God's Politics

God's Politics


Jim Wallis: Budgets are Moral Documents Part II: Real Security

posted by gp_intern

In a meeting of religious leaders this week with a number of U.S. senators, one senator opened the meeting by saying, we agree with you that budgets are moral documents, and that’s what we want to talk about today.

As Congress begins this year’s budget debate, we reminded the senators that for years the faith community has fought bad budget priorities, trying to preserve commitments to the poorest. We know that what is needed is a vast re-prioritization of people, especially poor and working families, children, and the elderly. We need bold leadership and an agenda that sets clear priorities and seeks to empower families. We need to protect critical programs and increase aid, but also recommit ourselves to the notion of the common good.

Our country is off track, and security – national and economic – is in jeopardy. President Bush seems not to be paying attention. By ignoring the common good, his fiscal year 2008 budget misses an opportunity to correct the course. The new Democratic leadership in Congress has its chance to create a budget that redefines notions of opportunity, fairness, and security. This requires protecting existing supports, but also linking those commitments to a vision for more just public policy goals. A moral budget is the first step, one that should be followed by bold legislative agendas.

President Bush’s budget seeks more tax cuts for the rich. This represents misguided priorities, but also missed opportunities to help the working poor. When the minimum wage is increased that will be one step toward making work “work.” But low-income tax policies (increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), expanding the Child Care Tax Credit) will help working families even more. Our nation needs a commitment to a living family income, in which a combination of a family’s earnings and supports for basic needs provide a decent standard of living. Those unable to work should be supported with dignity.

President Bush’s budget ignores the energy and creative thinking in the states about child health care and universal care. Instead of cutting Medicaid and Medicare, these supports should be strengthened. Further, child health care should be expanded to reach all eligible children as step one of a bold commitment to reduce child poverty by half over the next 10 years.

And how can the president propose to cut food stamps yet again when it is one of the most important and efficient tools for supporting low-income children, working families, the elderly, and the disabled? Congress should improve the food stamp program as part of the Farm Bill so that all eligible families receive increased support.

Many of President Bush’s programs to reduce international hunger and poverty should be supported. And Congress can help the common good more by reauthorizing the Farm Bill to uphold fair international trade rules and improve nutrition supports. Support for the Millennium Development Goals is also critical. These are down payments on eliminating extreme global poverty.

Our nation needs the affirmation that budgets are moral documents, but also that leaders are willing to commit to a vision of recovering some of our nation’s greatness. We must hear the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1967, and think about the realities and ramifications of the war in Iraq: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

We need moral budgets, and we need vision for economic justice. We call on the new Congress to change course. Show that you care about people in this country by securing priorities and pursuing vision. Let your actions speak as loud as your words, and the faith community will stand with you – and help hold you accountable.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(109)
post a comment
Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:41 pm


“When the minimum wage is increased that will be one step toward making work ‘work.'” -Hurray for higher unemployment among minimum wage workers, and better comparative wages for skilled laborers! Hurrary for the raising of prices at minimum-wage establishments, the slowing of business, and the subsequent continued loss of jobs! Keep fighting the good fight for mindless advocacy of sound-good plans. -Hurray for FDR’s economic bill of rights! -Hurray for Christian socialism and the basic misunderstanding of economics! (Not that Bush’s Keynesian economics are much better, to be sure)



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted March 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm


So Mark you argue that raising the minimum wage leads to 1) higher unemployment for minimum wage workers 2) the raising of prices 3) slowing of business. Can you cite where you got those statistics? Can you show that there is a direct link between a minimum wage and unemployment? I would like to know because I hear these arguments all the time from conservatives but I don t know where they get this. One other thing, Socialism and Keynesianism are two different things. What Wallis proposes is much more concurrent with Keynesianism than Socialism or Christian Socialism as you call it.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm


I don’t think the minim wage hike will have much effect, simply because the vast majority of entry level workers already make that amount. That raising the minimum wage will result in the problems Mark P describes is a simple matter of price theory. Otherwise, we could confidently set the minimum wage at $10,000 per hour. There aren’t a lot of contemporary (and, therefore, online) studies supporting this fact. That said, here is a useful link, with a useful bibliography. http://www.mises.org/story/2130



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted March 10, 2007 at 12:34 am


Jim, I would like to see some unified appeal by Christian leaders to members of congress of both parties for legislation to reduce the number of abortions… …if by no other means than to just insist that it be resolved, through availability of contraceptives or not, and that the congress just get it done.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 12:57 am


Another dose of right wing, free market, Austro-libertarian economic cult dogma from Kevin. Connect Ludwig von Mises up with Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, Hoobert Heaver Institute talking points and you will understand where Kevin gets his ‘Blame the poor for their own poverty’ philosophy. This is how heartless, greedy conservatives hide their indifference to America’s hard working poor. Ivory tower intellectual policy wonks should have their jobs off shored, spend some time unemployed and support their families greeting Wal-Mart shoppers before they dream up any more public policy. .



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 10, 2007 at 1:55 am


Goodness, justintime, aren’t you reading a lot into what Kevin wrote? Economic cult dogma? Blame the poor for their own poverty? Where does he say that? ‘Heartless greedy conservative’ sounds to me more like name-calling than a desire to discuss the issue in a reasoned way. I don’t read anything like that in what Kevin wrote. Debate whether ‘raising the minimum wage will result in the problems that Mark P describes’ if you disagree with that. Encouraging healthy debate is one of the reasons this forum exists. But slapping negative labels on someone if you disagree with him isn’t healthy debate. I don’t really have an opinion on this myself, because I haven’t studied it much, so I’m not going to enter this debate. Peace,



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:07 am


Maybe all of us should find some way to adjust our budgets to contribute more to charities like Second Harvest and homeless shelters here in the US and Oxfam and Heifer International for persons in extreme and moderate poverty elsewhere. Maybe churches could help in that effort by cutting back on their expenditures for buildings that are used once a week, so that all of us could, in turn, divert that portion of our contributions to churches, instead, to poverty assistance programs. Then there would be less talk about government interference and more responsibility to put our money where our mouth is.



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:39 am


Hey Kevin thanks for the link, I’ll check it out. Justintime, man you sure jumped into the name calling right away. I find that a bit ironic considering the previous post about how civil these boards have been. I may disagree with neocons but I know a lot of them are not heartless, greedy horrible people.



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:53 am


So Kevin S. I checked out the article. I get the argument that if you raise the minimum wage then the employer will raise their rates and there will be a net offset, and inflation. In the end the people who were meant to benefit from this will not receive a benefit. I didn’t care for the article very much because he didn’t cite any reasonable sources. The footnotes that would support his arguments are only assumptions that he makes. The reason I ask about all this is because I agree that a small minimum wage increase will not help the poor in the matter intended. However I like what Wallis has to say about paying a decent wage and for a days work. I am just trying to reconcile these things in my head.



report abuse
 

Kannbrown65

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:58 am


Because one of the factors nobody ever considers is.. People with more money in their pockets will spend more money. Especially low income people, because they, well, have less stuff, and more things they can upgrade to better products. And they spend right in their own neighborhoods. They vacation, usually, in the US, they buy cars from local dealers, they buy groceries from their local stores.I never got why people automatically assume more money (in the form of tax cuts and breaks) for the rich equals more spending, and therefore more economic activity, but never gets that the same happens on the lower end, and more often?After all, is another hundred thousand when you already have 100 million really going to increase your spending? Is Bill Gates going, ‘You know, with another 100k, I could get.. that.’ ?And, in every case (its not like this is the first time they’ve raised the minimum wage, after all), it resulted in the not very long term (generally 6-9 months) in improved profits for those very same businesses in the best way to get more profits. Instead of faking more profits by squeezing the employees a little more, reducing their overhead, they are actually selling more. Why do you think that Walmart, of all places, is for an increase? Because we’re getting to the point where their target market, the lower income scale, can’t even afford to buy their cheap plastic crap from China.



report abuse
 

Kannbrown65

posted March 10, 2007 at 5:02 am


I mean, we’ve raised the minimum wage every few years since it was instituted in the 30’s. It started, after all, at 25 cents an hour.Obviously, if every time it was raise, on average, every 2-6 years after that, there was this huge employment downturn followed by inflation, I think people would’ve noticed that sometime within the last, oh.. 80 years.



report abuse
 

esther

posted March 10, 2007 at 5:03 am


-Hurray for Christian socialism and the basic misunderstanding of economics! Mark P The piece of the puzzle you miss is every society rest on bottom economic group. Here is simple example. A gas guzzler cannot be passed down to the bottom so there is a huge loss when the top income group discards the Ford Expedition. Even if you give guzzler to a poor person they can’t put in the fuel or maintain it. There are a million examples of this principle. Rule of economics; waste can never be recovered. This really is a rule! The best thing society can do for the poor is not waste at the top. Waste at the top multiplies as it trickles down.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 10, 2007 at 5:21 am


A man who wrote a book about Wal-Mart for Wal-Mart points out that one could buy 3 shirts for 9.00 instead of 2 shirts for 4.50 each from an American manufacturer therefore Wal-Mart brings more goods to the people for less. You don’t have to buy 3 shirts! We don’t need a lot of the crap we buy. How often in this country is the question asked, “Should we have a yard sale”? The question should be, “Why did we buy all of the crap”? The answer should not be, “Because it was in the action alley at Wal-Mart”.



report abuse
 

Kannbrown65

posted March 10, 2007 at 5:29 am


Well, the issue is, some people couldn’t by ANY shirts if they weren’t 3 dollars a piece. Of course, if they were making better income, they could afford the one shirt that might last longer than the three combined, use less resources, take less room, and be quality.A saying I once heard went.. A rich person might buy one pair of shoes for 100 dollars. The poor person will buy 10 pairs of shoes for 10 dollars each, and their feet will still be cold. The last thing the group being addressed, those making less than 6 dollars an hour, need to worry about is having ‘too much stuff’.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 10, 2007 at 6:13 am


The government subsidizes waste and glutinous consumption while neo-cons cry to much government intervention. The government intervenes when the Abramoffisse’s says so while we argue whether churches should do more charitable work. BTW, the energy bill had 5,000 ear marks, did your congregation have an ear mark in there if not do think it was lack of prayer?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 10, 2007 at 7:11 am


“I never got why people automatically assume more money (in the form of tax cuts and breaks) for the rich equals more spending, and therefore more economic activity, but never gets that the same happens on the lower end, and more often?” I agree that tax cuts for the poor are beneficial, but comparing tax cuts to minimum wage hikes is comparing apples to oranges.”Hoobert Heaver Institute” Hoobert Heaver… I see what you did there. Very cute…



report abuse
 

Kannbrown65

posted March 10, 2007 at 7:38 am


Kevin, the people who make minimum wage pay very little in tax. So tax breaks (as if they actually get any) are not likely to have a great impact on their bottom line. If they are paid more, they spend more.You didn’t answer my question. The minimum wage started at 25 cents an hour. It has been raised, on average, every three years since the 30’s. This latest time is the LONGEST time it has gone without being raised. Before now, it was 6 years between 1950 and 1956. So, given that, have the other increases brought those consequences? We should have been seeing a pattern of, every time the minimum wage was raised, there were mass firings and a spike in inflation. If so, show the numbers. And be sure to include the year AFTER the minimum wage increase.You don’t even have to wait for the Fed. So far, 29 states have raised THEIR minimum wage, often with other states nearby who did not. So, tell us if they lost employment, raised prices, or even lost businesses due to the increase.



report abuse
 

Elmo

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:26 am


Jim, I would like to see some unified appeal by Christian leaders to members of congress of both parties for legislation to reduce the number of abortions… …if by no other means than to just insist that it be resolved, through availability of contraceptives or not, and that the congress just get it done. I can’t believe it, Mike…I actually agree with you. Now would you do us all a favor and stop saying that church buildings are only used once a week? It’s an insult to the work we do! Have you ever been to a church that doesn’t have stuff going on through the week? I haven’t. I’m not saying they aren’t out there, but they’re not the norm.Here’s what happens at my church in the evenings: Monday: Young Professionals small group, Boy Scouts Tuesday: Elder/Ministry meetings (at least 3) Wednesday: Services, Al-Anon meeting, youth counseling Thursday: Alpha Course, family spiritual formation class, AA/NA meetings Friday/Saturday: Weddings, various special events (something every week) Plenty more goes on all day, all week, all year. I can tell you where I agree with you though. I think churches should add services rather than adding space. The Village Church has done just that, so that they can continue giving to charities and missions at the high rate that are now. I think that’s good stewardship.



report abuse
 

meddy

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:33 pm


Jim Wallis leaves out the personal responsibility of individuals. Typical. He is a bleeding heart socialist. America is a capitalist nation Jim. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…remember those? If I want to help the poor I will do so through personal charity. Rewarding underachievers by penalizing those who achieve. Great idea Jimmy. You are so compassionate and morally superior than I am. Only it doesn’t encourage personal responsibilty. It encourages dependence…, all while discouraging and holding back those who are bettering themselves. Its crippling. When I go to work I carry anothers burden for the first three hours before I begin earning my own take home pay. I work 8 hrs to earn 5 hrs pay. I work the first 5 mos. of the year for taxes. Thats 12 mos. work to earn 7 mos pay. Why should I be forced to pay the price for high school dropouts and drug addicts and those who get pregnant outside marriage. Up yours. People like Jimmy never learn from history. Socialism has never worked. When Bradford settled in Massachusetts those settlers pooled all the fruit of their labor for the community good. But, it did them no good. They were soon starving…nobody had incentive to work harder. Bradford cut them all loose and they thrived. There was no net beneath them. Sink or swim. Socialists like Jim are hopeless and incurable fools…every generation must suffer its share of idiots that live among them I guess.



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 3:03 pm


I am curious to what many of you do for a living? Some of you have quoted economists and academics in your arguments for and against a minimum wage but I doubt if anyone teaching at Harvard or Wharton really understand this issue. I work in the restaurant world and have done so for 25 years. I can attest to these facts that I have observed (and been party to) during this time; 1.) When you raise the cost of labor you do two things; you try to cut costs in other areas and you raise prices. 2.) Most productive employees make more than the minimum wage – significantly more. 3.) Most of your marginally productive employees earn closer to the minimum wage. 4.) When you raise the minimum wage the marginally productive employees are the first to go. This includes part time students, retireees and the disabled. 5.) As companies try to control their labor costs service envariably suffers as few people are employed in that sector. Don’t believe me? Eaten in a Denny’s lately? (Or anywhere else for that matter) 6.) Some people will lose their part-time jobs, these are often second jobs. The minimum wage increase will not offset the loss in additional income. Sad but true. 7.)20 years ago you could feed a family of 4 on $5.00 dollars at McDonalds (Heaven forbid! Not that evil place!) Now it takes $20.00 to feed that same family. Costs go up and prices will too. Will the prices outstrip the enforced benefits? Why do I use McDonald’s as an example? Because that’s where many of you believe all the minimum wagers work (when in fact fast food companies pay well above scale) yet it is the place where many of us choose to eat, because it’s food is ‘affordable’. Of course I know that I work in a much maligned industry, that if only people did not work for me they might live more rewarding lives as economists, socialogists, academics, pastors, authors etc. etc. Alas…..



report abuse
 

meddy

posted March 10, 2007 at 3:16 pm


I am fed up with you socialist hypocrites. So, I will expose you for the liars your are. I am barely able to pay my hospital bills as I have had a heart attack recently. As a matter of fact, I have to use my credit card to pay for groceries and gas and oil etc as a result…consequently, I keep going deeper into debt. I am willing to bet that you, Mr Wallis, and all you other socialists feel my pain. I am willing to bet that many of you, like Mr Wallis, who so believe in social justice have the capacity to reach out and help. Lets put your money where your mouth is. I am looking for social justice. Heres the challenge Mr Wallis. We all will watch for personal donations from Mr Wallis and the socialist bloggers who read this. I will check here periodically to see if Mr Wallis and any like minded socialists, will actually step up to the plate and prove what they say they believe in. If you are a socialist believing in social equality and justice here is your chance to prove your beliefs. Write me here. Here is what I suspect will really happen though. I will either be scorned, ridiculed or ignored. Either way we will see if they are as compassionate as they pretend they are. You see, they are usually generous with other peoples money, not their own. Everyone who reads this will have proof of socialist compassion on display as seen by the response or lack of response following this blog.



report abuse
 

RJohnson64

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:52 pm


Meddy, My e-mail address is RJohnson64@yahoo.com. Contact me offline and I’ll put my money where my mouth is. The problem with our health care system is illustrated quite well by your predicament. We spend more per capita in our nation for healthcare, and we get less for it than those nations who offer universal health care for their citizens. Opponents decry rationing under a universal system. Yet those of us fortunate enough to have insurance still face rationing based on what our insurance company says it will cover. We need universal healthcare insurance. We need it yesterday. Drop me a line Maddy. I can’t help a lot, but I’ll pitch in a bit for your situation.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 10, 2007 at 5:32 pm


“I am curious to what many of you do for a living? Some of you have quoted economists and academics in your arguments for and against a minimum wage but I doubt if anyone teaching at Harvard or Wharton really understand this issue.” I’m a political shill for various causes, conservative or not. If you are talking about the issue of minimum wage, that debate is largely settled among economists, and they can surely explain the implications of price theory on minimum wage increases.”I work in the restaurant world and have done so for 25 years. I can attest to these facts that I have observed (and been party to) during this time;” I grew up in the restaurant business (my mother owned one, and my father managed several). You make a good point about fast food. My sister worked in fast food for a long time. I was astonished at how quickly she was able to secure a reasonable wage (over $30k in Michigan, aka the vortex of economic despair). As a manager, she had a lot of input into wages, and the primary criteria for getting a raise were showing up for your shift and not stealing from the register. This country affords a number of opportunities to get out of the minimum wage doldrums. While there are the unfortunate who have handicaps or don’t speak the language who have a harder time navigating their ascent, the opportunuties are much more fruitful than in nations that have emplyed heavy regulation.



report abuse
 

PBA

posted March 10, 2007 at 6:53 pm


Meddy, you say: I am fed up with you socialist hypocrites. So, I will expose you for the liars your are. I am barely able to pay my hospital bills as I have had a heart attack recently. As a matter of fact, I have to use my credit card to pay for groceries and gas and oil etc as a result…consequently, I keep going deeper into debt. In so saying, you demonstrate that we really need universal health care. We live in the only industrialized country in the world that does not provide national health care, and we lag far behind many other countries in life expectancy, infant mortality, and virtually all measures of public health.



report abuse
 

PBA

posted March 10, 2007 at 7:02 pm


Economics 101 creates a lot of free market fundamentalists. A little further study shows economic principles are not quite that simple. Several states have passed minimum wage increases, so we do have a little data to look at. Florida, for example, increased the minimum wage, despite dire predictions of the results. Here is an analysis of their situation one year later: http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports/Florida_Minimum_Wage_Report.pdf Note: None of the dire predictions came true! Why is that? As other commenters have mentioned, extra money in the pockets of multi-millionaires does not necessarily result in additional spending. But additional money in the pockets of poor people results in immediate spending on consumer goods, which leads to an increase in demand for consumer goods, causing business to increase production, hiring more employees and purchasing more raw materials, resulting in – again – increased demand for consumer goods! Isn’t it wonderful? A few dollars in the pockets of people who will spend it, multiplies into many dollars throughout the economy!



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 7:53 pm


Kevin: I’m a political shill for various causes, conservative or not. If you are talking about the issue of minimum wage, that debate is largely settled among economists, and they can surely explain the implications of price theory on minimum wage increases. You certainly are a political shill for conservative causes, Kevin. Are they paying you or are you working on a pro bono basis? The debate on minimum wage is definitely NOT settled among economists. The Hoobert Heaver Institute may think it is. But the Economic Policy Institute disagrees with right wing economic cult dogma and proves their case with real world data. If you are seriously interested in the minimum wage issue check out the Economic Policy Institute’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide – Facts at a Glance: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage .



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 8:26 pm


A few dollars in the pockets of people who will spend it, multiplies into many dollars throughout the economy! I would agree. However, in my experience (I have never worked in Florida or for the Hoover institute) when wages increase as a percentage of sales then the first reaction on the part of upper management (some of them certainly doing the bidding of some millionaires but more likely that of the Wall Street) is to cut labor costs somewhere else. Ususally this results in the cutting of staffing levels – perhaps not always in the form of layoffs but often in a reduction in work hours, resulting in a net reduction in take home salary. Frequently there is a reduction in benefits – meal priveleges, vacation time, personal days, sick pay, holiday pay and more and more often a paring down of the proportion of the medical premiums the employer pays and an increase in the probationary period before benefits kick in. Perhaps this is not part of a zero-sum equation, but most employers will react as if it is. And lets not forget the fact that not all businesses are benefitting from the same profit margins that many minimum wage corporations enjoy, such as the likes of Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Disney (I wonder…are they actually paying minimum wage? What business are and who are they paying?). An increase in costs of this magnitude (spread across multiple business locations) could be enough to send some struggling business over the brink, exposing them to bankruptcy and take over. And we all know that corporate take-overs rarely result in an increase in the workforce. I recently spent a short gig with a national 24 hour chain that (in my opinion) treats their people very poorly. Long shifts, no breaks, few benefits, hostile conditions. But they pay very well and have surprisingly little turnover (although the emoployees do not express much contentment).Other than waitstaff (some of whom earn over $50k per annum in tips alone)there are only two employees working near the minimum wage level (avg wage is 9.50 hr). Those two employees both suffer from mild mental retardation and although they are the most challenged by the job they are perhaps the only two that enjoy their work. I guarantee this restaurant would not employ them if forced to pay them more.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm


1.) When you raise the cost of labor you do two things; you try to cut costs in other areas and you raise prices.” Christian Beyer Don’t jump to defense because I take you to task on one or more points. This is what any business should always be doing, cutting cost. If cost cutting reduces service or quality then it “may” not be worthwhile, but it may in fact be just the thing a business needs. Nothing wrong with management reducing cost and reaping more profit and it is also not wrong to cut cost and increase wages. I always think the boss is supposed to have a piece of success. As a consumer of food doesn’t make me an expert but I see great waste at every single restaurant where I eat, not that I could do better if I owned the place. I know you are not being simple minded about this question but it is more complex than many want to address. So, help us consumers of your service consume more efficiently, more money for you and maybe your employees even charity for disadvantaged workers. I’m sorry to report, in my business, that every time I attempted to employ the handicapped it was a failure and I tried several times.



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:03 pm


I see great waste at every single restaurant where I eat, You are very observant. There is tremendous waste, primarily due to lack of efficient use of labor. In order to save money the most obvious (and usually incorrect) response is to cut staffing, resulting in many more mistakes being made in the workplace. Imagine what will happen when all the hourly employees recieves a non-merit based increase. (When the minimum goes up everyone else will expect an increase) When I operated my own business (another restaurant) I had much success employing people with disabilities, particularly those who were mentally retarded. They were generally very dependable, agreeable, hard working and loyal. I even paid them more than the minimum wage. I could not, however, compete successfully with the large chains that moved into my neighborhood. Although the chains employ good people, corporations are not usually noted for their sense of charity in the workplace (there are exceptions) so needless to say these friends of mine were left unemployed.



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:06 pm


I guess I should add that I am now employed as a vocational teacher at a special education school devoted to helping inner city high school children who are wards of the state. Part of my job, once they have completed their training (with immensely varying degrees of success) will be to place these young people with food services and restaurants in the area. Increasing the minimum wage will make this part of my job much more challenging.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm


Justintime, The EPI (which is the only source you have ever cited on this issue) is not an unbiased source either. It is bought and paid for by unions. An insult and a link is not a persuasive argument.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:23 pm


Neither are these: If you are talking about the issue of minimum wage, that debate is largely settled among economists, and they can surely explain the implications of price theory on minimum wage increases. The EPI (which is the only source you have ever cited on this issue) is not an unbiased source either. It is bought and paid for by unions.-Kevin S. Who supports EPI? “EPI is a 501(c)(3) corporation. A majority of its funding (about 60% in 2001) was received through grants from foundations. EPI also receives support from individuals, corporations, labor unions, government agencies, and other organizations.”



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 10, 2007 at 10:04 pm


It receives more funding from unions (one-third) than any other source, the other sources including pro-union groups. This is pretty widely known. If you are unwilling to acknowledge this, then you are being dishonest. The EPI is principally known for study purporting to indicate that a minimum wage increase has little effect on employment rates. The study consisted of calling food industry managers to ask if they intended to hire or fire employees in light of recent minimum wage hikes. Not exactly exhaustive.But again, the recent minimum wage hikes are unikely to have any such effect, given that so few positions pay less than the national minimum wage.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 10:09 pm


It is bought and paid for by unions – Kevin S. Prove it.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 10:12 pm


Kevin – “The EPI is principally known for study purporting to indicate that a minimum wage increase has little effect on employment rates. The study consisted of calling food industry managers to ask if they intended to hire or fire employees in light of recent minimum wage hikes. Not exactly exhaustive.” Where’s your exhaustive data, Kevin? .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm


Kevin: “But again, the recent minimum wage hikes are unikely to have any such effect, given that so few positions pay less than the national minimum wage.” How few, Kevin? .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm


“How few, Kevin?” Fewer than 3 million.”Prove it.” http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=EPI100 All that Ford Foundationg, Daimler Chrysler Foundation, NEA stuff? Those would be union interests. The remainder of the donors tend to be left-wing oriented groups (e.g. the Barbara Stresiand foundation). “Where’s your exhaustive data, Kevin?” Given that you dismiss the work of Friedman and the majority of nobel winning economists on the grounds that they are fiscally conservative, what could I cite that would convince you? You aren’t interested in facts. How about contending with the article to which I linked?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 12:35 am


The Economic Policy Institute “It is bought and paid for by unions – Kevin S.” When was EPI established, and why? EPI was established in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic debate. Who founded EPI? EPI was founded by a group of economic policy experts that includes Jeff Faux, EPI’s first president; economist Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University; Robert Kuttner, columnist for Business Week and Newsweek and editor of The American Prospect; Ray Marshall, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at Brandeis University; and economist Lester Thurow of the MIT Sloan School of Management. What makes EPI unique? EPI was the first and remains the premier organization to focus on the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families. Furthermore, it adheres to strict standards of sound, objective research and analysis, and couples its findings with outreach and popular education. What does EPI do? EPI conducts original research on economic issues, makes policy recommendations based on its findings, and disseminates its work to the appropriate audiences. Its research is focused on five main economic areas: * Living standards/labor markets * Government and the economy * Globalization and trade * Education * Retirement policy The Ford Foundation is EPI’s largest donor. Kevin must think the Ford Foundation is a union organization. The Economic Policy Institute hosted a recent conference on The Agenda for Shared Prosperity The keynote speaker at the conference was Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton University and economics columnist for the New York Times. The title of his address is How to Save the Middle class from Extinction. Progressive Christians looking for intelligent/practical, sane/humane social/economic policy will find Krugman’s keynote address enlightening. Here it is: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/ What do you think of Krugman’s address?Kevin will try to discredit Krugman without even reading the address. Kevin has called himself a shill. Shills don’t look at the other side of an issue if it challenges the special interests they serve. Kevin summarily dismisses challenging ideas by invoking The Ludvig von Mises Institute, Milton Friedman and other unnamed Nobel economists. Friedman just died at the age of 97. His abstract theories have been stretched to the limits of credibility to justify the heartless conservative Republican dismantling of America’s social safety net infrastructure. Larry Kudlow, who you’ve probably seen foaming at the mouth on his TeeVee money show is one of three board members of the Ludvig von Mises Institute. So much for Kevin’s economic philosophy. .



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 11, 2007 at 12:47 am


“Given that you dismiss the work of Friedman and the majority of nobel winning economists on the grounds that they are fiscally conservative” Kevin I might agree with some of your points if I didn’t find you weren’t so dishonest.Justintime did not dismiss “the majority of nobel winning economists”.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 11, 2007 at 12:50 am


find you you so dishonest



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 4:58 am


Kevin: “But again, the recent minimum wage hikes are unikely to have any such effect, given that so few positions pay less than the national minimum wage.” Justintime: “How few, Kevin?” Kevin: “Fewer than 3 million.” WRONG AGAIN, KEVIN! Kevin pulls numbers out of thin air with no sources cited. Kevin is off by a factor of four this time. But then he, Wolverine and Jesse were low by a factor of ten in arguing over the number of innocent Iraqis murdered after Bush’s deceitful and immoral invasion of Iraq.According to EPI analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey, 9.8% of American workers will be affected by a raise of the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, or a total of 12,972,000 workers. If you want to see a State by State breakdown of workers affected by the rise in the Federal minimum wage, go here: http://www.epinet.org/issueguides/minwage/table3.pdf I’ve been reading Kevin recite bogus Republican talking points ever since the beginning of God’s Politics. He’s been mostly getting away with this. He gets little or no challenge from the Progressives on this blog. I’ve long suspected Kevin is here to disrupt the efforts of Progressive Christians from developing some coherent talking points of their own and speaking out to the larger evangelical community.Kevin is a self admitted shill for conservative Republican special interests so every one of his claims should be carefully checked out. Almost all faith based “Free Market”, economics comes from Milton Friedman and his surviving groupies. America’s present dismal economic situation is the legacy of the late Milton Friedman. .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:23 am


“Kevin pulls numbers out of thin air with no sources cited. Kevin is off by a factor of four this time” I pulled it from the links you gave me. The number of positions is different from the number of people “affected” by the minimum wage increases. Given that the link to the information I provided is directly adjacent to the information you provide on the EPI site, you are either disingenuous (most likely) or ignorant of the data your are providing us. Either way, I see little reason to continue this debate. You, Butch and Wallis can have at it. “Kevin is a self admitted shill for conservative Republican special interests so every one of his claims should be carefully checked out.” I did not admit to this.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:34 am


Christian Beyer: “I am curious to what many of you do for a living?Kevin S.: “I’m a political shill for various causes, conservative or not.” Justintime: “Kevin is a self admitted shill for conservative Republican special interests so every one of his claims should be carefully checked out.” Kevin: “I did not admit to this.” Were you just joking, Kevin, or what? .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:41 am


Justintime: “Kevin pulls numbers out of thin air with no sources cited. Kevin is off by a factor of four this time” Kevin: “I pulled it from the links you gave me. The number of positions is different from the number of people “affected” by the minimum wage increases. Given that the link to the information I provided is directly adjacent to the information you provide on the EPI site, you are either disingenuous (most likely) or ignorant of the data your are providing us.” Come on, Kevin, Show us where you got the 3 million number of ‘positions’ as you put it. My link says 12,972,000 workers. Please, Kevin, no more doubletalk. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:52 am


Kevin: “Either way, I see little reason to continue this debate. You, Butch and Wallis can have at it.” I see little reason for you to continue this debate either, Kevin, as long as you continue reciting debunked Republican talking points and unsourced inaccurate statistics. .



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:53 am


“He gets little or no challenge from the Progressives on this blog.” Justintime I take umbrage? I admit that few look at my post except to tell me they don’t like how I challenge Kevin S. And, I don’t like how he uses our good humor and time.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 5:59 am


You’re one of the rare exceptions, Butch. Keep it up, dude. Do you sometimes feel like you’re talking to yourself? .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 6:01 am


I would drop the Republi-nazi epithet, though. .



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 11, 2007 at 7:27 am


Justintime, you may be right but the neo-cons are willing to kill anyone with someone else’s children and money and put out these dupes with nice words to fool us.Have you ever seen birds or meerkats mob a snake? They don’t do it quietly or gently, they never kill the snake but they do run it off. It slithers off to sneak back another day to steal a child to send off to war. The Garden of Eden isn’t the only place man must struggle with snakes.So, keep the snakes at bay while your children sleep and teach them to recognize the snake when they grow up, all you can do. Trust me saying; “please snake leave us alone” will not work, they really don’t make nice pets and they will never like your face.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 11, 2007 at 8:19 am


What works by Friedman, von Mises or other non-EPI economists have you read, justin and butch? You seem awfully sure that they didn’t know what they were talking about. I’ve read books by them as well as others. I respect both those guys as well as Krugman and Brad Delong whom I try to read at least weekly. Anyone who earns a PhD in economics – not exactly basket weaving – has earned my respect. Economists themselves agree and disagree on policy issues yet they rarely venture into invective and vituperation against those with whom they disagree. Why can’t we copy the grownups and do the same here? I give Friedman credit for one big thing: he was instrumental in convincing the Nixon administration and Congress to end the draft. That counts for a lot in my book.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted March 11, 2007 at 8:24 am


I am so sick of liberals calling any tax cut a tax cut for the rich. The rich pay way more in taxes then anybody else so of course when there is a tax cut they are going to benefit. How you can get a tax cut when you do not pay any is beyond me. I am cosidered middle class and the tax cuts have benefitted me. For all the liberals out there who keep complaing about these tax cuts I have an idea for you. Take your (yes I did say your)money that you did not have to pay the govt. with these tax cuts and send it back to them voluentarily. That way those of us who like to keep our hard money to give away to the poor if we so choose can do it. That way everybody is happy and we don’t have to listen to tax cuts for the rich anymore. Somehow I don’t think people like Jim Wallis will do this but who knows. By the way where in the bible does it say the govt. is supposed to give or take away other peoples money to help the poor. I may be wrong but I thought you were supposed to help the poor beause you love the Lord and not because the govt. forces you to. Just a thought for you liberal christians out there.



report abuse
 

jeff

posted March 11, 2007 at 8:42 am


I found the theme of this post to be on target. Having worked on many budgets in the education field, I am reminded what one of my professors, now a superintendent of schools said about them, “Budgets show what is valued and the philosophy in a community”.While I would state that I am probably a bit more of a Hawk, and would not cut military portions, particularly while the US has troops engaged for the forseeable future, other cuts and trends in US society are troubling. While many conservatives and sad to say even Christians denounce the increase in the role of the Federal government by some of the legislation of The Great Society, it is also important to restate that the poverty rate dropped in that time period by 50%, which is hardly an insignificant number. While some programs are corrupt, and need careful oversight, the way to most likely remedy this is by specifying recipients who demonsrate need, rather than the common practice of issuing block grants. Often these block grants go to make showcases to make local and state leaders look good, rather than impact those who need the funds the most desparately.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 11, 2007 at 1:24 pm


If budgets are moral documants, then how many Katrina victims are guilty of immorality? How many people used government funds the right way? Care to be a Christiahn here Mr. Wallis??? Government funds (budgeted) to kill unboen humans a good place for your morality Mr. Wallis? Our schools should be indoctrinating our little children to embrace homosexual sex acts? Care to heed the threats of Jesus about harming the little ones? If budgets are signs of morality Mr. Wallis, then the Democrats are the reprobates that some on the other side of politics claim that they are. Our tax dollars should not be used to invent new taxes. Taxes are used by the Democrats to enslave honest people to continue the criminal behaviors of dishonest people. The GOP wants to use government budgets to help people become free of government power over their family budgets.The Democrats want to use budgets to force everyone to live like a Socialist, Liberal-Progressive Democrat. So do you Mr. Wallis. You are a Socialist-Progressive Democrat and allow no dissent of your desire for government budgets. That makes you a hypocrite of the highest order Mr. Wallis.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 11, 2007 at 2:04 pm


If there is a Christian out there thinking that Progressives like Jim Wallis are “in” the Church: http://www.lifesite.net/idn/2007/mar/07030504.html http://www.lifesite.net/idn/2007/feb/07022206.html — They have a different gospel.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 11, 2007 at 9:17 pm


Once again, Donny fails to give us valid links. However, I found a news release on this Lifesite Web site that talks about a survey. The survey uses the term ‘progressive’ in a way that I don’t think Jim Wallis would recognize, so I’m not sure that this is a valid comparison anyway. FWIW,



report abuse
 

jeff

posted March 11, 2007 at 10:25 pm


Candidly I don’t know if the Scriptures are to be used in a sense to form government policy. With perhaps exceptions given to some of the Major and Minor prophets, and particularly true of the New Testament, public policy is addressed only to the domain of the Church. This would tend to make sense as the Church was not a political force at all until the time of Constantine, and was in most cases on the run. However, within our system of secular government, it is up to individuals to decide what role the state has in the life of individuals, particularly with regard to taxation and social programs, this has to be true. Of course ethics that an indidual have are part of the process in formulating policy,as they are made by human beings, but the Bible’s purpose is not a blueprint for secular governance. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 10:50 pm


timks, I had to read Capitalism and Freedom for an Econ course. Since then I’ve read articles and papers by Milton Friedman, von Mises and Thomas Sowell. Would you say that Thomas Sowell is heir apparent to classical Friedmanism, the Hoover Institute its archive and Larry Kudlow its most outspoken advocate? I agree with most everyone else; Milton Friedman was a powerful intellect and a giant in the field of economics…. in his prime. But that was then and this is now. In recent years Friedmanism has allowed conservative Republicans to set the stage for some of the most colossal swindles in the history of the American economy. For example; the Great Savings & Loan Swindle, the Great Enron Energy Heist and the current rash of Securities and Capital Accounting scandals. These were all executed under cover of Friedmanian Free Market deregulation. Friedmaniac privatization and deregulation provide cover for the relentless plundering of the Great American Commons. Friedmanism is cited to justify America’s dysfunctional – to the point of being criminal – Health Care System. Friedmanism is used as cover for the American wealthy elite’s indifference to scandalous poverty in America and around the world. This is why I have little tolerance left for absolutist Free Market Friedmanite deregulators, privatizers, profiteers, swindlers and greed in its many other other forms. The best commentary on Friedmanism I’ve read is Professor Paul Krugman’s piece, Who Was Milton Friedman? which appeared in the New York Review of Books just after Friedman’s passing. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857 .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 11, 2007 at 11:14 pm


disregard Larry Kudlow reference.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 12, 2007 at 12:06 am


thanks, justin. I’m not sure I would agree that Thomas Sowell is Friedman’s intellectual heir. Other than op-eds, his recent research and books seem to be predominately addressing issues of ethnicity, race and economics. Like most economists including Krugman, he does recognize the efficacy and power of free markets. I did like Sowell’s two recent text books. It is difficult to find a readable basic econ text. I don’t read Krugman, Sowell or any economist for political opinions, though. I’ve found when they stray outside their area of specialized knowledge they are just like us: captive to their presuppositions and biases. I read Krugmans’s piece after Friedman died and thought it was pretty good. I don’t agree with Krugman that Friedman was intellectually dishonest; that charge made no sense to me. I saw an interview with Friedman on C-Span shortly after hs memoirs came out. A caller asked about von Mises. Friedman was quite plain that he thought Mises’ finest work was Theory of Money and Credit, but he thought Mises’s theories were helpful but ultimately incomplete. I don’t agree that the list of frauds you listed were due to the application of Friedman’s theories. Certainly our health care system is not. Each of those were disasters that had a very large element of government policy failure involved. If by “provided cover” you mean that people invoked Friedman’s name for underhanded, non-free market dealings, I would agree with that characterization.I got the feeling from watching Friedman the last few years before he died, he wasn’t very comfortable with the GOP in its current guise. We share a common intolerance for profiteers, swindlers, fraudsters and other criminals. I don’t care if they are professed free-market advocates, Republican, Democrats or avowed progressives. A crook is a crook. I hope you can agree that criminal activity is not the exclusive domain of the GOP. I do think that a true free market (no government bailouts, subsidies, etc.) can minimize the amount of damage those creeps can do. That doesn’t mean I oppose appropriate regulation, so please don’t jump to that conclusion.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 12, 2007 at 12:49 am


I can’t imagine that Friedman would be a fan of the GOP in it’s present form. Libertarians are in the wilderness right now, given our nation’s fervent populist bent.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 12, 2007 at 1:44 am


Someone here at Beliefnet altered my links. What Progressives are and what they want: http://www.lifesite.net/idn/2007/mar/07030504.html The article is: UK Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively true.” By Hilary White. Effectively outlawing Christian culture, community and truth. Unless of course it becomes Progressive ONLY. I googled Outlawing Christianity and the third site down was this http://www.lifesite.net one. Maybe the “i: before the dn is not an i. Maybe it;s a 1 (one) or l (el). But anyway . . . Progessive ideology and theology is the enemy of the Christian Church. Jim Wallis is an unabashed Progressive.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:48 am


Milton Friedman, Rest in Peace. T – I got the feeling from watching Friedman the last few years before he died, he wasn’t very comfortable with the GOP in its current guise. J Perhaps he was beginning to see the results of his ideas being bastardized and exploited by opportunistic politicians and corporate leadersT – I don’t agree that the list of frauds you listed were due to the application of Friedman’s theories. J The frauds I listed were the direct result of careless deregulation policy written by opportunistic politicians and smooth operators in the private sector – Savings & Loan Industry, Energy Industry, Securities Industry, etc. T – Certainly our health care system is not. J I agree, but worshipping Friedman’s ‘Bitch Goddess of the Free Market’ prevents America from enjoying Universal Health Care at an affordable price.T – Each of those were disasters that had a very large element of government policy failure involved. J My point entirely. Those government policies were intentionally put in place by opportunists, who stood to benefit by the new rules. Since they designed the new rules they already knew how to game the new system before the new rules were even enacted by their opportunistic politician stooges. T – If by “provided cover” you mean that people invoked Friedman’s name for underhanded, non-free market dealings, I would agree with that characterization. J By providing cover, I mean that Freidman s talking points, deregulation, privatization, free markets”, etc are exploited, to push enabling legislation through Congress, with loopholes left open for the opportunistic special interests who then abuse the new system.. T – I hope you can agree that criminal activity is not the exclusive domain of the GOP. J I agree, but I ve noticed that the cleverest, boldest, most successful swindlers by far are rightwing conservative Republicans. These guys are writing the book on the cutting edge of swindling and they’re setting all the records. T – I do think that a true free market (no government bailouts, subsidies, etc.) can minimize the amount of damage those creeps can do. J You ll have to explain what you think a true free market is. And how do you think a true free market will minimize the damage these Free Market Profiteers inflict on the Great American Commons? T – I did like Sowell’s two recent text books. It is difficult to find a readable basic econ text. J – Do you teach econ? T – That doesn’t mean I oppose appropriate regulation, so please don’t jump to that conclusion. J I m glad we both agree that government has a purpose beyond going to war. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:50 am


Jim Wallis is an unabashed Progressive. Donny | 03.11.07 – 6:49 pm | #What was your first clue, Donny? .



report abuse
 

Closet Progressive

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:57 am


Progessive ideology and theology is the enemy of the Christian Church. Donny | 03.11.07 – 6:49 pm | #Please forgive us Donny. Tell us how we might repent and be saved. Do we have to become idiots like you? .



report abuse
 

Ms. Cynthia

posted March 12, 2007 at 3:05 am


I am an under paid music teacher/volunteer who teaches Violin at a local nonprofit who provides educational and enrichment classes for special needs children and children at risk in a heavily populated urban CA County. We are working in the trenches, on the ground to see that these children end up in colleges not and not in coffins. Since much of our young law inforcement talent has left for Iraq Cities simply don’t have the recruits to do face to face community policing. Gang violence is up. Orange County lost three 14 year olds the week before Christmas. AS parents and teachers we have been working very hard to raise a few thousand dollars just to get the violins the children need to continue their studies. Between fund raising projects and applying for grants we are expected to document absolutely everything we do. We have not been able to apply for the governemnt NEA grants because we can not afford the staff to do all the paper work and documentation involved. During the last month Congressman Waxman revealed to me that Mr. Brenner handed out 9 BILLION dollars on pallats with stacks of 100 dollar bills to Iraqi officials to pay government employees with out any documentation what so ever. They have absolutely no accounting for these funds. One ministry not yet revealed to us which claimed they had 800 employees had less than 40. Much of the 9 BILLION dollars appears to be missing in action. Unaccounted for. . . . . AOL!!! ???????? How much should I be concerned about the administrative ablility of the Bush administration just to maintain our government safely while they are are at seige politically between now and 2008? Every week reveals a new level of incompetance or ethical complacency in another sector of our buracracy. What else can I do besides pray that nothing truly significant to our economy or our government will be harmed until we elect a functioning administrator?



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 12, 2007 at 3:18 am


“Do we have to become idiots like you?” Closet Progressive, don’t you think you’re being a bit unkind? I found the link Donny referred to. Indeed, ‘idn’ in the URL should be ‘ldn.’ Interestingly, the news brief at the other end of this Web address doesn’t even use the word ‘progressive.’ And I don’t know any self-described ‘progressive Christian,’ or any kind of Christian for that matter, who would advocate limiting morality instruction in Christian schools. So I think Donny is setting up a straw man here. So he’s as far as ever from proving that Jim Wallis is a heretic. I’m not holding my breath either. Cheers,



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 12, 2007 at 3:23 am


Cynthia, Thank you for the work you are doing and I hope you get some more violins real soon. Does your non profit teach other instruments besides the violin? The sooner we remove Bush from office, the less damage he can do. Pray for the least possible damage to America. And pray for the safety of Henry Waxman. The missing $9 billion was intended to kick start a “True Free Market” in Iraq. Unfortunately it got stolen by Free Marketeers before it could do any good. .



report abuse
 

Francis L. Holland

posted March 12, 2007 at 3:42 am


Dear Mr. Wallis: I can’t sleep sometimes worrying about the state that the world is in. I believe the Democrats are honestly trying to address the many issues that you mentioned above, but I am very concerned about the increasing political influence of atheists and agnostics who don’t believe in God at all. For example, if you look at the website DailyKos and search for the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, you find that many of the people there are writing articles advocating for more atheist and agnostic influence in society. http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=atheist&type=both&sortby=relevance&search=Search&count=50&wayback=1051200&wayfront=0&search_archive=yes http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=50&string=agnostic&type=both&sortby=relevance&search=Search&count=50&wayback=1051200&wayfront=0&search_archive=yes Of course people believe very different things in a free society, but I read where one commenter at DailyKos wants to “squeeze at least some of the religion out of public discourse”, and I don’t see how many people can agree with that. Thank goodness, the two Democrats who are at the top of the polls are both church-going Christians. I just wish the people at blogs like DailyKos would stop attacking them the Christian candidates, and stop berating them whenever they speak of God in public.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 12, 2007 at 4:16 am


J The frauds I listed were the direct result of careless deregulation policy written by opportunistic politicians and smooth operators in the private sector – Savings & Loan Industry, Energy Industry, Securities Industry, etc. T – I don’t know why Friedman gets the blame for this, then. J I agree, but worshipping Friedman’s ‘Bitch Goddess of the Free Market’ prevents America from enjoying Universal Health Care at an affordable price. T – I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean something Americans don’t actually do prevents them from having something that doesn’t exist? J My point entirely. Those government policies were intentionally put in place by opportunists, who stood to benefit by the new rules. Since they designed the new rules they already knew how to game the new system before the new rules were even enacted by their opportunistic politician stooges. T – We agree! But that is not a free market. J I agree, but I ve noticed that the cleverest, boldest, most successful swindlers by far are rightwing conservative Republicans. These guys are writing the book on the cutting edge of swindling and they’re setting all the records. T – I haven’t kept score, but I’d be surprised if Republicans are so adept. Most of the GOP pols seem a bit dim to me, and the Dems also for that matter. J You ll have to explain what you think a true free market is. And how do you think a true free market will minimize the damage these Free Market Profiteers inflict on the Great American Commons? T – You’ll have to explain what you mean by Great American Commons, but nearly all of the disasters you listed had this in common: 1) government either bailed out those who gambled big and lost; or 2) the exploited markets the defective policies set up were not “free”. In a true free market, taxpayers don’t make a big shot whole when the big shot loses money (e.g., S&L scandal) due to his own mistakes or when the market moves against him. Nor does the government set prices to “protect” producers at the expense of consumers (e.g., California energy fiasco). J – Do you teach econ? T – I used to. It’s been a few years. J I m glad we both agree that government has a purpose beyond going to war. T – That was never in question. I think government should be limited in what it can and should be able to do. I have grave misgivings it can provide goods and services better than a free market, even a defective market. Many progressives have no such misgivings. Quite the opposite.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 12, 2007 at 4:42 am


timks ” What works by Friedman, von Mises or other non-EPI economists have you read, justin and butch?” What did I say about Friedman or von Mises? “I give Friedman credit for one big thing: he was instrumental in convincing the Nixon administration and Congress to end the draft. That counts for a lot in my book.” No better tool for the neo-con than starting a war that doesn’t put in danger everyone in society, only a few, many who join only for economic reasons. This leaves us with a mercenary army; a mercenary army in the hands of politicians and some one is going to get hurt. Note; any politician!timks ” What works by Friedman, von Mises or other non-EPI economists have you read, justin and butch?” What did I say about Friedman or von Mises? “I give Friedman credit for one big thing: he was instrumental in convincing the Nixon administration and Congress to end the draft. That counts for a lot in my book.” No better tool for the neo-con than starting a war that doesn’t put in danger everyone in society, only a few, many who join only for economic reasons. This leaves us with a mercenary army; a mercenary army in the hands of politicians and some one is going to get hurt. Note; any politician! I knew as soon as Kevin said he was bowing out that some other Republi-Nazi would step up to make excuses for the Bush crowd. My first thought was who? then it came to me. I knew as soon as Kevin said he was bowing out that some other Republi-Nazi would step up to make excuses for the Bush crowd. My first thought was who? then it came to me.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 12, 2007 at 5:32 am


To the moderator, With, and only with your permission, I would like to address the issue of “Nazi”. Having been called one on a few occasions in my professional career (it is amazing how upset some people can get when you stop them from beating (in this case literally) on each other) and can prove that I am not one, and by reasonable extension that the others here are not either. To do so would require that the perpetrator answer only one question, with complete candor, and that may not be possible. The other potential problem is that having proved it, the person involved may not be able to appreciate its significance, and even if they do it may not stop their continued misuse of the term. To be honest, if I were in your position, I could see reasons to have me do it, and reasons to not have me do it. I want to respect the norms you have outlined, and do not intend this is in any way as disrespect for them. I will await your reply. cheers, Paul



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 12, 2007 at 5:51 am


No one has used the term “Nazi”. The term Republi-Nazi has been used and the definition can be found on wekipedia.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 12, 2007 at 6:50 am


butch, I tried wading through your incoherent message and I have only one bit of advice for you: please proof read. You don’t like “mercenaries” but you evidently have no problem with slaves. You and General Westmoreland agree on that, at least.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 12, 2007 at 7:13 am


timks I give you intellect but not intellectual intregity. General Westmoreland mentioned the dishonesty you exhibit and did suggest slavery. To spare you wading through another post. I’ll be simple and straight forward; you are one sick pup.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 12, 2007 at 7:16 am


“The term Republi-Nazi has been used and the definition can be found on wekipedia.” What is their definition?



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 12, 2007 at 1:55 pm


“Nazis,” were National Socalists that opposed Christians and Christianity trying to implement their religious views into their political aspirations. Yet interestingly Socialist can. Nazi’s were Aryans. A religion not of the Bible. American Democrats sound a lot like the German National Socialists of early 20th century politcis, when you look at their DNC/Liberal/Progressive politics and their reactions to Christians desiring a voice of influence into political affairs. Christian Nacht is on the horizon, and it is more likely to come from the Liberal/Progressives that makeup the Democrat Socialist machine. Democrats, like the German socialist examples that came before them, welcome Christian voices that do not desire to implement the Gospel or any other Christian teachings to opposing the socialist, goals and laws they desire to run all of society. Hugo Chavez is a hero to “The Left,” and it didn’t take his socialist aims and goals very long to become totalitarian in every respect. This is a glimpe of the soul and spirit of the modern American Democrat. While the use the vehicle of freedom to obtain their goals, they deny it to any dissenters or anyone that dares not follow in lock-step the National Socialsim. Now see who and what is “Nazi.”



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm


butch – Thank you for proof reading. It makes it much easier for the reader.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm


Paul – As should be obvious by now, there is no moderator. Not that it would make any difference to some here.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 12, 2007 at 2:55 pm


FWIW: I couldn’t find ‘Republi-Nazi’ on Wikipedia. I spelled it both with and without the hyphen in their search window. I’ve never heard or seen the term except here.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm


You cannot tell a Progressive “Christian” like Jim Wallis from a secular humanist atheist. Abortion? High taxes? Evolution as policy making power? Gay marriage? Altering the family? The Bible as myth and allegory? Jesus as just aonther guy with some cool ideas: e pluribus unum?Jim Wallis, an unabshed Progressive, looks like a heretic to me. Or at least, looks like a secular humanist atheist. Where does the New Testament anywhere support Wallis’ Liberal theology? Feeding the poor to encourage them to embrace debauchery is not in the New Testament. Jesus taught to feed the poor for noble reasons. Jim’s on strike eight.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted March 12, 2007 at 4:46 pm


Calling someone a “republi-nazi” is no different from calling someone a plain old Nazi. Comparisons with Nazis are almost always intended as an insult and are lacking in intellectual content, with only two exceptions: 1. The writer describes specific actions taken by Adolph Hitler or other officials affiliated with the National Socialist German Workers Party, which he then compares with specific actions taken by others. 2. The reference is clearly intended as a joke (such as Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi”) The left would generally be better off if it dropped casual references to both “Nazis” and “neoconservatives”. These words are used without any understanding of their meaning 90 percent of the time, and in the process, either a great evil (National Socialism) is minimized or a decent school of political thought (Neoconservatism) is defamed. I do not, however, see any need for action by the moderator at this point. Allowing both serves the useful purpose of facilitating the easy identification of idiots. Wolverine



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 12, 2007 at 4:55 pm


“Jim Wallis, an unabashed Progressive, looks like a heretic to me. Or at least, looks like a secular humanist atheist.” If you can’t tell the difference between Wallis and an atheist, you ain’t looking very closely. “Jim’s on strike eight.” And Donny’s been tossed from the game. Perd n. Tengo que ir a limpiar mis manos.



report abuse
 

L'etranger

posted March 12, 2007 at 5:08 pm


” “Nazis,” were National Socalists that opposed Christians and Christianity”Ah the old Nazis have “socialist” in their name saw. Rather like claiming that the Church of Satan having ‘church’ in their names makes them Christians. The Nazis were never in any sense socialist – in fact their economics were broadly corporatist – large government contracts for favored private companies – to the extent of slave labor camps producing consumable durables at the Auschwitz complex of camps. Interestingly Hitler, far from opposing most Christians, sought to gain the support of many of them by appeals to traditional morality. Some Catholic and Lutheran were undoubtedly suckered. Many others bravely opposed him, but many of these were also politically progressive. His position of whether he was actually an atheist though is more complex as the following shows http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 12, 2007 at 7:11 pm


Many “Christians are being “suckered” by Progressives in Church clothing. Notice that the aims and goals of these “Progressive” Church people are exactly the same as Secular Himanists. Hitler was a believer in Germanic Aryan beliefs at best, when all things are tested by light of New Testament scripture. And upon close and closer examiniation: Notice also that “Progressives” do not do well when tested by scripture. That is why they employ the old “that was then, this is now” routine. Talk about creepy. They mimick and parrot the Humanist Manifesto to the letter, and discard whatever doesn’t fit there ideology/theolgy from the Bible. Of course.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 12, 2007 at 11:45 pm


“I’ve never heard or seen the term except here.” Don I don’t think anyone used the term anywhere until I coined the term to describe those who apologize for anything the neo-cons do or shift the discussion to another subject.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 12, 2007 at 11:57 pm


“Calling someone a “republi-nazi” is no different from calling someone a plain old Nazi.” To you, to me it describes anyone who defends anything the neo-cons do.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted March 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm


“To you, to me it describes anyone who defends anything the neo-cons do.” Butch Please define neo-con.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm


“I don’t think anyone used the term anywhere until I coined the term to describe those who apologize for anything the neo-cons do or shift the discussion to another subject.” So it is not on Wiki. You just made it up.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm


Conservatives Misuse Friedman’s Theories to Deny Reality Timks – I read Krugmans’s piece after Friedman died and thought it was pretty good. I don’t agree with Krugman that Friedman was intellectually dishonest; that charge made no sense to me. J – Please explain why you think this. I don’t think you were paying much attention to Krugman’s many examples of the failures of Friedmanism to predict economic events. I don’t blame Friedman for the misapplication of his theory and the use of Free Market ideology by others to silence critics of careless application of deregulation policy, which produced the scandals I refer to. I don’t blame Friedman for this, I blame opportunists for exploiting the situation. I do fault Friedman for not speaking out on the misapplication of his Free Market ideology. But he was an old man, still basking in the glow of his life’s work. T – I don’t agree that the list of frauds you listed were due to the application of Friedman’s theories. Certainly our health care system is not. Each of those were disasters that had a very large element of government policy failure involved. If by “provided cover” you mean that people invoked Friedman’s name for underhanded, non-free market dealings, I would agree with that characterization. J – Friedman’s abstract theory is still being used as cover for promoting deregulation and leaving the economy open to fraud and abuse. The Health Care Crisis is another story. See below. J You ll have to explain what you think a true free market is. And how do you think a true free market will minimize the damage these Free Market Profiteers inflict on the Great American Commons? T – You’ll have to explain what you mean by Great American Commons, but nearly all of the disasters you listed had this in common: 1) government either bailed out those who gambled big and lost; or 2) the exploited markets the defective policies set up were not “free”. J – If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of the Commons, go look it up. But you probably won’t find it in any of Thomas Sowell’s textbooks. Your simplistic explanation of these disasters demonstrates your ideological bias. T – In a true free market, taxpayers don’t make a big shot whole when the big shot loses money (e.g., S&L scandal) due to his own mistakes or when the market moves against him. Nor does the government set prices to “protect” producers at the expense of consumers (e.g., California energy fiasco). J – You still haven’t defined what you think is a “True Free Market” or explained how a “True Free Market” will prevent fraud and abuse of a deregulated marketplace. That wasn’t much of a definition you provided. Remember that the Federal Energy Regulation Commission was set up to prevent exploitation by monopoly interests. Cheney invoked Friedman’s Free Market to prevent FERC from doing its job in the Great Enron Energy Swindle. The Minimum Wage: from Milton Friedman, the Great Conservative Partisan, by Thomas Palley: Monetarism asserts that monetary policy is all-powerful. Subsequently, Friedman changed his view and argued that monetary policy had no long-run real economic impacts. Friedman cleverly termed his later theory the natural rate of unemployment, thereby enlisting nature on his side. His new theory supported an extreme conservative policy agenda that still lives. According to the theory, the minimum wage increases unemployment by driving up wages, and should therefore be done away with. The same holds for unions. No consideration is given to the possibility that these institutions create an income distribution that promotes mass consumption and full employment. Finally, since central banks supposedly have no long run effect on unemployment and wages, they are not responsible for labor market outcomes. Natural rate theory thereby allows the Fed and European Central Bank to take full employment policy off the table while protecting them from charges that their policies may contribute to wage suppression. Close inspection reveals natural rate theory to be akin to a religious doctrine. This is because it is not possible to conceive of a test that can falsify the theory. When predictions of the natural rate turn out wrong (as they repeatedly have), proponents just assert that the natural rate has changed. That has led to the most recent incarnation of the theory in which the natural rate is basically the trend rate of unemployment. Whatever trend is observed is natural case closed. Since natural rate theory cannot be tested, a sensible thing would be to examine its assumptions for plausibility and reasonableness. However, Friedman s early work on economic methodology blocks this route by asserting that realism and plausibility of assumptions have no place in economics. With most economists blindly accepting this position, the result is a church in which entry is conditional on accepting particular assumptions about the working of markets. Universal Health Care in America: We’ve debated this topic on God’s Politics before. You maintain that America’s dysfunctional health care system is a failure because it isn’t a “True Free Market”. But you’ve never explained how your “True Free Market” would give America a cost effective Universal Health Care system.There is no functioning example of this anywhere on the planet. So until you explain this, your discussion is not based in reality. Your attitude (and the attitude of the other conservatives on this board) seems to be, “This is the best of all possible worlds. Anything you can think of to make it better will only make it worse. So it’s best to accept things the way they are, relax and make the best of life just the way it is.” Progressives will never accept this pathetic attitude. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 13, 2007 at 7:02 pm


Timks, I looked “Commons” up for you” From Wikipedia: The word “Commons” has now come to be used in the sense of any sets of resources that a community recognizes as being accessible to any member of that community. The nature of commons is different in different communities, but they often include cultural resources and natural resources. While commons are generally seen as a system opposed to private property, they have been combined in the idea of common property, which are resources owned equally by every member of the community, even though the community recognises that only a limited number of members may use the resource at any given time. Commons are a subset of public goods; specifically meaning a public good which is not infinite. Commons can therefore be land, rivers and, arguably, money. The Commons is most often a finite but replenishable resource, which requires responsible use in order to remain available. A subset of this is a commons which requires not only responsible use but also active contribution from its users, such as a school or church funded by local donations. In order to ensure responsibility of the users, there must be a system of management. Opportunistic conservatives have been looting the Great American Commons, using deregulation dogma from von Mises and Friedman. Do you need any more examples of this? . Deal with that. .



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm


justin, I am aware of the concept of the Commons and what the word means but you used the term “Great American Commons” like it was a specific place or thing. That is what I was asking you to define. You can’t reasonably expect me to respond to a term unless I know how you are using it. Are you referring to a specific pillaging of the Commons or what? Do you include money as stated above?



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 9:47 pm


justin – Please explain why you think this. I don’t think you were paying much attention to Krugman’s many examples of the failures of Friedmanism to predict economic events. I’m getting ready to leave town for a week, but since it has been a while, I will try to read Krugman’s article again and give an example of why I did not understand his charge of “intellectual dishonesty.” If I’m unable to do so, let me be the first to accuse myself of “dodging an issue”, thereby robbing you of one of your favorite taunts. Sorry, but work and family obligations do take precedence.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 9:49 pm


justin, Your simplistic explanation of these disasters demonstrates your ideological bias. You were expecting an encyclopedic explanation on this blog? Was my so-called simplistic explanation incorrect? Why do you think so?



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 10:03 pm


justin, You still haven’t defined what you think is a “True Free Market” or explained how a “True Free Market” will prevent fraud and abuse of a deregulated marketplace. I don’t believe I ever did say that free markets prevent fraud and abuse. I do believe I stated that free markets make it more difficult to reward fraud and abuse at the expense of the taxpayers or others who were not party to the violations. Don’t forget that the Enron debacle did not occur in what you seem to think was a free market (or at least how you think I define free market). The perpetrators at Enron committed fraud and violated numerous SEC and GAAP rules. How can this be? Where were the regulators and auditors?



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 10:11 pm


I’m not familiar with Thomas Palley, but the excerpt you have included does not address any of my points so I won’t be answering any of it. I’m not sure why you included it. Were you trying to dissuade yourself from your previously stated opinion that Friedman was a great intellect and a giant in his field?



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm


justin, We’ve debated this topic on God’s Politics before. You maintain that America’s dysfunctional health care system is a failure because it isn’t a “True Free Market”. That is not my view. My view is, stated plainly, that the system we have is dysfunctional. There is significant and jarring government involvement in the health care system (some of it worthwhile). That government involvement is not just limited to the National Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control. The government involvement that is counterproductive is systematic from tax policy, which creates wrong incentives, to price controls, to even some of the tort laws. Inasmuch as the system we have has evolved into a system that differentiates the consumers of health care from those who pay for it, and affects the relationship between the providers of health care and patients, it is highly dysfunctional. But you’ve never explained how your “True Free Market” would give America a cost effective Universal Health Care system.There is no functioning example of this anywhere on the planet. So until you explain this, your discussion is not based in reality. Is the goal to provide a cost effective Universal health Care system? Or is it to have a system that makes health care available to as many as need it, particularly the desperately poor and the catastrophically sick? There is no government-provided Universal Health Care system in existence that is both cost-effective and delivery efficient, yet many progressives insist it is the answer. So who is not responding to reality?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 14, 2007 at 12:11 am


The reason why conservative Republicans have no practical ideas for fixing America’s problems is partly due to their Quixotic quest in pursuit of the Friedman ‘Free Market’. They say, “The reason why things aren’t working in America because we don’t yet have a ‘True Free Market'”. So I ask, “Well then how do we find the ‘True’ Free Market so we can fix the problem? I get the same answer every time; Deregulate and Privatize! I say, “This has already been tried many times and look what happened before!” They say, “No, no, that wasn’t really what happened. Deregulation had nothing to do with it. Privatization had nothing to do with that. And it wasn’t really a ‘True’ Free Market.” True Believers in the Free Market believe that when we regulate, we prevent the ‘Free Market’ from functioning efficiently. And when the predictions of the Friedman Free Market True Believers fail to come true, they explain that excessive government regulations prevented functioning of the ‘Free Market’- they will always have an excuse. Conservative Republicans think they have an airtight case for the True Free Market. ‘Raise the minimum wage?’ ‘Sorry, that’s wouldn’t be a Free Market.’ Many conservatives lack a personal conscience about poverty. They believe all responsibility must reside in the ‘invisible hand of the Free Market’. Conservatives without conscience will suppress any attempts to have government provide relief for the poor and suffering. They effectively outsource their personal conscience to the ‘invisible hand of the Free Market’. Then they go back to plundering the planet with a free conscience. Conservative Republicans who support the destruction of America’s social safety net are using ‘the invisible hand of the True Free Market’ for their justification. Worship of the ‘Bitch Goddess of the Free Market’is religion for the greedy. .



report abuse
 

Doug7504

posted March 14, 2007 at 1:14 am


Reading the comments back and forth, I ask myself- Where is the real dialogue? Lots of name-calling and angry rhetoric, but where is the open exchange of ideas without personalizing the debate and demonizing those opposing views? This is what ails our nation, our Congress, and our government. Budgets ought to be moral documents, but still are not, here in America or elsewhere in the world. If our budget WERE a moral document, there would be no ongoing “debate” about whether or not to continue funding our war of conquest in Iraq…the funding would end when our troops withdraw, and there would be deadlines set. People of faith need to stand up and demand a new direction, in our government, our policies, and our budgets. The needy and downtrodden of the world, within and without our borders, cry out for it! Shaolm!



report abuse
 

Rick

posted March 14, 2007 at 7:27 am


A quick comment. You only briefly alluded to Martin Luther King’s : Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence. The Pentagons budget has risen to close to 3/4 of trillion dollars. Look at fully allocated and total cost, not just what is reported. This ependiture is totally immoral. In addtion many local and state goverments while providing funding to the poor are increasingly allocating more and more funds to wealthy special interest projects. More needs to be said on this issue. See MLK speech link below. Alternative Text Source: http://www.africanamericans.com/MLKjrBeyondVietnam.htm



report abuse
 

Ms. Cynthia

posted March 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm


The Iraq War Economy that we live under now is already beginning to taking its toll, not only on the poor but show ruptures in the middle class. Do any of you think that President Cheney has any motivation to care? He’s not running for office any more. His opperatives have basically bribed Iraqi War Lords with 9 billion dallars in undocumented cash handouts to have a Civil War for the next 10 years. Its called job security for the industrial military complex which he plans to retire to. Does this congress have the moral courage to confront fraud costumed in the disgize of incompentance? Don’t change the subject. It won’t work.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm


Preach it Justin. p



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted March 15, 2007 at 1:24 am


The Budget is a moral document. But Wallis refuses to speak to the 52% of the relatively controllable portion of the budget that goes for the machinery of death. This is what keeps needed social programs from being adequately funded. But Wallis’ Democratic buddies are just as committed to killing being the top priority as the Republicans, and Wallis’ refuses to talk about it. Then Sojourners has the nerve to ask me for funds saying they are for peace and are prophetic. On top of having the wrong priorities, they are dishonest. Sojourners has put aside being prophetic to sidling up to consistent death ethic establishment politicians. If Wallis really cared about the poor, he would speak out against the military budget. But he appears to care mainly about being the house reverence for establishment Democrats.



report abuse
 

timks

posted March 15, 2007 at 6:35 am


The reason why progressives have no practical ideas for fixing America’s problems is partly due to their Quixotic quest in pursuit of economic justice . They say, “The reason why things aren’t working in America is because we don’t yet have economic justice . So I ask, “Well then how do we find economic justice so we can fix the problem? I get the same answer every time; Regulate and Nationalize; eliminate the free market!I say, “This has already been tried many times and look what happened before!” They say, “No, no, that wasn’t really what happened. Regulation had nothing to do with it. Nationalization had nothing to do with that. No matter how many regulations there are, it is always the free market that is to blame. And it wasn’t really regulation. True Believers in economic justice believe that free markets are inherently evil, only government regulation can make possible economic justice. And when the predictions of the progressive True Believers fail to come true, they explain that the free market prevented the the flowering of economic justice – they will always have an excuse. Progressives think they have an airtight case for being against the Free Market. ‘Raise the minimum wage?’ ‘Yes, to do otherwise proves you don t care about the poor.’What happens if it doesn t work? The fact you ask the question proves you don t understand the new paradigm of economic justice and you re intolerant besides.’ Many progressives lack a personal conscience about poverty. They believe all responsibility for eradicating poverty must reside in the ‘benevolent hand of the government (there is no other kind). Progressives without conscience will suppress any attempts to give the poor freedom to help themselves while being helped by others. Nothing but government provided aid counts toward providing relief for the poor and suffering. They effectively outsource their personal conscience to the ‘benevolent hand of the government . Then they go back to despoiling society with a free conscience. Progressives who support the destruction of America’s society are using the ‘benevolent hand of the government for their justification. Worship of the ‘Bitch Goddess of economic justice is religion for the cynical and insincere. Can I get an Amen? You re right justin: hyperbole is fun!



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 15, 2007 at 7:02 pm


timks: “Can I get an Amen?” No, but you’ve just won the Uranus award for pulling nonsense out of your rear end. .



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted March 29, 2007 at 1:51 am


“Thank goodness, the two Democrats who are at the top of the polls are both church-going Christians.” They go to church. But they don’t stand for Christian values. Both are consistent death ethic candidates, favoring the war system, abortions and the death penalty. I wish the people who stand for death and against life would stop calling themselves Christians.



report abuse
 

Bishop Osagiede Godwin

posted August 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm


NISTERE PROPHETIQUE DE JESUS CHRIST CHRIST DE NAZARETH C.I.
AND HUMANITARIAN SERVICES AMONG THE HIV POSITIVE IN COTE D’IVOIRE
11 BP 2705 ABIDJAN 11.
ABIDJAN 225.
COTE D’IVOIRE, WEST-AFRICA .
TEL…: (225) 07952565.
E-MAIL: godwinosabuohien@yahoo.fr
My dear brethren in America
We bring you greetings from Abidjan, in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.
The “MINISTERE PROPHETIQUE DE JESUS CHRIST DE NAZARETH COTE D’IVOIRE” is a religious, and humanitarian organisation that is dedicated to preaching the gospel of Jesus christ and also doing humanitarian services that brings hope and solutions among the abandoned people affected with the HIV virus in the remote villages of Cote d’Ivoire. We have been working in Cote d’Ivoire since March, 1998. And we are officially recognised, accredited and authorised by the Government of Cote d’Ivoire to do our Missionary and Huamitarian work in the cities and in the remote and interior villages of Cote.
In Cote d’Ivoire there are many thousands of people in the villages inffected by the HIV virus, who are very poor and have no access to the anti-retroviro drugs that could help them stay alive. Many of them died for lack of adiquate medecins. The cost of the Antiretrovial drugs fixed by the govervnment is $2 every month. But many thousands of these HIV infected people are not able to pay this amount ($2). Many are so far from the medical centers in the cities, that it could cost atleast $10, for transportation only.
Many thousand of these HIV inffected people are been discriminated against, by their parents and rejected by many the members of their society. They are discouraged and really have no where to go. Please support us in any way you can to encourage these hopeless HIV people.
Yours in the Missionary and Humanitarian services among the people that are HIV positive in Cote d’Ivoire.
Bishop. Osagiede Godwin.
Our Project for the abandoned HIV infected people in the interior and remote villages.
(1). We wanted to help these thousands of abandoned HIV infected people in the interior villages pay their $2 monthly. We wanted to help atleast 50000 people every month get the Anti-Retroviro drugs and vitamines that could help them stay alive. $100.000 par month.
(2). We wanted to help these thousands of abandoned HIV infected people in the interior villages with atleast $10 every month as feeding money.
(3) We wanted to launch a sensibilisation and awareness programmes in the societies and communities that are rejecting and discriminating against these people infected with the HIV virus in the villages. Teaching them that we could love, accept and live with persons infected with the HIV virus, encouraging and supporting them in the societies and in the communities. $10.000 every year
(4)We wanted to build small houses in some of the villages to lodge some of the HIV infected people that had already be driven from their various villages as witches and wizards. Each small home will cost $2.000 in thr villages. For the moment, we wanted to start with 10 houses in 10 different villages that understand the plight of the HIV positive in the villages and sypatise with them. Total cost of the 10 houses is $20.000
(5).We wanted to buy second hand cheap clothes, shoes and sleeping materials 10 houses. And organised one or two meals a day for these HIV victims we are lodging. $25.000
(6). In other to encourage and give a new hope of living to many of these HIV infected people in the villages, we wanted organise a small miro-credit and loan scheme project. We wanted to give a small micro-credit loans $35 each to some of the HIV infected people in the villages to engaged themselves in commercial activities of buying and selling in the market places. We wanted to give this loans ro atleast 1000 HIV infected people to help them get startup in life. After 6 months or one year, this loan could be return to the appointed loan managers, so that other HIV infected people could benefit from this loan project.



report abuse
 

Cliff Sanderson

posted May 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm


When I click on your RSS feed it throws up a ton of strange characters, is the problem on my end?



report abuse
 

Pingback: Fighting For/Fighting Over Youth of Color in Chicago | The Magic Mulatto

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.