.

[Fanny and Freddie are socialist programs]

this has nothing to do with what i posted. you change topics so often i couldnt even follow what you were trying to say, other than to insite fear w/o any real base. do you have sources for all your claims?

by the way, the free market is inherently flawed
Bob Harris: "Nobel Economics Winner Says Market Forces Flawed"

 

[editec]

i took many an economics course, and most students believed in supply side and the free market. my keynesian view was the minority.

I think you are mostly correct.

Keynesian economics has been largely replaced as the dogma of our age by the economic faith of Friedrich Hayek.

Keynesian economics is the system that helped bring us out of the GREAT depression, but it lost favor in the last thirty years or so, as the Great Society's excesses were finally recognized as something less than great.

Both, of course, favor capitalism as the preferred economic system for generating wealth, but they differ greatly as to the degree which we should give our government power to mitigate the inevitable outcome of laisse faire economics.

Both schools of economics have vaid points to make about how mankind can forge the society's economy in relation to the power it gives governments.

The pendulum of ideas swings back and forth between the right of property V. the rights of society to protect itself from the excesses of property rights.

Swing too far in either direction and the outcome is totalitarianism, either of the government of insiders , or of insiders of the monied class.

We will never find exactly the right balance, of course, because times change and with those changes comes new stresses on the system.

That is EXACTLY why we need supporters who lean toward both schools of thought.

Clearly there are times when having a more laisse fare system will serve us better than having a more restricted capitalism.

Clearly also, there are times when it serves us better to give government greater control over our society.

Balance, folks.

Finding the right balance of freedom for the individual in relation to the needs of the society to check those freedoms is always going to be what each generation faces.

For those of you who are just now entering the fray, welcome.

For those of us who have witnessed the latest change of balance from Keynesian to Hayekian schools of though, remember how niave we once were about liberalism and Keynesian economics.

Remember that we too thought we had all the answers, and remember, too that we often thought that anyone who disagreed was basically a fascist scrooge, just as we are now so often accused of being socialists or communists.

 

[Mr. Right]

this has nothing to do with what i posted. you change topics so often i couldnt even follow what you were trying to say, other than to insite fear w/o any real base. do you have sources for all your claims?

by the way, the free market is inherently flawed
Bob Harris: "Nobel Economics Winner Says Market Forces Flawed"

a nobel peace prize just lets everyone know how liberal you are.

It has everything to do with what you posted.

You believe the market is flawed.


this economic fantasy you speak of lengthened the Great Depression.

[who but a leftist would call an economic down turn "Great"]

If the market was left to do it's work, there wouldn't have been a depression, just a 12 month recession.

It is. That's why it corrects itself constantly.

It tends to get rid of the weak. Much like evolution. Only the strong survive.

Don't you believe in evolution?

Or did God Create Wall St.?

on the 8th day God said "Let there be Merrill Lynch!

And there was money.

 

[Mr. Right]

I think you are mostly correct.

Keynesian economics has been largely replaced as the dogma of our age by the economic faith of Friedrich Hayek.

Keynesian economics is the system that helped bring us out of the GREAT depression, but it lost favor in the last thirty years or so, as the Great Society's excesses were finally recognized as something less than great.

Both, of course, favor capitalism as the preferred economic system for generating wealth, but they differ greatly as to the degree which we should give our government power to mitigate the inevitable outcome of laisse faire economics.

Both schools of economics have vaid points to make about how mankind can forge the society's economy in relation to the power it gives governments.

The pendulum of ideas swings back and forth between the right of property V. the rights of society to protect itself from the excesses of property rights.

Swing too far in either direction and the outcome is totalitarianism, either of the government of insiders , or of insiders of the monied class.

We will never find exactly the right balance, of course, because times change and with those changes comes new stresses on the system.

That is EXACTLY why we need supporters who lean toward both schools of thought.

Clearly there are times when having a more laisse fare system will serve us better than having a more restricted capitalism.

Clearly also, there are times when it serves us better to give government greater control over our society.

Balance, folks.

Finding the right balance of freedom for the individual in relation to the needs of the society to check those freedoms is always going to be what each generation faces.

For those of you who are just now entering the fray, welcome.

For those of us who have witnessed the latest change of balance from Keynesian to Hayekian schools of though, remember how niave we once were about liberalism and Keynesian economics.

Remember that we too thought we had all the answers, and remember, too that we often thought that anyone who disagreed was basically a fascist scrooge, just as we are now so often accused of being socialists or communists.

Balance is the key.

We should be taxing a stable sector instead of income.

If we were to tax sales. We'd wind up with a better way of predicting revenue. Plus you'd stop punishing productivity.

 

[Shogun]

Looks like we've got a stupid right winger totally ignorant of the solution his 04 presidential choice gave to the supposed "only the strong survive" market lately.


Rich, lemme tellya.



Treasury Acts to Shore Up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14fannie.html?ref=washington


or, hey.. MY favorite conservative fuckup.. PLEASE, tell me more about that "natural market correcting itself" and how it's the LIBERALS shitting in the pond!


Fed Tax Break Encourages SUV Purchases
Tax Breaks Help Small Business Buy Big SUVs, But Help for Hybrids May Vanish

Thanks to a generous tax credit, Karl Wizinsky is driving a very large vehicle these days — a 2002 Ford Excursion.

"It doesn't hurt to have a larger vehicle, but I wouldn't say it's a requirement of my business," he said on a cell phone while driving the Excursion. "But I ended up saving $32,000."

This year, the perks of buying a large SUV — if you're a small business owner — got even bigger.

Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush's economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.

When Wizinsky's accountant told him about the credit last year, the amount was much less, at $75,000, but it was enough to encourage Wizinsky to trade in his Mercury Marquis for the Excursion.

"It sounded too good to be true," said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi, Mich. "But it was true. So I bought the SUV. For a small company like mine it's a significant credit."

Hybrid Earns Smaller Break

Meanwhile, legislation that offers a much smaller tax break — a $2,000 tax deduction — to those who purchase fuel-efficient hybrid cars is on track to be phased out. Congress is considering legislation that would extend the tax deduction to encourage consumers to buy the hybrid cars, but the status of the bill remains uncertain.

Even though the large vehicle tax credit applies only to the self-employed while the hybrid car tax deduction applies to anyone who buys a hybrid, the stark contrast between the two amounts has environmentalists crying foul.

"You can't fault people for taking advantage of the credit if they're using the vehicles for business — it's a rational choice," said David Friedman, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But why should taxpayers' dollars go toward buying bigger and bigger vehicles? Instead, the government should be encouraging people and small business owners to buy fuel-efficient cars."

ABC News: Fed Tax Break Encourages SUV Purchases






indeed.. im going to have fun with you, dude.

 

['ol Perfessor]

Religion and State should be separate. Lutheran Christianity is not the only religion in America. I don't want my tax dollars breeding the next Muslim jihadists. Nor do I want those backward fundies from the Phelps' clan spreading their hate to my kids in public schools. Same goes with mormons and the 7th day adventists. Kudos to our founding fathers for having the foresight to recognize the dangers of religious tyranny and putting a safeguard in the form of the 1st Amendment. Separation of Church and State is about as right wing as you can get.

Al that our founding fathers wanted was not to have a "Church of England" style of theocracy like England had, (has). All of them believed that only a
Christian nation could pull off a Democracy consisting of independent states and a limited federal government. There are guiding principles that religion bestows upon her children that allow our athiests to stammer and spit, our pervets to speak out without danger of being jailed or killed for their perversions; There is no where else in the world where that can be said except where the tolerence in the Judeo-Christian belief system prevails. the 'ol perfessor.

 

[Charles_Main]

I do not get why so many people can not understand what establishing religion means. Clearly it was never meant to be interpeted the way it has been today. People are taking it to the extream. As long as they are not making laws that establish a state religion I see no violation of church and state.

 

[Jeepers]

The point is:

Radical Liberalism is our country's biggest threat.

These religious zealots are preaching hate. They poison the minds of our youth with socialist dogma throughout text books and other media exposure.

We need to separate these religious fanatics from our government.

Their Pope is AL GORE!

Secular Humanism must be declared a religion. [they can even get tax exempt status]

Me thinks Mr Wrong stopped by the Unitarian church the other day.

 

[Jeepers]

Al that our founding fathers wanted was not to have a "Church of England" style of theocracy like England had, (has). All of them believed that only a
Christian nation could pull off a Democracy consisting of independent states and a limited federal government. There are guiding principles that religion bestows upon her children that allow our athiests to stammer and spit, our pervets to speak out without danger of being jailed or killed for their perversions; There is no where else in the world where that can be said except where the tolerence in the Judeo-Christian belief system prevails. the 'ol perfessor.

Youre grouping atheists with perverts? WTf.. its you jesus lovers that go around buggering young children...

 

[Ravi]

I do not get why so many people can not understand what establishing religion means. Clearly it was never meant to be interpeted the way it has been today. People are taking it to the extream. As long as they are not making laws that establish a state religion I see no violation of church and state.

How was in meant to be interpreted?

 

[Rhys]

Al that our founding fathers wanted was not to have a "Church of England" style of theocracy like England had, (has). All of them believed that only a
Christian nation could pull off a Democracy consisting of independent states and a limited federal government. There are guiding principles that religion bestows upon her children that allow our athiests to stammer and spit, our pervets to speak out without danger of being jailed or killed for their perversions; There is no where else in the world where that can be said except where the tolerence in the Judeo-Christian belief system prevails. the 'ol perfessor.

The Church of England is an established church, but for a very long time all that has meant is that important State occasions like coronations are marked by Church ceremonies and that the Prime Minister interferes in the appointment of Bishops so, whatever it might have been in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (and it was hardly a theocracy even then) it is of no very total importance except as a civilizing influence now.

Fortunately, it has never committed itself to that extraordinary American concept, a 'Judeo-Christian belief system.' You mean you regard Jesus as the Son of God AND as a total imposter? You need a new Creed, I think.

 

[Rhys]

no not at all.

I'm a simple truck driver who delivers to some of the most prestigious universities on the east coast. Like Wharton for instance.

Economics and hard sciences do not have the level of dogma that some other studies have.

I do listen to Denis Prager.


You have to know that there is something major brewing.

When groups of companies buy oil at double what the price should be, it tends to raise big red flags.

If the price tanks, all of your gas stations will go under.

They are buying at this price because they believe that if Obama is elected, the likelihood of an attack on oil supplies are more likely. The price might wind up at $200/barrel if there is an attack.

Plus, Saudi Arabia has bought into many of our banks and they have infiltrated our congress with laundered campaign money.

You only have to look at Bill Clinton's library. Hillary Clinton was unelectable. There is Saudi money flowing into her campaign. Obama has the tree huggers and welfare cases. Both of those groups have given him large amounts of cash. Plus the Clinton's are being thrown overboard by the radical left.

Don't worry, John McCain is a socialist too. You're going to get a democrat. It just wont be a radical leftist like Barrack.

McCain wins 45 states. landslide. [he'll die in office and Romney will have the next 8 years]

When Romnay is president and new age of American greatness will begin. Why?
EASY, He'll get the government out of your way by eliminating the tax code.

New Jersey will wind up with a republican governor and tolls will be done away with. The rest of the country will follow and we will show the world that America is the land of freedom.

We need to scrap socialist, Ponzi schemes like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare etc.

Only the free market can resolve itself.

[Fanny and Freddie are socialist programs]

The plan seems to be that while capitalism seems to work, nobody should interfere with the wonders of the market and the rich should take all they want. When it inevitably fails, however, it is such a danger that the taxpayers (not of course the rich) must pay through the nose to get it working again. Doesn't look like freedom to me - looks like highway robbery!

 

[editec]

Balance is the key.

We should be taxing a stable sector instead of income.

If we were to tax sales. We'd wind up with a better way of predicting revenue. Plus you'd stop punishing productivity.

Would it? Are you absolutely sure?

Wouldn't we just then be taxing those who consume, and therefore wouldn't most people consume less than otherwise?

And with that collective decrease in consumption, wouldn't that slow down the economy?

And when the economy slowed, wouldn't capital lay off workers?

And when more workers were laid off, wouldn't that decrease their ability to consume collectively, further still?

Can you see the vicious circle that radical shift in taxation policy might be creating?

Let me give a a small example of what I mean about consumption taxation hurting the commonweal.

Maine taxes some kinds of consumer goods that New Hampshire does not.

Guess what that means for stores close to the border between Maine and New Hampshire that sell those consumer goods?

Blowback...

That's the thing about economic theories and the policies that come from them:

For every collective action there's a million individual reactions that mitigate the efficacy of that collective action.

Now, I am not completely dismissing your complaints about the policies we have today. There is a logic to the complain that taxing production taxes the productive and that logic is quite irrefutable.

But economics is the complex interaction of everyone combined.

People respond to the pressures that economic policies and taxation puts on them personally.

Sometimes, their personaly responses (which become collective responses) work out to everyone's benefit, and sometimes they don't.

I am not convinced that a consumption-ONLY taxation system would serve the commonweal especially well.

Convince me that my concerns are specious.

 

[Mr. Right]

Would it? Are you absolutely sure?

Wouldn't we just then be taxing those who consume, and therefore wouldn't most people consume less than otherwise?

And with that collective decrease in consumption, wouldn't that slow down the economy?

And when the economy slowed, wouldn't capital lay off workers?

And when more workers were laid off, wouldn't that decrease their ability to consume collectively, further still?

Can you see the vicious circle that radical shift in taxation policy might be creating?

Let me give a a small example of what I mean about consumption taxation hurting the commonweal.

Maine taxes some kinds of consumer goods that New Hampshire does not.

Guess what that means for stores close to the border between Maine and New Hampshire that sell those consumer goods?

Blowback...

That's the thing about economic theories and the policies that come from them:

For every collective action there's a million individual reactions that mitigate the efficacy of that collective action.

Now, I am not completely dismissing your complaints about the policies we have today. There is a logic to the complain that taxing production taxes the productive and that logic is quite irrefutable.

But economics is the complex interaction of everyone combined.

People respond to the pressures that economic policies and taxation puts on them personally.

Sometimes, their personaly responses (which become collective responses) work out to everyone's benefit, and sometimes they don't.

I am not convinced that a consumption-ONLY taxation system would serve the commonweal especially well.

Convince me that my concerns are specious.

A sales tax works in a few but fair ways.

1- Sales increase because of growth in the economy. A sales tax is pro growth and progressive.

2- Products are only taxed once. This means that products sold as used or refurbished can only have the new parts taxed. This produces more consumers and jobs.

3- It currently costs the government $330 billion to make sure we comply. A sales tax would cost $80 billion. Only retailers would be paying [collecting] the tax. This would automatically create $250 billion in new revenue the first year alone.

4- "The Rich" would now have to pay taxes on things they currently write off as business expenses. [who writes tax law? I'm sure it's not janitorial engineers]

5- It's none of the government's business to know how much money you have or make. The current code punishes wealth and inheritance. I don't know about any of you but I'd like to leave my grand kids some money.

6- The government is too big. Yet they expect us to conserve and bite the bullet anytime they can't balance the budget. I think we need to cut government hand outs to the wealthy as well as the lazy.

7- This would bring so many companies back to America the entire world would be forced to live by a better code of ethics just to keep up and compete with our new sense of wealth from top to bottom.

8- This would end poverty. There would be no excuse for not having a job. Jobs would pop up out of nowhere because of all the new money in the common market.

9- How hard would it be for congress to raise the rate if we'd all be affected?

10- The poorest among us would be paying taxes and therefore be contributing to the pie. This is power. What we have now is a system that keeps people poor and only helps the powerful at the top. It's time to stop being jealous of some and expect more out of ourselves. The tax code is the source of socialist power and they need to be defeated.


The tax code is the vehicle for the Leftist Church.

This is where they stifle achievement and punish those who dare to dream. Their religion is one that worships death. The believe it's a right to kill their own offspring. We on the right just need to keep breeding and we will eventually take over out of sheer numbers. It's evolution at work. Only the strong will survive. If they really believed that they wouldn't insist on such a large nanny state.

Their faith is ever changing. Twenty years ago we all were going to die from lack of ozone. Twenty years before that, the New Ice AGE was going to kill us all. Now we're going to boil in the ever growing oceans that will cover the planet and the only thing left alive will be a Ford Explorer.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hehehe

 

[midcan5]

The point is:

Radical Liberalism is our country's biggest threat.

These religious zealots are preaching hate. They poison the minds of our youth with socialist dogma throughout text books and other media exposure.

We need to separate these religious fanatics from our government.

Their Pope is AL GORE!

Secular Humanism must be declared a religion. [they can even get tax exempt status]

Another comic.

 

[midcan5]

I often wonder if conservatives were all born yesterday or are maybe 12? Has anyone here ever worked at a cash business or any business for that matter. Has anyone here bought anything off the corner huckster. Give me a break, sales tax would require a cop at every business and an honest one at that.

"That's the misleading part. The wrong part is that the FairTax proponents assume full compliance with the FairTax -- no evasion, no black market in untaxed goods. To assume no shopkeep will ever sell a pack of cigarettes without adding and reporting the tax really does require a magic wand. It's one thing to tout this plan as releasing us from "pain and unfairness." But ending tax evasion? Why, that's downright un-American!"

Huckabee's Magic FairTax | The American Prospect