AsburySkinsFan Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 In other words, who died and made you judge (to pick out one Christian I know of that opposes this bill)? No one and I never said they did, and I'm not calling out or judging one person. But, do not expect me to sit back and watch as the "Christian Right" exposes its hypocrisy for the world to see. The "Christian Right" should be leading the charge for health care reform not standing opposed to it, but the problem is that the "Christian Right" got into bed with the GOP long ago, and in doing so they continue confuse their "faith" with the political agenda of the GOP two things which are not the same. Oh, and just for the record, McCain is pro-life. So, you direct me to a web page where every one of the quotes and references are from the 2000 campaign where McCain was trying to court the conservative vote? You know what's odd to me? Why no one from the "Christian Right" has been able to explain how and why the abortion rate in America dropped while a Pro-Choice president (Clinton) was in office and yet rose while a supposed Pro-Life president (Bush jr) was in office. Nor why the Conservative court during Bush's term refused to review Roe when they had the opportunity, but instead kicked it back to a lower court. Sorry, I used to hold out hope that the politicians would outlaw Roe, and I watched when the Conservatives had the ability to do so, and yet they did not. Now, having come to grips with the fact that no one is going after Roe the voting issue on it become irrelevant litmus test of a candidate because the end result is still the exact same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I think that is a legitimate factor that needs to be taken into account. As someone who plans on being around long enough to pay off this debt, I think it is worth it if current estimates are anywhere near what reform will cost over the next 10 years. You do realize that the CBO predicts at the backend of their prediction(which runs out to 10 years) the program will run a yearly debt that increases at what appears to be a rate faster than inflation (somewhere around 7%) and the rate of increase is going up at the back end of that prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 No one and I never said they did, and I'm not calling out or judging one person. But, do not expect me to sit back and watch as the "Christian Right" exposes its hypocrisy for the world to see. The "Christian Right" should be leading the charge for health care reform not standing opposed to it, but the problem is that the "Christian Right" got into bed with the GOP long ago, and in doing so they continue confuse their "faith" with the political agenda of the GOP two things which are not the same. Well said My understanding of Christianity would be to support health care. When i was involved in the church we were always raising money to provide health care/food for the needy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Well saidMy understanding of Christianity would be to support health care. When i was involved in the church we were always raising money to provide health care/food for the needy It simply is mind boggling to me that the self proclaimed "Christian Right" would oppose health care reform, if they don't like the public option fine, come up with new ideas. But that's not what they are doing, instead the "Christian Right" is putting in with the GOP who are only floating status quo ideas or non-reforms and instead of being part of the solution they are standing as obstructionists, its bloody infuriating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 You do realize that the CBO predicts at the backend of their prediction(which runs out to 10 years) the program will run a yearly debt that increases at what appears to be a rate faster than inflation (somewhere around 7%) and the rate of increase is going up at the back end of that prediction. This is to be expected because as a trend, Healthcare costs as a whole have outpaced inflation by a very wide margin. According to these guys, costs would increase by about 6.2% per year without reform: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml Frankly, I don't care if my share of that money goes to the Government or to an insurance company or both. Even with no reform, the costs will likely continue on their current trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 This is to be expected because as a trend, Healthcare costs as a whole have outpaced inflation by a very wide margin. Frankly, I don't care if my share of that money goes to the Government or to an insurance company or both. Even with no reform, the costs will likely continue on their current trend. There is a HUGE difference in terms of debt to future generations. A private system forces people to make choices about expenses and costs. Moving it to the federal government allows the government to simply borrow money. The law could mandate that government in takes or out takes are corrected on a yearly basis based on real healthcare costs. People talk about the start up costs of the program. Interestingly, the CBO predicts the first 4 years or so the government in takes set off any costs so it is revenue neutral so in four years Obama will be able to run on having passed revenue neutral healthcare. After that though, health care costs out pace the in takes built into the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I know we have our differences, but as a former Christian I find you the closet thing to what Christianity is about [as i understand it] out of any of the regulars on the board. If i ever choose to come back to religion I would seek out a pastor like yourself To me it was giving without strings, in other words unconditional love. Now to many so called Christians have conditions with their giving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 To me it was giving without strings, in other words unconditional love. Now to many so called Christians have conditions with their giving Why do you(and others) confuse/conflate GIVING with taxing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Show me where I am wrong with my statement that you quote...1) Show me where my statement is wrong... 2) Explain these 150 million... There are 150 million "liberals" That is why we have a "Liberal" president. Your statement is full of inductive fallacies, I guess we could start at hasty generalization. I think this pretty much sums this thread up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. Such a sad, sad, pathetic state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Why do you(and others) confuse/conflate GIVING with taxing? I dont, but i do not mind a higher tax to help out my fellow man who is not as fortunate as myself. However I do mind the government waste, it is out of control, and we keep electing the ones who continually do it so you want to kill Medicare for the seniors, that has a big tax and he gives plenty to the seniors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I dont,so you want to kill Medicare for the seniors, that has a big tax and he gives plenty to the seniors You just DID in the last post:silly: Nice attempt to deflect with Medicare....:finger: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/DNC-withdraws-false-and-misleading-ad-accusing-GOP-of-plotting-to-kill-Medicare-59069637.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 as if this medical plan **** weren't confusing enough, now we're intertwining it with scripture.****, what other **** can we pile on top? I saw your new sig and I had to pinch myself! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 It's funny because this is the absolute opposite of what Jesus would do. Seeing as how he ran around giving free health care to the poor and all. Is it the opposite? Problem with the liberals is they think they are charitable because they are very willing to give the poor other peoples money. Now go look at who actually is more charitable and you'll find the left far more stingy than the Christian right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Is it the opposite? Problem with the liberals is they think they are charitable because they are very willing to give the poor other peoples money. Now go look at who actually is more charitable and you'll find the left far more stingy than the Christian right. Such bull****. Complete and utter bull****. And yes, it's the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Such bull****. Complete and utter bull****. And yes, it's the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ would have done. antually, he is pretty correct in terms of charitable donations comparing conservative vs liberal contributions. And no, I think there are many posts in this thread that outline why jesus didnt advocate charity via coersion and government means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 And no, I think there are many posts in this thread that outline why jesus didnt advocate charity via coersion and government means. How'd he feel about spreading his religion via coercion and government means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 n/m .................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 How'd he feel about spreading his religion via coercion and government means? I'm confident that I've already addressed that in this thread and I said that any coersion would be against his teachings. sorry, you wont find a double standard dwelling within me sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 antually, he is pretty correct in terms of charitable donations comparing conservative vs liberal contributions.Actually, the real result coming from Arthur Brooks's study (and which is probably more relevant to the topic of this thread) is that people who are religious donate more and volunteer more than those that are non-religious. If you take out the religion factor, liberals actually donate more than conservatives.http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml So if you control for religion, it turns out that liberals do donate just slightly more. This means that non-religious liberals donate slightly more than non-religious conservatives, and religious liberals donate slightly more than religious conservatives. Conservatives still come out ahead in total donations, however, because there are a lot more religious conservatives, and religious people donate a lot more than non-religious people. And no, I think there are many posts in this thread that outline why jesus didnt advocate charity via coersion and government means.I think it's pretty clear that Jesus wasn't a politician and he wasn't interested in setting up a state based on his teachings, but I think the more interesting question is WWJV - What would Jesus vote? Would he have a litmus test on abortion? Would he support universal health care? Would he vote against wars? Where would he stand on offshore drilling? Maybe those questions are really impossible to answer, but the fact that they are difficult to answer makes it somewhat surprising that evangelical Christians fall overwhelmingly on one side of the health care debate (or the Iraq War or the environment) ... For abortion or gay marriage, the religious angle is pretty clear, but it is there really a strong religious angle on health care? For evangelicals to fall overwhelmingly against universal health care seems to be something that derives less from religion and more from other factors, such as cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 antually, he is pretty correct in terms of charitable donations comparing conservative vs liberal contributions.And no, I think there are many posts in this thread that outline why jesus didnt advocate charity via coersion and government means. Oh really, do you have the statistics for people who put in their time, not just money, seeing as how charitable donations are tax write offs for rich people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I think it's pretty clear that Jesus wasn't a politician and he wasn't interested in setting up a state based on his teachings, but I think the more interesting question is WWJV - What would Jesus vote? Would he have a litmus test on abortion? Would he support universal health care? Would he vote against wars? Where would he stand on offshore drilling? Maybe those questions are really impossible to answer, but the fact that they are difficult to answer makes it somewhat surprising that evangelical Christians fall overwhelmingly on one side of the health care debate (or the Iraq War or the environment) ... For abortion or gay marriage, the religious angle is pretty clear, but it is there really a strong religious angle on health care? For evangelicals to fall overwhelmingly against universal health care seems to be something that derives less from religion and more from other factors, such as cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic influences. No ,Jesus was more interested in setting up a world based on his teachings....voting would then take care of itself. Once you continue to separate down from religious to Christian to evangelicals are you surprised ? Since they are more numerous in certain cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic areas Perhaps you should try to understand better what the Religious right is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Demographics The Christian right is not made up completely (or even mostly) of evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Oh really, do you have the statistics for people who put in their time, not just money, seeing as how charitable donations are tax write offs for rich people? are you somehow indicating that religous people dont donate their time to helping others? I'd check yourself, and quickly, if thats your point. and to answer your question honestly, no, I dont have those statistics readily available, but I'll be glad to check if someone has done a study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Oh really, do you have the statistics for people who put in their time, not just money, seeing as how charitable donations are tax write offs for rich people? as far as our "tax write offs for the rich" so-called "point"... "One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 are you somehow indicating that religous people dont donate their time to helping others?I'd check yourself, and quickly, if thats your point. and to answer your question honestly, no, I dont have those statistics readily available, but I'll be glad to check if someone has done a study. There are plenty of Religious Liberals, so I would check yourself as well my friend. Evangelicals are not the only people to praise God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 There are plenty of Religious Liberals, so I would check yourself as well my friend. Evangelicals are not the only people to praise God. I'm not quite sure of your point? Where have I referenced evangelicals at all? Yes, there are religous liberals, and the brooks study also says that they too donate less than conservative religous folks. You are losing this one pretty badly my friend, best to stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.