Social Security Checks — Boehner Responds to Obama's Remarks

President Obama has backed the Republicans into a corner. As they ask students, seniors, unions, teachers, middle-class Americans and the poor to share in the sacrifice, Republicans now look selfish and greedy in not wanting to do their part.

Catt, they are frauds. They have no convictions. If they truly believed in their own rhetoric they would have stood by their anti-American stance.

It's obvious what happened. They knew the American people would place the blame on them for destroying our credit rating, not issuing Social Security checks, and further hurting our fragile economy.

Their Lords, "Big Business", took them out to the woodshed and told them their behavior is unacceptable. In other words, "We are cutting off your financial lifeline."

A party with no convictions is a party not worthy of occupying the White House. Tea Party and Republican flavor of the month, Michelle Bachmann, said she wouldn't vote to raise the debt ceiling. Her days are numbered.

What would be a fitting song to sing too? How about CRY ME A RIVER??? LOL

The people are behind the GOP,Lloyd; Almost 70% want them to hold the line. What the President told was a bald-faced lie to scare seniors -This class warfare that is the Democrat stock and trade -pitting classes,races,and genders against each other. he doesn't want a UNITED States - he wants a DIVIDED country; It's almost treasonous.

BY the way-I don't care about the Unions. They spent millions of their members' pension money to elect this man; Thay've made their own bed.

"The people are behind the GOP,Lloyd; Almost 70% want them to hold the line."

Norman Chambers, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that President Obama has raised more money than all the Republican wannabee candidates show that the people aren't behind the GOP.

Norman, what you fail to understand is that not everyone thinks like you. The majority of us on the Left support our President and love our country.

"BY the way-I don't care about the Unions."

You should thank your lucky stars that you grew up in an era when unions fought for worker's rights. Look what's happening since union membership has been on the decline. The American standard of living has declined along with it.

Everyone I've ever known who belonged to a union and lived to the age of retirement now live comfortably with a monthly pension and full health care.

Can you say the same about your non-union brothers?

Thank you of responding to Norman, I had seeing this kind of misinformation spread around without someone correcting it.

You really can't believe all you've wrote. I'm only hoping it's laced with sarcasm. America has had enough of conspiracy theories.

It's time to work for the betterment of our nation. It's a shame that President Obama many times appear the only grownup in the room when it comes to Republicans.

You'll get your check Nora; This is more of the typical tactics Liberals use to get their way - sowing division using fear and hate.

Now a days typical GOP tactics seem to include constantly spewing out incorrect statistics, arguing with the logic and redefining the truth. As for sowing fear and hate. Wow thats calling the kettle black, all from the party of election tampering and overseas tax shelters. This year the GOP cut food assistance for thousands of poor families, your damn right we should be worried, this is no game.

Rollie,
Food assistance, health assistance, retirement assistance, education assistance, environment assistance and now we have another health assistance, Really? All of that assistance may even be duplicated by the state or county you live in. How much more assistance do you need? I don’t have a problem giving to those in need as long as we don’t have to raid the piggy banks of our kids and grandkids to do it.. Think about it! We can’t afford it. Thus we must live within our means. It is that simple, no hate, no wrong facts, no fear and no flawed logic. Just good old fashioned common sense.

Where was your common sense when you backed Bush, got into wars for oil, and ran our economy into the crapper and tamped it down? What common sense is it to maintain the largest military budget in the world, while we skinflint the old, the sick and the disabled? Screw your common sense. The biggest welfare this country has is for it’s corporations, not for its people. . .

Fair question, but Obama is no friend of mine, Thomas, and if you had read anything I have written since the health debate, you would know that. Truth is, despite the partisan politics and the ridiculous socialism bit, he is one of yours, a conservative owned by the same big banks and financial organizations as Bush.

And, Thomas, I wasn't aware you had changed your name to Clark for one comment, either.....

Thomas, Soros is your bogey man, and ours is the Koch Brothers, and neither means shit. The money is higher than that, and you will never get me to abandon progressive causes, but Obama hasn't got one, he handed you SS and all the rest on a platter, its just that no one has had the balls to take it yet.

Anyone that thinks that was a bluff, hasn't been watching for the past couple years

Hell yes I voted for him, the choice was McLame. Obama still has to pretend hes progressive, which limits him somewhat, but when you look at what he has done, its classic compromise until he gets where his masters wanted him in the first place. The whole game is keeping people divided so corporations can rape this country at will, and Soros and the Kochs are just part of the plan, as is Obama, and all your idiots

Doesn't matter, anyway, though, after Citizens United, our political process is now going to be an auction to the highest bidder, thanks to Bush and his SCOTUS appointees

Hes as progressive as Bush, yes. There is no progressive in him, he passed a corporate health bill, Wall street was popping champagne corks the day the Financial bill passed, and it has gone on from there. The only progressive things he has done are things Goldman Sachs could give a crap about.

And the sad truth is, I can still say i cast my vote right, considering McCain.

Maybe I'm going to look into those Mexican retirement communities again....

Thomas, you fools trashed the economy, don't give me that song and dance, and ran up the biggest deficit in history up to that point, and then you point at Obama, when you had pulled any source of even modest receipts out from under this government, and even modest spending would have resulted in massive deficits, get real. Obama deserves his part of it, but you folks deserve a hefty load, as well. When you tell your grandchildren whose fault it is this country is second class, tell the truth, and tell him to look at you, too.

You know how to tell the fools on this site? They are the ones that spout only one side of the story. I am now putting a mental F on your forehead for future reference, and proceeding on to less hopeless pursuits.

No, I was not, I specifically said Obama deserved his part of the criticism, but deficits are a function of receipts minus expenses, and the expenses didn't change when Obama took office, but the receipts had fallen to dismal levels due to the Bush recession, and even without the stimulus, things were going to be in the crapper, as they were in Bush's last year, as well. And your response was:

but as far as I am concerned it was all you progressive fools who did almost all the debt making. All hail comrade Obama, who has outspent all the presidents combined before him.

Take your F, and move on, fool, you earned it

The rich and the major corporations are not in any delicate position. They are awash with cash, Several trillion dollars worth. A higher tax on them would not damage them at all. The wealthy would not like surrendering some of their wealth but it would harm them not at all. But they would rather the poor and the newly poor suffer grievous harm instead of give up any of their mostly ill gotten gains. But what can one expect from the rich. (Read your Bible to see.)

All the corporations are being asked to do is to pay their fair share of taxes as if they were actually Americans like the rest of us. Its clear they do not see themselves as Americans. America is just a market for them and they are want to get as much profit out of it as possible. The country is in trouble why have they not voluntarily stepped up to help? Why? because they put profit before everything, they might just as well be Chinese citizens or citizen of whatever nation will make them the most money.

jj,

The fraud that has been reported on Wall Street by the big banks and hedge funds and so forth was missed by you? Enron made no impression on you? You think those corporations are all obeying the law? If so, I have some great investment opportunities I would like you to consider for investing your retirement money.

Larry,
"Read your Bible to see" what chapter and verse are you talking about? If you cant site specifics then don't even invoke the bible at all.

You are right the rich have money and if you tax them more you will not hurt them, but you will hurt those of us who are employed by those rich people. How many Jet building jobs were lost, when contracts were canceled the other day when the president started to demonize Jet owners. That is just because of a few comments. The rest of his policies have been destructive as well.

Clarke,

How about the "it's as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."? I'll be you remember that one.

-----------

The rich are sitting on something like a trillion dollars in cash or the equivalent so how would taking some of that cash cause the rich to fire people (other than their lobbyists).

Are you saying that private jets are really the bedrock of our economy? Somehow I really don't think those jobs compare to the millions of jobs that would be lost to cutting federal spending by enough to eliminate $1.4 trillion in deficit.

Mickey,

Do you really think those large corporations with all those lobbyists and all that influence pay their fair share of taxes? If you do you are terribly naive.

Larry M,
No, I am not suggesting that building private Jets would fix our issue, but maybe just creating a few pencils might. The following short essay from “I Pencil” may give you some ideas on how capitalism works and something even as humble and simple as this writing tool is far more complex than the intellectual capacity of you, myself, even our president, combined:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/i-pencil/
Let me know what you think, thanks?

Larry, That verse is not intended to say that a rich man can buy a spot in heaven by donating to Caesar or being robbed by Caesar.

Jesus said that it would be hard for a rich man to go to heaven, but he did not say that it was impossible. He also said that you must follow him, but even that is no guarantee of life, for works alone are like filthy rags. You must also believe through the spirit that he is your savior.

Clark,

That verse says that a rich man cannot get into heaven at all. So long as he is rich he is barred from heaven. There is also a part of the Sermon on the Mount in which Christ says that the wealthy have their reward here on earth, not in heaven. A camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle. So no matter what you do, if you remain wealthy, you cannot get to heaven.

Now as to what one must do to attain heaven is another matter.

Clark,

I have a rather good idea how capitalism works both in practice and in theory. I have been a business owner and my parents and children have been business owners.

My solution to the world's economic problems (and most of its social problems) eliminates government (except the military) for all practical purposes. (If all the nations of the world adopt my system there would be no need for military at all and no governments at all. But I digress.) My system is based on a set of completely free markets (which are impossible today and have been for all of recorded history). The division of labor and the efforts and ingenuity of the free individual glorified in "I Pencil" are exactly what my system emphasizes. So you are preaching to the choir.

What I don't like is the market and capitalism as practiced in which there is no free market and there is always government interference and oppression to one degree or another because of the big money interests (king, tyrant, or corporate). Even organized crime, which pretty much ignores the law, does not allow a free market. To say we have a capitalistic, free market, pure competition system is an obvious lie. You know we don't have those things but you probably don't know WHY we lack those things. Your answer to the question "Why?" will describe the lack of those things rather than the underlying reason that they have been impossible throughout history.

Larry, my bible(New International Version) uses the following, Jesus: “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The (King James Version) says the following, Jesus: “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Thus it is hard or not easy, but not impossible. But your other point is that building wealth on earth is futile, and I would definitely agree. previous to the above quotes he said “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

The problem with your assertion is that you suggest that we give to the government because they give to the poor. Jesus said give to the poor and did not saying give away all your wealth to the government. I do help the poor, but the government gives to the poor at the rate of pennies on the dollar and if I really would like to help the poor, then there are far better ways to do it. The other problem that I have is that every dime I give the government, is spent, even the so called lock boxes and thus my daughter will be paying my social security, Medicare, Obama care bills, and who knows what other socialistic programs. I am not rich, and I don’t intend to be, however I would like to pay my own way and do not want to be a burden to my kids or any others.

Larry, you claim that the major corporations are awash with cash as though we have some claim to the leangle earning of wealth and I say that they earned it and they can spend it the way they see fit. However if you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us are not aware of, that some company has illegally obtained wealth, do you not have a moral obligation to report this fraud? My point is that the poor might see more donations if the government stops being the welfare clearing house with such high profit margins.

What confuses me is that you started this thread as though we should tax the rich more, thus giving the government permission to grow, while your last comment shows that you want little to no government. I agree that a truly free market is impossible under human laws but what we have has worked for over 220 years, while a growing government has proven to fail every time. That is why republicans are attempting to slow or stop the growth of government, because it preserves the freedom that remains.

Clark,

I do not "suggest that we give to the government because they give to the poor." If you have been reading my comments over the years you will note that I say that what we give to the government they give to the rich, not to the poor. The rich control our government.

--------------

The major corporations are awash with cash and they did NOT earn it. The massive fraud on Wall Street by the banks and insurance companies is well known. The huge subsidies that the largest oil companies have received are well known. You may be aware of the very unhealthy diet the agribusiness companies have provided to the American public. You are also aware of things like dangerous tires and shoddy construction of an endless array of products. Look at your streets. Full of potholes aren't they.

But that is beside the point I want to make about the cash on hand of the major corporations. There is no point in lowering their taxes to increase jobs because they already have plenty of cash to hire more people and they are not doing it because there are no customers to justify hiring more employees. If we raise their taxes and give more money to the poor we will thereby give those corporations an incentive to hire more people to get that money from the poor. That's how money flows through our economy when things are working well. The poor get money somehow (in WWII if was from government spending going to soldiers and to war industries that hired the poor) and they spend it because they need to and they spend it on consumer goods and services. That flow of money up the wealth pyramid keeps things going. When the poor cannot get money to spend, they whole economy grinds to a halt. The flow of money stops. That's why I talk about the cash on hand of the large corporations.

---------------------
To get out of our current economic slump we need to get the money out of the hands of the rich into the hands of the poor to keep the economy moving. How would you arrange for that to happen? The orthodox theoretical solution is taxes. Of course that doesn't work because the rich control the government. Do you have some other way?

--------------

A truly free market is impossible due to the nature of our money. This is demonstrated by the fact that no nation has ever had a free market. Organized crime does not have a free market and they ignore the law. It isn't the government that prevents a free market, it's the money we use. Businesses don't like a free market and the competition that results. They always prevent it.

-------------
Republican voters think that they want less government. Republican politicians increase the size of government, government spending, and the debt. Look at the Republican actions since 1981. It's blatantly obvious. Their actions are largely responsible for the huge increase of the concentration of wealth in a few hands in the U.S. Of course, they were only doing what their big money supporters asked them to do so there's no point in blaming them for being human. But there's no point in giving them credit for being blatant hypocrites either. Also, Republicans have been leaders in removing freedoms (see the Patriot Act). And the actions of the Bush administration in torture and denial of due process and so forth were those of a tyrant.

“The rich and the major corporations are not in any delicate position. They are awash with cash, Several trillion dollars worth. A higher tax on them would not damage them at all.”

Forgive me Larry, you have to admit that the above words sound like you would like to level the playing field by taxing the bourgeoisie (rich) to help the proletariat (poor or wage workers).

“The major corporations are awash with cash and they did NOT earn it.”

I really would like to understand why you think that so many of our nations law abiding corporations are so worthy of being taxed more than they are, what did they do? Why do they deserve to be punished and why do you think the government gives them so much money when the budget clearly shows that the majority of the budget goes to paying for the government overhead and to our citizens in the form of assistance.

“The massive fraud on Wall Street by the banks and insurance companies is well known.”

For this I would agree, government regulation promoted and encouraged this type of behavior. The Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, and the ability to buy and sell loans were at the root of the housing collapse and we still have not seen any real action to prosecute anyone. I would also agree that any and all fraud should be punished. Additionally any poor corporate decisions made to put the company in jeopardy does not deserve any government assistance, no matter how big or how small.

You then talk at some length about the corporations, I just see them as business entities. I also see the government as the biggest business entity that is monopolistic in nature. Everything the government does can be done better, faster, and at less cost than the government, except printing money and enforcing laws. Shrink the size of government and that wood free money for you and I to spend to grow the economy. Grow the government and it will always need more in taxes, until we all have nothing left to give. Where does it end?

Your comments seem to be Marxist in nature and I am attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please explain where I am wrong?

The huge subsidies that the largest oil companies have received are well known.

Don't forget the huge subsidies for ethanol, electric vehicles, solar power, wind power, window manufacturers, etc...

Let's lower the tax rate and eliminate the subsidies.

You may be aware of the very unhealthy diet the agribusiness companies have provided to the American public.

Isn't a healthy diet the responsibility of the consumer, not the business. If the consumers demand healthy food business will follow.

Look at your streets. Full of potholes aren't they.

Because the govt is too stupid and corrupt to demand a quality product.

Clark you said: You then talk at some length about the corporations, I just see them as business entities. I also see the government as the biggest business entity that is monopolistic in nature.

While it is not the only one you have made, this is a most excellent point.

Many are reviling the small corporations while ignoring the fact that the one they defend is one of the biggest, and is also the most obvious example of a corporation that has not itself earned the cash it spends.

Government is in fact a huge parasite whose leeching characteristics we have neglected or ignored for too long.

Clark,

Are your truly unaware of the fraud at the highest levels of major corporations? How do you think they got so large and profitable?

To say that there is massive fraud in the big corporations does not mean one is Marxist. Big money controls government so if you don't like what government is doing you only have big money interests to blame. They don't pay those 12,000 registered lobbyists over $2 billion for nothing. They don't contribute all that money to politicians election campaigns for nothing. They don't provide all that entertainment and other perks to the Administration officials for nothing. So why should I see government as the solution to our problems. The government is part and parcel of our problems.

If you want my solution, read "Invisible Hand" (here on gather, complete, see my profile). It eliminates taxes and government regulation and institutes a completely free market. It's very libertarian in most ways.

mike,

Compare the size of the subsidies and tax breaks for the Oil companies and those others. (Ethanol for fuel is one of the dumbest ideas around. Guess which big money interests generated those subsidies. Which brings us to the food.)

Blaming the victim gets you nowhere with me. Who provides all those coke machines in the schools? Who puts all that junk in baby formula?

Big money controls local government (state and city) which explains those potholes. Again, don't blame the victim.

Lee,

That big government is controlled by the big money interests. It is big because of them, not because the people demanded it.

jj,

And that changes the meaning how? So far as we human beings are concerned the rich will not enter heaven. From our point of view that's it.

jj,

It doesn't say "even a rich man will not enter heaven." It says that it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. The poor have a chance.

lol, JJ, thanks, so context can come after and before the subject.

Compare the size of the subsidies and tax breaks for the Oil companies and those others.

Oil - $4 billion

Wind and solar - $5 billion

Ethanol - $6 billion

mike,

The Congress approved over $50 Billion for oil companies alone this year. Your figures need checking.

Larry,

You say my SOURCED figures need checking, but provide no source for your assertions?!

Blaming the victim gets you nowhere with me.

There are plenty of healthy foods in the grocery store/farmers market. Why would you blame the food companies if I choose to buy highly processed junk food instead of organic produce?

Who provides all those coke machines in the schools?

School board; in exchange for a portion of the profits.

Who votes in the school board?

Who puts all that junk in baby formula?

The government regulates what goes into baby formula.

Big money controls local government (state and city) which explains those potholes. Again, don't blame the victim.

My response was: "Because the govt is too stupid and corrupt to demand a quality product."

Government is hired to act in the public's best interest. How does "Big Money" change that without government stupidity and corruption? How is it that you believe the government is the victim?

mike,

You were right. I had confused multi-year subsidies with the one year figure of $4 billion. I also had been remembering oil company profits for the first quarter incorrectly. My memory is clearly wrong in this case. Thanks for correcting my error.

I am pleased to see that subsidies for new energy sources are higher than the old energy sources. :-)

mike,

Do we blame those who provide illegal drugs to our children? The fructose laden drinks are also harmful to their health ( far more so than marijuana I would think. I think we should blame those providers of harmful foods every bit as much.

I have yet to hear of a school board that manufactures coke machines.

Big money interests control government so I am not surprised that they allow such things in the baby formula.

mike,

Do you blame only the official that takes the bribe in whatever form and not the persons offering the bribes? I say all are to blame. But I say even louder that we are foolish to use a form of money which motivates and enables such corruption.

Larry said: It doesn't say "even a rich man will not enter heaven." It says that it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven.

I can't find that particular phrase or context ... would love to see the reference for it.

Lee,
Obviously you feel that it was possible to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. I don't think it was possible. I think the meaning of what Jesus said is quite clear. Any rich person who does not use his wealth to take care of the poor and thus give away his riches is not going to be admitted to heaven.

Now you can twist that any way you like and you can find lots of ministers and others who have done so before you to allow the rich to be considered heaven bound. But that is not what it says. And the other passages in the New Testament which refer to wealth confirm that interpretation.

Larry said: And the other passages in the New Testament which refer to wealth confirm that interpretation.

Citations?

Matthew 16-22 "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

It was a test for the young man (and probably all of us here are now currently richer than that "rich" young man was, so let's not judge him too harshly for his choice because in judging him we judge ourselves).

He failed because according to scripture he seems to have been unwilling to give up his 'riches'... unlike Abraham who was quite willing to give up his (his most prized possession was his son).

And because God knows our hearts better than we or anyone else does, sometimes all it takes is the honest willingness to give up our earthy/worldly 'riches', whatever that might be for each one of us.

For some of us it is actual wealth of money ... for others of us it is some behavior or other or even simply one cherished possession, for others nonbelief might be our 'riches'... what they most hold dear.

If we are truly willing to give up our earthly 'treasure' (whatever that is for each of us in particular) in order to follow the Lord, there are times when we are most certainly required to give it up.

But, as it was in the case of Abraham and Isaac, there are other times we are not required to follow through with giving it up. The willingness and the faith to follow through will be enough for the moment.

So it's not that a rich man can't or is forbidden to enter heaven, it's just harder for him/her.

But not because he/she is rich- it's the love of those riches (that possession, that behavior, the money, etc) that is our downfall. It's because when we are comfortable (whether we have a lot of actual moneywealth or not), when we have/possess earthy riches, loved ones, things and stuff and etc we get complacent with what we have and do not seek the more lasting things of God.

This young man was apparently not serious about seeking those things even though until that moment he thought he had been 'doing all the right things (ie: verses 18 and 19).'

In fact there are rich people in the Bible who were considered quite Godly (for instance Zaccheus, Joseph of Armithea, and Barnabas) . Esther could be put into this category to even though she had no actual riches of her own, but was finally willing to take a chance at losing her very life in order to put the people and things of God first.

Esther could be put into this category to even though she had no actual riches of her own, but was finally willing to take a chance at losing her very life in order to put the people and things of God first

Through that willingness she gained even more security and much power (as well as still being 'rich' due to who her husband was). In actuality she sacrificed nothing except her own will; which is all God actually requires ... She is to this day considered very godly even though she remained 'rich.'

Larry,

What a caregiver (parent, baby sitter, day care, school) provides children (food, soda, guns, alcohol, drugs, porn, etc, ...) is NOT the fault of the manufacturer. It is the fault of the caregiver.

mike,

It is the fault of the manufacturer that such products are available to tempt those who are weak from time to time. You might remember that we don't think much of Satan, the Tempter.

Lee,

The scripture (as I read it) says that it's impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It's quite simple. Your scripture citation seems to me to confirm that interpretation.

It is the possession of riches which could make the lives of others better or even preserve those lives and not using those riches to that end that shows the heart of the rich man. It is the behavior. By their fruits shall ye know them. To have wealth and not use it to make life better for others shows what's in the heart of the wealthy.

And there is not such thing as a money that is not loved. No medium of exchange works unless the money is loved.

No Larry you are not getting it, respectfully.
The fact is that there is not an eleventh commandment that says “you shall not be rich”. The sin you are talking about is the love of money or idolatry, which for me (NIV) corresponds to the first and second commandments.

Yes you are right that the words say that it is “impossible”. I agree with that. It also said that if you commit a sin you must die and not go to heaven. Thus no one will ever go to heaven, because we all sin, even the best of us. But through the love of God all things are possible, even life after death. This applies to all sins. If it makes you bitter, then you are committing a sin. See 10th commandment, Thaw shall not covet…. Part of the problem is that you are thinking that the rich man may not love his brother enough and that would be a sin. But the other two sins listed in the NIV that apply here are the first and second commandments, which talk about other gods before God (money) or the love of idols. The last two paragraphs that you list may make sense to you and me, but I think that you will find no basis for that listed in the bible.

Per your assertion you say that love and money are inter changeable. I could also say that money and freedom are interchangeable. Thus if you love one and enslave the other what have you accomplished? Would it not be more fair to do nothing?

Freedom is Love!

It is the fault of the manufacturer that such products are available to tempt those who are weak from time to time.

I can't agree with that logic.

We should hold painters and landscapers accountable for our financial mess (they helped tempt people into buying houses they couldn't afford)? We should hold car manufactures responsible for those who buy more expensive cars than they need? The bank should be responsible for tempting bank robbers? Maybe the government is responsible for all business actions because they make the money that is tempting those businesses? We should hold children's parents responsible for tempting pedephiles?

Clark,

I do not say that love and money are interchangeable. I say that people must love money for money to work as a medium of exchange or a store of value. Therefore, the common shortening of the verse omitting the "love of" part is still true.

mike,

The painters and landscapers were being paid for their work. They were hired by the contractors. So the contractors are to blame. But the contractors were building houses that people wanted to own because they would make a profit from doing so. So we have to blame the customer who bought the house. But the customer was only able to buy the house because the bank (or other lending agency) was willing to loan the money. So we should blame the banker. But the banker was only willing to make the loan because the loan could be sold to some investors. So we should blame the investors. But the investors were only willing to buy the loans because they thought they were high grade bonds as the rating agencies claimed (AAA). But the rating agencies only rated the bonds that highly because they were being paid for the high ratings. ... And on and on it goes. In each case, people are making money by contributing to the looming disaster. That's why there's no point in blaming the people when the nature of the money is the problem. One can gain money (or keep money) by doing bad things.

But those who aid and abet the suffering of others do have a moral responsibility.

jj,

Where in the Bible does it say to acquire a large fortune and ignore the suffering of the poor?

I advocate a solution to our problems by changing the nature of our money. I do not advocate theft in any of its forms (like fraud). You seem to encourage fraud in that you think fraud and other actions of the wealthy should be ignored. You seem to feel that it is all right for the rich to not pay taxes. You seem to ignore the control that the rich exercise over the actions of our government. Now I don't actually think you have those attitudes but I do think that your emotions are much more engaged when you hear of sins of the poor than when you consider the sins of the rich. I think you are much more comfortable blaming the victim than addressing the problems that allowed them to be victimized. Of course I could be wrong.

So can we agree to the following?:
The Love of money (first and second commandments) is a sin.
Being bitter about someone else owning lots of money (tenth commandment) is a sin.
But having money is not a sin.

You can blame the nature of money, but it does not care. The customer on up were renounceable and should be held accountable. Where are convictions, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae? Where are the changes to laws to keep this from happening again? Let’s find all those who are responsible and put them in jail.

Clark,

I am agnostic so I don't have any opinion as to whether loving money is a sin. Loving the kind of money we have used is likely to lead to considerable harm to people. If that constitutes sin, then we agree.

Not helping other people who need our aid when we could help them is immoral. Having money and not using it to help others is immoral. But that's my personal opinion. It seems to me that the Bible says that as well. I will leave that up to Christians to decide for themselves.

Money is amoral. I think we agree on that. Money can be used to accomplish good, bad, or indifferent ends.

People should be accountable for their actions.

There should have been thousands of convictions from the recent real estate bubble. There were trillions of dollars of fraud. If we learned from history and if big money did not control our government there would have been considerable effort to make this fraud impossible in the future. But big money controls our government so nothing will be done. The guilty will enjoy their ill gotten gains. The poor and middle class will continue to suffer.

Why waste our time on a witch hunt? Only the little people and a few scapegoats would ever be punished. Isn't it a better use of our time and energy to change the nature of our money to remove both the motivation and the means for such disasters? Wouldn't it be better to change our money so that it is moral?

Not sure who Thomas is..

Please don’t try to make a point using religion if you are agnostic and going to pull the ripcord out of the conversation.
I think that you are on the right path, money is a vehicle and people can choose to drive on the side of good or evil. It does not make money evil or stop people with money from going to heaven. I like your point that having money gives you the responsibility to help others. I believe that the government is taking that responsibility from us by taxing us and then deciding for itself how best to help those in need. Of course, they have to take about 80% of that tax money to fund itself in the process, so only about 20% is being useful. So my suggestion is let us keep at part of our tax money and let me help others as I see fit (as it is my responsibility) and I could in turn do more with less than the government.

Yes, I do think that we need to spend some time and make it a crime to do what was done in the housing collapse. I have seen nothing to stop it from happening again.

Clark,

Money as we know it is amoral, neither moral nor immoral. It can be used for any purpose to motivate any behavior. That's just one of the characteristics of the nature of our money which is due to its being or representing a physical object.

But that's not the only characteristic which is a consequence of its being a physical object. It also falsely simulates a zero-sum game. That is, when one considers only the money part of buying and selling, one has a zero-sum situation. The money that the buyer gives up is exactly matched by the money gained by the seller. When money is transferred from one party to another party, the gain by one is the same as the loss by the other. Therefore, even though both parties to a trade of money for goods or money for services benefit, we tend to pay attention to only the money part. Thus, the "balance of trade" for example is said to be to the advantage of the party which is gaining money and losing goods. But also in many situations in our economy (such as the school board has only so much money to spend so a raise it gives one teacher means that much less money available to give to the other teachers which feels to them all like a zero-sum game situation.

Therefore, people see each other in our economies as being rivals, opponents, competitors, even enemies due to that zero-sum aspect. And given that our money is amoral it is often used to harm other people.

Next, because our money is physical objects of small size and great value, its use cannot be controlled. Thus we have organized crime and other such immoral and/or illegal activities (like tax evasion). So we cannot prevent evil uses of our money motivated by the false perception that we are all in a zero-sum game.

Lastly, the transfer of ownership of money in economic or other transactions is always a two party form of interaction. Now two party interactions are inherently unstable. That is, if one party gains an advantage in the interaction they can use that advantage to gain still further advantages. Therefore, as one party gains more money than the other party, that extra money can be used to gain still more money. Small businesses in competition with large businesses can be forced into being unprofitable by many different kinds of actions by those large businesses, for example. Therefore, any economy using a physical object money will be inherently unstable. You see this in the economy of the nation and the world today.

Therefore, I would contend that the very nature of our money is evil in that it will always produce lots of evil behavior and much harm to the people who are part of such an economy. I say that money as we know it truly is evil. Not that it is a person or has ethics in any sense but in that it is evil in its consequences.

Bunk, Money is no more good or evil than any other object. If humanity all died in the next 10 seconds and only one person survived, the worlds money would not turn him evil, any more than a tree or a rock. It is logic such as yours to blame guns for its inherent evil, and give a pass to the person holding it. In our economy for the most part the benefit of an economic transaction is equal. If any benefit went to the seller the buyer would stop buying and if it tilted to the buyer, the seller would stop selling… You need to get that hate looked at man. I don’t make a buck to hurt anyone, I feed my family with it. To be honest, I don’t know anyone who uses money in the way you describe. So let me get this straight, because a few choose to do evil with money, you think that it needs to be controlled? By who? The government, they have too much control as it is and far too much of it is in position of the currency. Some call that tyrannical. Businesses engaging into an activity that would hart its competition, would be wrong if it were illegal. But competition in its legal form is good for both parties. Evil, ya you need that hate looked at..

Clark,

Please reread the first paragraph of my 8:49 comment. I say that money as we know it is amoral.

If there was only one human being left alive there would be no morality.

If the Oslo shooter had not had guns but had to make do with a sword, would he have been able to kill so many people? If is gun had been a flint-lock musket would he have been able to kill so many people? The weapons he used enabled him to increase the scale of his evil acts. Those amoral physical objects made is possible for him to kill so many innocent children.

You write: "In our economy for the most part the benefit of an economic transaction is equal. If any benefit went to the seller the buyer would stop buying and if it tilted to the buyer, the seller would stop selling…"

You see what money had made you think? You see buying and selling as being something in which one wins and the other loses. That's insane. If I benefit from a trade why should I feel bad if the other person benefits even more than I do? You seem to think that buyers and sellers are enemies who hate each other so badly that either would stop trading if the other were to benefit from the transaction. Now I don't think you actually believe that. I don't think you wrote exactly what you meant. But the impression and the feeling of being in a zero-sum game is one of the evils that money as we know it imposes on the economy.

If you want to know what I propose then read my solution "Invisible Hand" here on Gather or at my web site where there is also an MP3 version to listen to and no ads. My solution has no role for government and no laws or restrictions on what you may purchase or offer for sale. It has no taxes at all of any kind. Nobody tells you what to do and if they try it you can ignore them if you like.

It's all about Jesus and our response to Him - as this passage tells us:
Matthew 26:8-11
8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

This was in part a rebuke of the disciples who overstepped their own authority in order to "judge" this woman for using such an expensive thing in such a wasteful way (or so it wastheir opinion that it was wasteful) ... However, Jesus had accepted this kindness already and yet they still they rebuked her.

Then they compounded their error with pretense (This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.).

The pretense is clear and it's also clear the disciples are themselves even at that late date, still works in progress. They jumped to a conclusion then used the pretense of "caring for the poor" to cover up their own mistaken jump to judgement (that it was wasteful to pour this expensive ointment on Jesus instead of selling it in order to benefit the poor).

"The poor" whether in spirit or in a worldly way, will always be with us. It's important (a top priorioty in fact), according to other words of Jesus, to help the poor and widows when we have the opportunity.

But just being rich, or using "riches" for something other than "helping the poor" is not always the worst thing that can be done.

It's also not a salvation issue, no matter what the Prez says. According to the Bible that is (which is after all what progressives these days seem to want to base their 'rich hate' on).

So, once again, it's not that a rich man can't or is forbidden to enter heaven, it's just harder for him/her to give up what he or she has in order to follow Jesus. The fact is "riches" and "wealth" do not always come in the form of hard cash or even in lavish possessions.

Many times, according to scripture, "riches" "wealth" "treasure" is measured in how willing one is to submit, surrender to, follow and revere Jesus.

The scripture (as I read it) says that it's impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

That may be how you read it, but context is also important. Here is part of the actual context.

Matthew 19:21-26
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

The most important verse in these passages is verse 26 ("..with God all things are possible").

With man it may indeed be impossible for a rich man to be saved.. or for anyone else to be saved for that matter (in other words, the president can't mandate salvation for the rich or for himself or for anyone else by wrenching wealth away from "the rich", even for the somewhat specious excuse, in that context, of helping the poor).

But with God all things are possible, even for a rich man to be godly, generous, willing to give all, and / or to be saved.

It's not about the worldly wealth or riches per se at all.

In fact, Jesus is honored when "the poor" also do their part - as exemplified in this passage (from the Progressive's new choice of text): Luke1:1-4
1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

The widow gave her all while many of the others gave out of their own pride and without any sacrifice to themselves.

The lesson is not that the rich should be forced to give more, the lesson is that Jesus was not even looking at what or even how much was given ... He was more interested in how it was given; He is more interested in motive than in amount.

The widow gave more than all of them put together because while they gave from their excess and most gave more for show than for charity's sake, she gave out of her faith that somehow the Lord would take care of her even though she gave all she had.

Yes, the rich should give and are expected to, but Jesus never recommends nor teaches that the poor should snatch it from them or that the rich should be forced to give - it's a personal choice rich and poor alike make for which they answer only to God - because only He is in the position of being able to discern correctly the heart of those who give and of those who are not perceived by others to have given enough.

Lee,

It is not possible for the poor to "snatch it from them" and it is very unlikely that the rich can be forced to give. Who has the power? The rich have the power. Who does the forcing? The rich do the forcing. Who controls government? The rich control the government.

I cannot speak to what is better in the sight of God, but the statement by Jesus about the eye of a needle, in context, says that the rich cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. It's that simple.

Taxes are taken by force or the threat of force. This is done to the rich and poor alike. But the rich have considerable influence over how much they are taxed and the poor have none. If the economy is to work well and if we are as a nation to prosper, the rich need to put money back into the economy "at the bottom." Much more money needs to get into the hands of the poor. Unless that happens everyone suffers including the rich.

I say that we cannot do it. I say that the rich are unable to let go their strangle hold on the wealth they have acquired ( however they managed it). I say that the result will be economic collapse. Money will become more and more concentrated in the hands of a few and the economy will stop working. It will fail. You can see the signs yourself now that they are obvious. It's stupid to not give to the poor but the rich are deluded by the nature of our money as is everyone else. So they will not be able to stop their actions before it is too late.

I can see where the super rich may be concerned not by the powerless poor but by the guvmint enacting to benefit those who need the help and not all the corporations and wealthy who seem not to want to let one sheckel pass from their bank accounts and hands.

I guess when it comes to the rising crime rate expressing the underclass' need to survive that the super rich can always have more police and jails to handle the situation. And hand the bills for them to the Main St taxpayers.

Larry said: I cannot speak to what is better in the sight of God, but the statement by Jesus about the eye of a needle, in context, says that the rich cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. It's that simple.

Larry,
Okay. You are correct. It is that simple ... If you ignore the rest of the context of Scripture (some of which I gave you); which you are doing.

And that is probably exactly what most of the Progressive bible quoters are also doing. Which means their quotes and yours mean nothing but what you decide they mean, and have very little in common with what the Bible teaches or with what Jesus said or was about.

Lee,

Your religious beliefs are your business and not mine. If you believe that it's quite all right for rich Christians to allow the poor to suffer and die for lack of money which they have in plenty, that Christ would approve, that God will say "come on up, your palace is ready," that's fine with me. But the story of the good samaritan, (sp) the story or the rich young ruler, the "love of money is the root of all evil" and others provide quite enough context to convince me of the meaning of the "eye of a needle" scripture.

Larry you said: But the story of the good samaritan, (sp) the story or the rich young ruler, the "love of money is the root of all evil" and others provide quite enough context to convince me of the meaning of the "eye of a needle" scripture.

And as I said previously, that "just enough" context is enough to support your pov, and is enough to back up what you think.

But it's useless as proof of what Jesus or the Bible says and just as useless as reference for what Christians should believe, because you ignore the rest of the context of Scripture.

And that is probably exactly what most of the Progressive bible quoters are also doing. Which means their quotes and yours mean nothing but what you decide they mean, and have very little in common with what the Bible teaches or with what Jesus said or was about.

Larry M. Jul 26, 2011, 7:46pm EDT
Lee,
Your religious beliefs are your business and not mine. If you believe that it's quite all right for rich Christians to allow the poor to suffer and die for lack of money which they have in plenty, that Christ would approve, that God will say "come on up, your palace is ready," that's fine with me. But the story of the good samaritan, (sp) the story or the rich young ruler, the "love of money is the root of all evil" and others provide quite enough context to convince me of the meaning of the "eye of a needle" scripture.

Lee,

I am not so presumptuous as to claim I can prove anything at all about the Bible. But I am well qualified to judge what English prose means. (Not poetry though. I am really bad at understanding lots of poetry.) I don't expect to convince you. I am not trying to convince you. Your mind is already made up and has been for some time. That's quite all right. Your mind is none of my business.

As one local attorney that represents those applying puts it, "Isn't it your money?"
And that is what it is. That money doesn't belong to Obama. It belongs to those who paid it into the fund and need it to retire on. Or for disability. For them to want to go there, that's fraud. It is theft over $500.00, and that's is a fraud. No doubt, it's time to kick butt and ask questions later. Every government person out there belongs behind bars.

jj
I can tell you something the rich do to gain ill gotten fortunes. I was told by a local business man in my area that he himself does this. He is a real estate investor, and was once a real estate broker. He said this is how the rich get there, because the way the system is designed they could not make it there if they did not do this. He said that he goes to his accountant and has his accountant draw up an income tax form for him showing that he earned money he actually did not earn. He said he may or may not file that return and pay the taxes on it, but that he then takes it to his banker to get loans on properties that he would not be able to get loans on otherwise. He told me he is a good close friend and supporter of Senator Bob Corker who is also a real estate man. He told me that Bob Corker has done this very same thing, and that otherwise Corker would never have been able to get where he is today. He attends all the social functions Corker has in the Tennesee area.

The president has had years to deal with this and has chosen to wait, with no real plans written or submitted to keep this from happening. To me, that is a failure of leadership and worse, he seems poised to just sit back and point fingers at the Republicans. Nice!

So when this debt ceiling is reached, assuming the Republicans hold fast, he may be forced to lead weather he wants to or not. It will be his choice to pay out the Social Security checks or trigger a default by not paying the bond holders that hold our debt that he took from a manageable sum to something that no other government wants to buy and worsened by the fragile state of the US Dollar.

So the question I see is what do you want to “fear”? On one side he can decide to not pay out the checks and blame the Republicans, which may or may not pay off in the 2012 elections. Or he could continue to print money and buy Americas debt through “Quantum Easing”, raising the debt limit and continue to live high on the hog, until the US Dollar fails because of the same failed monetary policy followed in Greece, Spain, Italy and more.

Sorry Nora, I know it may hurt for a few weeks but at some point you must ask yourself, what is worse? You having a few checks delayed for a few weeks with the potential of a reduced check, or a total failure of the US Dollar?

When the day comes, I know that I will be helping my grandma and other friends that are in your shoes, that is what family is for and depending on the government is not a good long term plan.

Larry,
Even Obama said that raising taxes in a time of high unemployment is not a good idea. If you like 100% unemployment, then why don’t we set the tax rates at 100%. Fixed, Right, Wrong, Our real debt is much bigger than GDP. Communism never works.
If you are going to site the Bible, maybe book and verse would help?

The president has had years to deal with this and has chosen to wait, with no real plans written or submitted to keep this from happening. To me, that is a failure of leadership and worse, he seems poised to just sit back and point fingers at the Republicans.

Exactly Clark.

I was wondering this too.. Why, did Obama and buddies wait until the last minute to try and come up with a solution.. ? Didnt we just go through this same thing a couple of months back? You cant balance books in a hurry, I think this is clearly a set up job , a trick, anything to do with politics to make someone else look bad and try to fear monger the elderly and taxpayers in this country...

"The president has had years to deal with this and has chosen to wait, with no real plans written or submitted to keep this from happening. To me, that is a failure of leadership and worse, he seems poised to just sit back and point fingers at the Republicans. Nice! "

Good grief Clark! Republicans were in office for 8 years prior to the inauguration of our duly elected 44th President, Barack Obama.

What did Republicans do prior to 2008? They raised the debt ceiling multiple times. They started 2 wars that were funded off the books. They approved tax-breaks for America's top 2 percent of richest people and wealthiest corporations. They deregulated financial institutions. They did everything in their power to create the financial environment America now find itself in.

At a time when students, seniors, unions, teachers , middle-class and poor Americans are asked to sacrifice, the only ones not wanting any part of shared sacrifice is the Republicans.

Lee, what happened to the tax breaks that Republicans held unemployed Americans hostage over so they would continue to receive unemployment benefits? We were told they would stimulate the economy.

Guess what? Big business is sitting on trillions of dollars not investing a penny into reviving our economy.

Americans might have a short memory, but not I.

The fact is that the deficit has guan up at twice the speed under Obama, and as Bush was increasing the deficit, I was not ok with that either.

"Guess what? Big business is sitting on trillions of dollars not investing a penny into reviving our economy."

And they won't while the economy sucks. Gold is soaring, it made new highs yesterday. The USD is weak against all major pairs. These are two strong indicators of inflation. Obama's stimulus package didn't stimulate anything. All it did was postpone what we are experiencing now. All two rounds of Quantitative Easing did was weaken our currency. These clowns are out of answers.

Democratic majority in Congress for 6 years and they refused to balance the budget or deal with the deficit.


Huh? when was that.

The dems gained the majority under bush in 2008 and lost the house in 2010.

I am no mathmatician but that isnt 6 years. And for the majority 6 years of the Bush administration the GOP held all...the house the senate and the presidency....and all they did was spend money on 2 unnecessary wars..and give tax breaks to people who didnt need them.

Yes Bush spent money, but the fact is that the deficit has increased at twice the speed under Obama. And we cannot afford the interest on it getting bigger. The S&P is about to down grade our credit rating if we do not cut spending enough. That would make Obama the first sitting president to be presiding over a downgrade. He is failing us.

Clark yes the deficit increased under obama especially after he put in the budget the two wars that Bush "forgot" to add.

Lori,

Deficits Bush v. Obama (war spending included)

Don't forget the 3rd war Obama got us into.

mike while I appreciate your effort I didnt look at your link..anytime I see BLOG ie someone opinion I dont bother....do you have a reliable source?

Ok I did take a look and the fundemental flaw besides the chart being debunked sby several good sources is that the blog was written in 2009..just months after Obama took office and with any new president they are still running until june on the former presidents budget.

And the numbers seeme to be skewed...bush did a 700 billion plus baillout but the blog says it was 440 billion.....something just not right there.

1) You didn't provide links to any good sources debunking it.
2) The 1st line says "update" and provides a link to an updated (5/14/2010) chart.
3) The $700 billion loan/bailout was in FY09 and the $440 deficit was FY08.
4) The blog states: "Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations"

FYI - If you want to try to separate FY09, by the accounting rules they use Bush gets credited with the debt from that $700 billion bailout and Obama get credited with the credits from the loan repayments. It's why Obama claimed inheriting 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. It drastically skews the view towards Obama being more fiscally responsible than he was.

You didn't provide links to any good sources debunking it.
As I stated before a blog isnt a good source of anything but someone opinion.

I dont put much stock in them either way. If you could please provide some actual proof from an excepted source I would be more than happy to continue this conversation.

The chart showed OMB as a source of data.

OMB Summary Table - It includes on & off budget.

You didn't provide links to any good sources debunking it.
As I stated before a blog isnt a good source of anything but someone opinion.

My statement was responding to your comment: "the chart being debunked sby several good sources" for which you provided none of the debunking sources.

At this point it really does not matter how we got here. The only way to get out in a recession is to cut spending. We have tried for two years to increase revenue by propping up the economy, but that has had little to no effect. We are flat at best and need to cut spending before the US dollar fails. Remember it has been in the process of failing now for two years see Quantum Easing. QE is using the printing press to print money so that we can pay the interest on our debt, because no one in the world can afford it. Yet another sign that the US dollar is failing. Cut now cut deep, Cut Cap and Balance is the only thing that I have seen that comes close to what is needed. It may not be enough.

So have your heard the lastest..Obamination has really stepped in it now. By claiming the social security checks might not go out he now has to explain why after people has been paying into it for 40-50 years where has their money gone.

We all know social security is just a big ponzi scheme where the last people paying in get screwed, now the president of the united states has just admitted to it. Bush is looking pretty good now isn't he, at least he had the vision to allow people to set aside money in their own accounts that they would own instead of the government wasting it all.

So basically Obama is telling our seniors that when the Chinese quit buying our debt, and they will that there won't be any money to send them their social security checks....all of you retires should get on your knees and thank the chinese everynight for getting you your checks.

No Bush really isn't looking good. All of the trillions in increased budget that Republicans now blame on Obama, were his. President Bush kept the wars off the books. President Obama put them back on so as to increase transparency. But rather than lauding him for that, you ascribe the increase in apparent deficit to him without acknowledging that it's Bush's deficit. The same with TARP. In fact, the only major reform you can ascribe to President Obama legitimately is his healthcare reform which actually decreases government spending and cuts costs.

So who's your real savior, John? The President who actually increased the deficit by trillions or the President who has actually done concrete things to decrease government spending? Consider carefully who you choose.

It is the president that is saying one thing and doing something else. In my book, that is a childish lie!

They've hamstrung the Obama administration and duly elected democratic government since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Dems had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. They passed Obamacare without any Rep support. The Dems were fully responsible the 1st 2 yrs of his term.

Are you somehow implying the Reps weren't duly elected?

Listen to ANY rightwing nut on AM radio, at one time or another they have attacked SS.
After all it is a SOCIALIST program.

How is something a socialist program when the person paid into it? Welfare may be considered this way for some that didnt work but again for those that paid taxes by working, it might not qualify either... Unemployment is paid into by the taxpayer and the employer.... and the list goes on and on...

It's a socialist program because it's managed by the Federal Government. This requires a Federal budget (even if the actual retirement funds were kept out of the main budget like they should have been, you'd still need a budget for the administrators and check cutters etc). Having a Federal budget is inherently socialist as it takes wealth from the population in order to spend it on behalf of the people. This implies that the government knows better how to spend the people's money that the people do.

Of course, what the right wing actually argues is that some socialism (socialism that brings big money to their states - ie the military) is good. They just can't admit that to themselves.

It is a Socialist program because no one can show me my money. They pulled a bernie madoff and because they are the government, we all think its ok.
I don’t think its ok!
Show me the money!

Or stop charging me this tax disguised as a socialist program, oops social program. Socialist program!

The GOP has been against SS since its beginning. They sued claiming it was unconstituional.

Actually eisenhower started borrowing from SS and reagan perfected it to an artform.

I would say if you dont agree with it then dont collect it.

We need to bring a class action against the Government if they refuse to hold up their end of the deal.

1) The government must approve actions against it.
2) It is the government that will adjudicate the action.

I don't see any hope for success in that matter.

i makes me furious that:

1. the politicians earn HUGE salaries, but refues to do the jobs for which they are being paid, esp, in this time of crisis

2. one of the main resason that they cannot/will not do something is that the very rich do not want to have to pay taxes

3. that, because of this, we will not get our social security, disability, etc.....

it is all a CROCK............

pardon my typos...i am mad as he--

wendy we should all be upset at what the GOP is doing. They have no problem sticking it to seniors and anyone else just to make sure the people with most of the money get more money.

I agree with you both Lori F. and R.F.

RF, you can’t compromise on abortion and you can’t compromise on the destruction of the currency. Fix it now and pay down the debt. Then we can compromise on what social programs that we can afford to add back. No more spending!

Socialism Bad, Capitalism Good...Unk Unk me no like taxes! me might be rich someday, Atlas Shurgged, Greed Good! Unk Unk. Democracy, Apple Pie...Christ rode dinosaurs.. Unk Unk. Rich people special poor people need work more and shut mouth...Unk Unk.... I got mine you get yours. Unk Unk.

Wendy you need to go and get your facts right before spouting something that is completely wrong...."the rich don't pay taxes"

Facts....the top 3% pay as much in taxes as the other 97% combined....how can you with a straight face say the rich don't pay taxes. In fact one would have to admit that they are already paying more than the rest and are sholdering a huge amount of the burden...the facts are there for everyone...but it doesn't fit your wacked out agenda.

The republicans won the 2nd largest wipeout in american election in 2010 by promising to cut spending....well at least they are honoring their word to their voters and if they hold to it will be rewarded even bigger in 2012.

It is almost comical to watch you libs spout how much the dems are really the party of cutting spending but when it comes down to it we all know the are.....spend spend spend...tax tax tax..and it never ends...any of you libs know how many trillions the debt has gone up since Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been in charge....5-6 trillion?

By the end of the Obam 4 years, the debt is on track to go up more the Bushes 8 years...

The debt from WWII represented 120% of GDP and we paid it off in 20 years. 62% doesn't sound so bad in that light.

During that time defense spending rose to 89.5% of the Federal budget. 3 yrs later (shortly after the war), defense spending fell down to 30.6% of the federal budget. It's currently 25%.

Our spending now goes to health care, pensions, and welfare.

That's a very different situation unless you think drastically cutting health care, pensions, and welfare will be as easy as cutting defense spending after a war is over.

And yet today the top 3% pay more than the other 97% combined.....like to see you dispute those facts.

That is so out of wack that it should disgust us to even allow that kind of system....only you wacked out libs would think it needs to be more skewed.

The top 3% pay more than the other 97% combined, these are facts and not even worth disputing. And please......nice try using stats from 1997.....I have current stats from 2008 and 2009. I know they don't fit in your libs desire to tax and spend more....and since you can't raise taxes on the other 97% you try to get at the 3%.

Another fact....even if we were to tax the top 3% at at a 100% it wouldn't even come close to closing the budget shortfall for one year.....what is your plan for the rest of it genius.

American tax foundation facts

"So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent."

The main cause of debt can directly be attributed to hugh spending increases, tax cuts which actually increase dollars to the treasury(this has happened every time) and the two wars or should I now say 3 wars is but a small sliver of that...no matter how much you libs whine and cry about taxes and wars(wars that the majority of dems voted for) oh except for Libya.

R.F. the more you spout your crap the less you are going to be taken seriously....come on man you know you're lying as do the rest of us know.

they are taking a higher and higher percentage of the nation's wealth away from the middle class and working poor.

When the poor pay for their cell phone and cable, are the rich TAKING their wealth OR are the poor GIVING their wealth in exchange for a service they want?

When the rich do not fairly compensate their employees for their labor, are they not stealing the unpaid for labor as a theif would steal from a bank?

If the employee agrees to work for the compensation which the employer is offering, how is that stealing? How is that the same as a thief stealing from a bank?

You simply make this way to easy.....facts...the top 1% today are paying more of the overall tax % while earning less of the overall earnings. This is a straight out fact and is easy gotten from the treasury department.

Please do your fact checks before spouting your disinformation...

More american tax foundation facts....these are easy found.

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax"

The top 1% only earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax...and to you they need to pay more....just rediculous.

There is just no helping people with that ideology and I'm afraid our President is one of those....even though he tried to hide it in the last election...that cat is definately out of the bag now....no way can he win relection...it is going to be a carter vs reagan blowout.

This statement makes absolutely no senses

"Yes, genius. We all know that. The point isn't to raise taxes on the rich because it will solve all our debt issues. What a moron"

This is the only agenda Obama is pushing, everything else is fluff such as reductions on future growth....it would have minimal impact...with you recognizing that we must wonder why are the dems risking default on our debt for something that won't even make an impact....I will agree with you...its only for politics since it doesn't even make sense.

It’s a lie that the rich don’t pay their fair share:

“the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country.”

No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html

"the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations"

Don't buy what the media is selling.

Some of the Cities and states that enacted the so called millionaire tax are rescending them because they are leaving the states. If you want a balanced economic cycle that doesn't have huge income swings you have to diversify......putting most of your eggs in one basket is a recipe for disaster.

Our biggest problem is that we now have 50% of the population not paying income tax...that has got to change...making them reliant on the government isn't going to make that happen.

I agree Clark we need a fair and balanced tax system, not on so weighted like it is now..or even worse like the libs want it to be.

Re accountability / blame / upsides and down

We Americans are lucky to live in a country that has respect for laws and punishes law breaking even at high levels. This may come very belatedly but in many other countries, there's no respect for justice or even laws and accounting for them never happens.

Blaming is kind of a loser's game but the upside of it is that it puts perps in the hot seat.

What I like about NPR's kind of journalism is that they usually will end off with some kind of positive way to go on in dumb and negative situations. I wish more people would do that instead of just griping all the time.

Mike...he can't answer that since he doesn't know what fair is.....he needs for Obama to first answer that then he will know what to say.

The dems most agressive agenda is to make as many people especially voters dependant someway or another dependant upon some form of government money....whether its a check or a handout...the more there are the more potential voters the dems believe they will have.

Look at what they've done to the black community.....basically destroyed families, keep their kids in failing schools and force them to live in very high crime areas......and they keep voting for the dems.....they deserve what they get.

I agree with you Clark...the US has the most progressive tax system in the world.

Don't buy what the media is selling, their lies are being uncovered by the majority of american voters.

Damn I knew it....R.F. that quote is straight out of Hilters Germany, knew you agreed with them.

"HITLER CALLS ROOSEVELT A PLUTOCRAT
December 11, 1941
[As recorded by the Monitoring Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.]
Emphasis added by Raquel Baranow"

I know this is going to sound mean and heartless but it really makes me sad and heartbroken. The vast majority of people that are poor are so because of their own choices....I didn't say all, some have just had poor luck..but they are a minority of the group. I have sent many years of my life trying to help poor people who are down on their luck, sad to say many could care less...they just want their government cheese.

1. They choose not to take education serious
2. They messed up with law enforcement
3. They don't want to put in the time to better themselves
4. They are addicted to drugs or alcohol
5. They don't to work a job
6. They don't other people telling them what to do

These are all choices, why should I take from what I earn and give one cent to people that make these kind of choices???

Forget SS, suspend all welfare checks! Make the people sitting at home having multiple kids actually have to go out and work.

Amanda, would you include the family of those in the military who are receiving assistance? How would you fill the void if all welfare checks were suspended?

Should the children just starve?

You know you've already won the argument when the only thing left for your opponent to do is try and silence your voice.....you libs are getting spanked and fox is scaring your to death.

Isn't it interesting that fox news is raking in record profits, generating the best ratings while most of the liberal media (nbc, cbs, abc, msnbc and cnn are tanking. That shows that a majority of americans are more conservative and fewer are liberal socialist.

Face it nobody is buying your lying crap anymore....try selling it to each other while you all go down the tubes...lol

In light of the impressive $86M the president garnered recently it seems he's still the frontrunner but as we know, big money is no guarantee of winning elections.

We also know the GOP has a lot of deep pockets and are hellbent on getting back the driver's seat.

The GOP may be punished by American voters in 2011 for what's their hanging on tooth and nail for the tax cut for the super rich and on top of that clinging to all the pet pork projects in their bailiwicks.