August 20, 2009

Obama would like you to see government as religion.

He addresses a group of religious leaders:
“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.
Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.
According to the lede paragraph in the linked NYT article:
President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.
Strangely, the context of that quote — "a core ethical and moral obligation" — is missing from the body of the article. Was something cut? Was it too embarrassing? Too Bush-y? I have to go elsewhere:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: OK, for some, that public option has gone over like a lead balloon. So how about plan B, morality? Is that the secret weapon strategy to get health care reform? President Obama went on a conference call today with thousands of religious people, arguing health care reform is a moral issue. The president also argued against what he calls "ludicrous lies" made up about his health plan.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.
Now, we know that Barack Obama doesn't "keep" his actual brother — we remember George Hussein Onyango Obama, the brother who lives a hut — and it's clear that what he means is that government has the moral obligation to regard all citizens as brothers and sisters — I'm coining the word sibizens — and to care for them.

I'd really like to find the full text of what was — if I'm to believe Van Susteren — a big telephone call. It's not on the White House website. There's a bit more here (at ABC):
Mr. Obama called on the religious leaders to help him share the good word about health care reform and set the record straight.

“I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth,” he said.
Sharing the "good word"? Good Lord! Is this the Gospel? Mark 16:
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Obama says believe. Believe or be condemned as sinners. And go forth into the world. Preach the good news. Speak the truth.
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Talk about the blue pill! Just wait until the government lays its hands on you. In Barack's name, you will get well.

Government as religion — it's a poisonous notion! But drink it, drink it. Believe! It will not hurt you at all!

ADDED:
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to [Rabbi Jack] Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

243 comments:

1 – 200 of 243   Newer›   Newest»
NKVD said...

The religious left - that is truly frightening to contemplate.

WV - burciti - the enclave where all the women are beautiful...

Kev said...

(the other kev)

I await Mark Crispin Miller's condemnation. I really do.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What's he going to do next? Issue a fatwa against those who are questioning Obamacare?

Has anyone thought to ask the numbskull in chief why they simply can't fix the uninsured problem by opening up Medicare to those who are uninsured? Single payer, public option right there folks. If they end up getting private coverage at some point they can drop Medicare or relegate it to secondary payer status as it is now. Why do we have to create another massive federal money pit when there is already one in existance?

Hoosier Daddy said...

The religious left - that is truly frightening to contemplate.


Of course it is. They're called communists because it requires blind faith to believe such a system works.

Slow Joe said...

Is this supposed to help Obama?

The only people who take this language seriously are already seriously irritated with Obama. bitter clingers?

I have a hard time understanding why Obama has to shift gears so often. he's the one who said he wanted single payer and to deny grandma a new hip. It's his crew that was promising that this is a cute way to sneak in single payer and eugenics.

Obama would be so much better off if he's stop acting like his original ideas are abominations. That's how it comes across when he acts offended that people take him at his word.

Obama could have come out and admitted he wanted single payer and death panels (using a euphamism), and was compromising by asking only for some kind of preexisting condition reform.

At least that would have come across as honest. Instead, we know he's trying to con us somehow.

daubiere said...

i always thought that the left seems to be religion in search of a god ie the twisted vestiges of modern christian morality after the animating force (ie God,Christ) has been removed.

obama is cynically deploying religious language and ideas in his campaign for more power. its happened many times in human history, its just more hilarious coming from the personal savior of all those democrats who quaked and shaked when Bush did the same thing.

Render unto Caesar!

AllenS said...

If the blue pill doesn't work, and then the red pill doesn't work, will we have to eat an Obama wafer as if we were taking communion?

I'm beginning to detest this man.

TRO said...

Man, talk about last ditch efforts. Who is he trying to convince with this fake religious moral bull crap? Certainly not the already converted left who only have room for him on their alter. And certainly not the right who already know he is a snake oil salesman who would say anything to get what he wants. So that leaves those in the middle who I think will only be insulted because he really thinks they are stupid enough to buy it.

Pathetic.

How the hell did this guy get elected again?

Bill R said...

The State as religion. Here's a classic Twilight Zone related to the topic. Those of us who are old or ill or otherwise of no further use to the state will find it interesting as well.
It's called "The Obsolete Man". We find Burgess Meredith is facing his very own death panel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57zZwpbtkDs

Florida said...

Believe in Obama and enact everything he wants or face going to Hell.

I'm pretty sure that's the message here.

Is Obama the anti-Christ?

Looking more and more like it.

daubiere said...

im not surprised that obama likens himself to Christ after all his economic policies seem to be based on the fishes-and-loaves principle of conjuring an abundance from a supply of nothing.

rdkraus said...

TRO

He got elected by being the Con Man in Chief, which many of us recognized way before the election.

NKVD said...

Our esteemed hostess was among those who voted for this abomination.

WV - dedogile - when live guile fails, bring out the zombie guile.

Old Dad said...

Slow Joe nailed it. Obama is a con, and as it turns out, not a very good one. First rate cons slip out of town before the cops come when their racket gets busted, but Obama keeps the lame patter going--pick a card, any card.

But the suckers are on to him. No wonder people are pissed. How long before America starts laughing? If I were the DNC, I'd want the Messiah to take a long vacation. 2010 is just around the corner, and at this rate, we the people will be looking for a better grade of crook.

Rialby said...

Comment from a someone I went to college with posted to Facebook a few weeks ago:

How anyone in the world's country could legitimize not wanting to provide healthcare to the poorest and sickest amongst us is unconscionable. If we go bankrupt for the sake of keeping our morality so be it.

Florida said...

"Has anyone thought to ask the numskull in chief why they simply can't fix the uninsured problem by opening up Medicare to those who are uninsured?"

Yes, they did ask.

You have to understand that the goal is not to bring health care to the uninsured, but to force the uninsured to become insured.

This lowers the costs for those already insured (by making the pool of premium payers larger).

Obama doesn't give a hoot about providing actual health care to anyone. In fact, his proposals would reduce the amount of health care people would get. He wants to cut health care from seniors and other "chronically ill" people.

So, once you figure out what their real game plan is, everything becomes logical.

They aren't interested in bringing Medicare to the masses. They want to force the masses to pay up but not receive anything.

Triangle Man said...

obama is cynically deploying religious language and ideas in his campaign for more power.

That's similar to what the left said about Bush whenever he invoked religion. I think this highlights nicely the value of separation of church and sate. What happens when the particular combination of religious and political beliefs that you favor is not shared by those in power?

Michael Hasenstab said...

What a load of crap, coming from a guy who sat in Rev. Wright's church every Sunday for twenty years, listening to hate-filled "religious" sermons.

He (and his acolytes) really do believe that government is religion, and the he is the messiah.

Megalomaniac.

Pogo said...

Our Single Payer, who art in Washington
Hallowed be thy Name,
thy Medicare come,
thy last will be done,
and earth will then become heaven.
Give us this day our high-fiber low-fat fair-trade bread
And forgive us our false witnessing,
as we forgive those
who misinform us.
And lead us not into free markets,
but deliver us from evilmongerers.
For thine is the government,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

Flexo said...

I really don't know why it is necessary to slander and insult George Bush with this "Obama is like Bush" tag.

No he isn't. Obama is like Obama, a despotic, authoritarian, statist thug. Not even in the wildest minds of projecting libs did Bush ever come close to this.

Jim said...

Florida said...
Believe in Obama and enact everything he wants or face going to Hell.

I'm pretty sure that's the message here.

Is Obama the anti-Christ?
----------------------
Nah, the AnitChrist is supposed to be able to persuade people. This guy is obviously anti-AntiChrist.

Michael Hasenstab said...

NKVD said: "Our esteemed hostess was among those who voted for this abomination."

Yeah, yeah, we all know this. Give it a rest, already.

Triangle Man said...

"Has anyone thought to ask the numskull in chief why they simply can't fix the uninsured problem by opening up Medicare to those who are uninsured?"

I think the answer is simpler than Florida's explanation. In fact, Obama can genuinely be seeking a pragmatic solution to providing more and better health care his fellow Americans. The complication is that in addition to extending health insurance coverage, congress has to take care of teh insurance industry, the AMA, and Pharma too.

Flexo said...

Obama would like to see government as religion because he sees himself as -
(a) the Messiah
(b) the Prophet (pbuh)
(c) God
(d) all of the above

Try this Obama quote on for size, for all those who snort at the idea that panels of government bureaucrats will decide whether to give or withhold livesaving treatment --

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Once again the truth of his intent slips out.

Zach said...

I hate this phrase: "some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness."

First off, it sounds like tattling.

Second, the commandment refers to lying in a formal setting (or at least deliberately lying), so it doesn't apply to a political debate where everybody has their own claim to the truth, so it makes no more sense to say your opponents are perjuring themselves.

Last, the idea that quoting a commandment gives weight to something as banal as "don't lie" is patronizing and suggests you don't know the Bible well enough to find a quote that's on point.

Elliott A said...

IMO, religious morals are very black and white with charity at the centerpiece of helping those less fortunate. He is really equating health care with charity, a holy benevolence to be granted to the masses by the government, not a necessary service which we as a society provide ourselves. I can't wait to see his approval rating by the summer of 2012.

Zach said...

The middle paragraph there got garbled. It should read

Second, the commandment refers to lying in a formal setting (or at least deliberately lying), so it doesn't apply to a political debate where everybody has their own claim to the truth. It makes no more sense than if you said your opponents are perjuring themselves.

Scott M said...

Okay...even I think this is a bit over the top. I'm usually willing to give someone a little cord, if for no other reason than to hang themselves, but this is amateur hour at 1600 Pennsylvania. I wonder if there's a two-drink minimum?

alan markus said...

AllenS said:

"will we have to eat an Obama wafer as if we were taking communion?"

Mini-waffles (e.g., Eggo Brand) would be appropriate for that purpose.

Richard Dolan said...

Don't underestimate the power of O's pitch to many in the middle (he doesn't need to make a pitch to lefties). He wants to frame the issue in the only way it could possibly appeal to those he's lost. According to O's latest, it's not a matter of economics (really? what happened to that "great democratic conversation" about the allocation of 80% of health care resources to end-of-lifers he had talked about in April?). Instead it's about doing the right thing for the down-and-out (our better angels, be a Good Samaritan, love thy brother, all of which is American to the core). It's a pitch to all those who want politics to be 'compassionate' -- there are many, and include GW Bush who made his 'compasionate conservative' pitch because he understood the power of the idea.

The usual answer to O's call to purity of heart is that you can't achieve anything by good intentions alone. But it's hard to make that argument without sounding like Scrooge (or worse). This is the classic emotion vs. reason divide, O's use of the power of poetry in action (movies today) that frightened Plato so much to push an irrational plan (assuming he had one, which he doesn't; instead Congress has a half dozen).

The trick is to find an argument that resonates even more deeply on the emotional plane, while staying true to the many reasons why O's allocation scheme fails as economics. Not so easy.

Jason said...

Hail, Barry, full of grace.

wv: hosamie.

Hosamie in the highest.

MadisonMan said...

I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.

So are you saying he shouldn't couch his speech in terms the audience will identify readily?

AJ Lynch said...

A truly religious stance by Prez Obama would be to ask his bigbucks supporters to divert their campaign contributions to charities.

Darcy said...

Pathological narcissist. I'm believing that now.

Hoosier Daddy said...

In fact, Obama can genuinely be seeking a pragmatic solution to providing more and better health care his fellow Americans.

Then simply extend an existing public option to the uninsured. That is the meme he has been pounding.

The complication is that in addition to extending health insurance coverage, congress has to take care of teh insurance industry, the AMA, and Pharma too.

Um who says, Congress? Thank you no considering the furball they tend to create when trying to 'take care' of things. The health insurance industry is governed by individual states, just like other forms of insurance and compared to the rest, is the most heavily regulated.

Sorry but the uninsured problem can be eliminated simply by extending the current public option that has been in existance since LBJ. The fact that the Democrats see the need to create yet another federal money pit can only be seen as just another power grab by the federal government.

Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and we need another government plan? Can someone on the left please explain why we need a fourth option?

Jason said...

Barak atah adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam shecheyanu v'kiy'manu v'higyanu lazman hazeh.

TRO said...

"So are you saying he shouldn't couch his speech in terms the audience will identify readily?"

That only works if the audience thinks the guy giving the speech is sincere. In this case the audience knows the guy is full of bullshit and it's just insulting. And pathetic. And embarrassing.

Amateur hour indeed.

Joan said...

So are you saying he shouldn't couch his speech in terms the audience will identify readily?

We're saying he shouldn't appropriate religious terms and vocabulary, yes. He shouldn't equate support for his health care agenda with the Gospel. There is no equivalency, and it is disturbing to hear him make it.

Proponents of the "social gospel" who support the proposed health care reform because "everyone will be covered" remain willfully blind to the fact that "everyone will be covered" means that services for everyone will have to be reduced some how, and we will end up with a single-payer system and rationing. Obama and his advisors have said repeatedly that a single-payer system is their goal; the fact that they're lying now and saying it's not is just another reason to mistrust them.

Rialby said...

You don't spend 20 years in an explicitly political church and not come away with an understanding of how to marry religious rhetoric to political objectives. It may feel clumsy now but it's definitely been there all along.

I bet I could find 100 examples from his speeches given over the last 5 years that rely on religion to make points about the morality of Obamism.

NKVD said...

Michael Hasenstab said...
NKVD said: "Our esteemed hostess was among those who voted for this abomination."

Yeah, yeah, we all know this. Give it a rest, already.

Someone asked, I answered.

William said...

Our current system of medicine and medical delivery resembles that of the food and food distribution services of Russia in the early twenties. Growing grain and distributing food are two of the highest vocations man can aspire to. But sad to say the nourishing functions of these vocations were undermined by the brute force of greed that was so prevalent back then. People raised grain and baked bread not to feed the hungry masses but to make money. Under the guidance of the Bolsheviks this perversion of the human spirit was rectified. During the collectivization process many had to die, but this was Darwin done right. This was survival of the morally fittest. Those who could see the morality of collective farms and state run bakeries survived; the others did not.....Our medical systems are likewise riddled with corruption and greed. Big pharma, insurance executives, even the physician you go to are in it for the money. Giving succor to the sick should be a beatitude and not a racket. We have to take the profit motive out of this high human calling. I'm sure I speak for many here when I point out that we would all rather die than continue to live with this wasting disease of the human spirit called bourgeoise capitalism. Thank God, Obama sees the moral dimension of this struggle and is willing to stake out the high ground.

NKVD said...

Nice. I want a free car, too - is that fair and moral?

Dave said...

"I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies."

Is this really insightful or interesting or in any way enlightening? I read such commentary countless times per week from conservative bloggers/pundits. The perceived double-standard from the left.

Here's breaking news: partisans are hypocrites - both left and right. Can we move beyond this tired point?

Scott M said...

@William

I keep sniffing that, but I've yet to catch a waft of irony.
1) Are you serious?
2) Did you write that yourself just now or did you lift that from somewhere else and paste it?
3) Assuming your answer to #1 is yes, are you out of your friggin gord?
$) Have you checked on the current status of said Bolsheviks?

Rialby said...

"I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God." - Malice by Aaron Sorkin/Scott Frank

Guess who wants to be God?

BJK said...

That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

I am by no means a biblical scholar, so I'll put out this question to the masses:
Is the phrase 'my brother's keeper' used anyplace else in the bible, aside from the story of Cain and Abel?


I questioned the use of that phrase while Sen. Obama was on the campaign trail. To me, the lifting of a quote from the man attempting to cover-up his misdeeds from God....it's almost emblematic of a President who's using religious-sounding words without any real appreciation of their meaning.

The line, in its original context, is an act of mockery. The question "Am I my brother's keeper?" was rhetorical; Cain's statement is that he is, in fact, not meant to watch over his brother constantly. Moreover, it's a lie; Cain knew exactly where his brother was, but chose to deflect the question....since he didn't want to admit to God just having killed the man.


I think I may have stumbeled onto a new pet peeve: People who use religious artifices incorrectly.

That the man's "core ethical and moral obligations" could be centered around a misqouting of the Bible....would seemingly be a lot funnier if he wasn't the leader of the free world.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

Excellent parody, William!

Richard Dolan said...

Not government as religion, but instead government doing the work God has ordained because it is the right thing to do. I don't see anything "poisonous" in making a political argument in those terms (Lincoln, Roosevelt and many other presidents did so too). It's American to the core, as in, e.g., the Declaration's appeal to Nature's God, In God We Trust pretty much everywhere, etc.

Nothing in the First Amendment devalues (or prefers) religion or religious values vis-a-vis whatever one imagines the opposite to be. The public square is as open (and welcoming) to appeals based on religious values, themes, images, metaphors as it is to any other kind of appeal. It's just ridiculous to suggest that religion, religious values and religious appeals are illegitimate in the public square, or that O is crossing some line by framing his pitch in those terms. It's especially ridiculous for people who think of themselves as conservatives (or libertarians) to be engaging in such nonsense (I realize that class may not include Ann).

TRO said...

"I'm sure I speak for many here when I point out that we would all rather die than continue to live with this wasting disease of the human spirit called bourgeoise capitalism."

(laughing out loud)

You certainly don't speak for me and I doubt you even speak for most of the liberals who comment here. But if you really want to die then a government run health care system is probably the way to make that happen quickly.

G Joubert said...

Count me among those who goes to church regularly, and it's a conservative Bible-teaching Baptist church at that. I'm sure that 99% if not 100% of the congregation and the pastor are political conservatives, but I don't know that for a fact. That's because politics are never overtly discussed. Last Sunday the pastor did offer a prayer from the pulpit for "our president who has the weight of the world on his shoulders to make wise choices and wise decisions." That's about as political as he ever gets.

TRO said...

"Nothing in the First Amendment devalues (or prefers) religion or religious values vis-a-vis whatever one imagines the opposite to be. The public square is as open (and welcoming) to appeals based on religious values, themes, images, metaphors as it is to any other kind of appeal. It's just ridiculous to suggest that religion, religious values and religious appeals are illegitimate in the public square, or that O is crossing some line by framing his pitch in those terms."

The issue - to me at least - isn't him trying to frame this in religious terms, it's that we know he does not even believe what he is saying. He's making this crap up. This is about power, not morality or helping out your neighbor.

Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank - they want power and nothing more. Yes, I am sure there are many people who really do believe government run health care is better and more moral - fools that they are - but Obama and the rest are not those people.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm sure I speak for many here when I point out that we would all rather die than continue to live with this wasting disease of the human spirit called bourgeoise capitalism."


You know what? You have convinced me....you should go ahead and die. That will certainly cull the herd and leave more for the rest of us who are actually productive citizens.

Oh....wait....that is Obama's plan. Nevermind.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Scott M.

Nice freudian slip there on what was supposed to be number 4, you capitalist running dog.

Scott M said...

@Richard

I agree with your basic point. However consider the source. President Obama is from the side that usually rails against any religion (except Islamic, apparently) in the public square.

To see him suddenly turn to this passionately while in the middle of what can certainly be categorized a crises situation from his point of smacks of all kindsa disingenuous.

This is the same guy that, when he thought he was safely ensconced within the adoring embrace of an elitist San Fran crowd, said we-all were jus' bitter an' clingin' to our guns and religion.

I'm beginning to think I would rather not have a beer with this guy, regardless of previous sentiments.

tim maguire said...

All the christian imagery should finally put to rest the claim that Obama is a Muslim.

Scott M said...

@Ignorance is Bliss

Nice freudian slip there on what was supposed to be number 4, you capitalist running dog.

Not a slip. That was either a typo for the number 4, or a sly, planned, utterly intended way to say that the fourth question was for extra credit.

I'm leaning toward the latter.

Rialby said...

"Bear false witness" and "I am my brother's keeper" are not exclusively Christian.

MnMark said...

These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

I would have no problem with Obama and the rest of the progressives if they just took their concern about the poor and went and got work in a charity somewhere. Obama thinks it's a moral and ethical obligation to see that everyone has health care? Fine! Go head up a charity, Obama, and start raising money and pay for poor peoples' health care. Just don't use the government, the purpose of which is to defend my liberty and property, against me as a tool for extracting my money - on threat of imprisonment - to soothe your conscience.

When Jesus preached that we should care about one another, I don't think he meant we should use the government to force people to care for one another. He meant we should individually make a moral choice to care for one another and act on it. Voting for a policy that will be forced on other people against their will is not Christian charity. It is totalitarian.

jprapp said...

.
Obama is Herod the Great.

The New Herod's Temple - Obamacare.

Really Great!

Needed now? - religious support (for taxes).

Next?

Nurse Rached - ruling the Cuckoo's Nest.

(my little ditty - http://intellogos.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-as-herod-great-funding-temple-of.html)

Richard Dolan said...

TRO: "we know he does not even believe what he is saying."

Really? I have trouble enough sorting out my own beliefs to judge whether O's (or the many people who agree with him) are insincere or hypocritical. In all events, that's all beside the point. O's pitch is not intended to convince himself - it's aimed at folks who do believe in the religious values O is invoking. What's wrong with making an argument in terms that will resonate with the audience you are trying to convince? He believes his solution is the right one, and he wants others to agree. So what if they reach the same conclusion for different reasons?

Paddy O. said...

"Is the phrase 'my brother's keeper' used anyplace else in the bible, aside from the story of Cain and Abel?"

No, but the usage echoes the story of the Good Samaritan, so the usage is not inappropriate.

That Cain uses it to deflect the question of God makes for interesting use in this situation. Am I my brother's keeper? Well, the answer is yes. Human community was intended to look out for the other, and especially not cause harm to the other.

In this context, "Am I my Brother's Keeper?" relates to both sides of the argument. Obama is saying, "Yes, I am" putting him, in essence on the intent of God in regards to human responsibility for others. The flip side, is that in asking this question is Obama puts conservatives in the place of Cain. It is the conservatives who answer, along with Cain, "No, I am not".

So, as a use of language and Scripture it is, I think, acceptable.

But, I don't in any way see Obama's position as being in any way a sacrificial expression of morality or that he is, in any way, right about the Congressional plan being debated as the Divine answer to human suffering.

Help your neighbor isn't a governmental call. It's literal. Help your neighbor. Help your brother. Help those who are in your immediate circle. Everyone did that, and the world would really be in a good place.

Note that this is something, I believe, that Mormons really do well. They take care of their own--if there is sickness, or unemployment, or hunger, or housing issues. I disagree on a massive amounts of points in regards to theology, but they, as much as I know, got this bit right.

Which isn't about enabling an unrepentant corrupted government at all.

This language Obama uses isn't at all new. Roundabout the seminary I'm spending my time these days this sort of stuff is not dominant but it's common. There's a pretty strong religious left that takes up a chunk of Evangelicals these days--who have a really hard time understanding there's a difference between general ethical calls and particular political policies.

I agree with Obama's sentiment, and that is, in essence, precisely why I disagree with the policies of this Democratic congress. I've been poor. I've been without medical care. Those who are corrupt build their wealth upon the backs of the broken, deceived poor, all while handing out crumbs as they solidify their power and income.

They hate the poor, as does, I think, Obama. Nothing in his life, none of how he's bucked the powerful for the sake of sacrificing his own benefit, is in evidence.

Jesus lived among the poor, as the poor, with the poor, for the poor. He rejected the corruption of the tax-collectors, saying that to see God they had to give back the money they over-collected. He fought against the moralizing of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who used religion to further their power.

Obama doesn't stand with Jesus. He stands as the leader of the Sanhedrin, using religion to get more fame and power.

That's my estimation at least. I'd love to be proved wrong.

elc said...

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Barack R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

We maybe shoulda voted in the Greater Evil after all.

rdkraus said...

TRO

The issue - to me at least - isn't him trying to frame this in religious terms, it's that we know he does not even believe what he is saying. He's making this crap up. This is about power, not morality or helping out your neighbor.

Yes, a con man. Whatever works. When I listen to him (actually read, I can't make myself listen), I can count off the techniques he's using. Most straight from Alinsky.

Isolate, ridicule, demonize.

Build a strawman, knock hime down.

State an issue as only having two choices, where there are many.

Lie lie lie, while calling the other side ... "bearing false witness."

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

There is a key point, so far overlooked. We Christians are called to care for each other and for the poor. We are called, not "Caesar." And we should not opt for the blatant cop-out of saying that our taxes obviate the call to care for the poor.

It is no accident that charitable donations in the most liberal states are but a very small fraction of those in more overtly Christian ones. Any surprise, then, that the current administration wishes to limit greatly the tax deductibility of charitable contributions?

They quite simply detest the prospect that something might actually be done without having been mediated through them.

hawkeyedjb said...

William is onto something; after all, you can go a long time without health care, but only a few days without food. We should get rid of the greed-driven food system in this country and the evil food-mongers who profit from it. We should have single-payer food. The government will determine the correct amount of food we need, and there will be a new Best Food Practices board to make sure we get just what we need. If you like the food you have now, you can keep it, but I anticipate most people will choose to be in the new Public Food Option, since it will be cheaper and will offer a more wholesome array than the evil grocery stores offer now. It won’t cost us one dime more; the rich will pay for all the food we will get under the new plan. And we can have a democratic conversation about how much food old people really need, since they’re probably not going to need it for very much longer anyway.

Some morally insensitive creep has proposed that we just let farmers raise and sell food as they see fit, and give money or vouchers to the underfed to let them buy their own groceries. The moral rot in such ideas should be obvious; we will soon have tens of millions of unfed or underfed people if we allow such an evil scheme to continue.

racer said...

The irony in Obama - the man who refused to support the born alive legislation in IL and an ardent abortion advocate - invoking the bible and morals to drum up support for his abominable plans is enough to asphyxiate. What a shallow, insincere, conscienceless man.

Richard Dolan said...

Krauty coined the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome for those who thought that everything Bush said or did was evil, insulting, stupid, phony or worse.

In opposing O's pitch in favor of the various health care proposals floating through Congress, it's not necessary to repeat that unfortunate bit of recent history. Obama Derangement Syndrome is not progress and (unlike O's use of religious metaphors) may well turn out to be poisonous.

TRO said...

"Really? I have trouble enough sorting out my own beliefs to judge whether O's (or the many people who agree with him) are insincere or hypocritical."

Lucky me, I have no such trouble with either sorting out my own beliefs or O's.

rhhardin said...

Obama is just assuming that religious leaders are morons, or at least that they'll judge that their respective audiences are morons and go along with the most useful line.

The moron audience assumption that drives the media is actually an inverted pyramid, but there's enough at the lower tip to pay the bills, at least so far.

I don't believe though that the whole thing can withstand sustained ridicule.

Pogo said...

Excellent, Paddy O.

Compulsory assistance is not charity, and taxes paid for social programs do not mean you have helped your neighbor.

rhhardin said...

but only a few days without food.

You can to a long time without food. It's water that gets you in a few days.

That's why people are always reported as surviving by drinking their own urine, but not by eating their own fingers.

TRO said...

"Obama Derangement Syndrome is not progress and (unlike O's use of religious metaphors) may well turn out to be poisonous."

Please, the right has a million miles to go before it reaches anything near the Obama equivalent of BDS.

Smilin' Jack said...

President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.

Wait a minute...why just Americans? All mankind are our brothers and sisters--we have a moral obligation to provide health care to all seven billion of them. Americans who only want to spend America's money on Americans are morally just as evil as Obama's opponents, who only want to spend their own money on their own health care, instead of giving it to Obamacare. Could it be that Obama's a greedy, selfish bastard just like the rest of us?

Lem said...

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

I'm pretty sure that BDS came from reports of people actually seeking psychiatric therapy to deal with Bush winning in 2000. Here.

SteveR said...

So I guess I can turn responsibility for all the things I'm accountable for over to the government. That sounds like separation of Church and State. Lets make all 300 million Americans pay for our duties as Christians.

Talk about washing your hands.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Further, as noted, the "brother's keeper" thing came from God asking Cain where his brother was. Cain lied and said, "I don't know, am I my brother's keeper?" in the same way that if I ask the logistics coordinator where the production manager is, she might say, "It's not my day to keep track of him."

There's not really a point to be made there about providing for another person's needs, although that concept certainly occurs elsewhere in the Bible.

Scott M said...

@Steve R

Talk about washing your hands.

lol

Gene Wilder: "...see? (flipping the hand over to expose the palm) It's coming off."

Dave said...

"Voting for a policy that will be forced on other people against their will is not Christian charity. It is totalitarian."

It's not totalitarian. It's democracy. Laws are passed all the time in this country, without agreement from every single person. That is why we have elections.

TRO said...

"I'm pretty sure that BDS came from reports of people actually seeking psychiatric therapy to deal with Bush winning in 2000."

I recall that now. It was funny to hear it then and even funnier now.

Scott M said...

@TRO

One wonders if there was a similar OJDS for white people after Orenthal walked on an obvious double-homicide.

elHombre said...

From Drudge, etc. --
Today's uniquely American experience:

The Chicago Way,

meets liberal tyranny

and God's new "partner," Barack the eugenicist.

God save Obama and the USSA!!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Our Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You"

Timely and timeless

vw = adory

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Actually, here is an authority that Obama can quote. Very apt for the purpose.

An' little Orphant Annie says, when the blaze is blue,
An' the lamp-wick sputters, an' the wind goes woo-oo!
An' you hear the crickets quit, an' the moon is gray,
An' the lightnin'bugs in dew is all squenched away, -
You better mind yer parunts, an' yer teachurs fond an' dear,
An' cherish them 'at loves you, an' dry the orphant's tear,
An' he'p the pore an' needy ones 'at clusters all about,
Er the Gobble-uns 'll git you
Ef you
Don't
Watch
Out!

mccullough said...

It's too late for Obama to get the religious people involved. The NFL is starting up again, so no church for awhile. Ask again after the Super Bowl.

Joe M. said...

This is wrong.

Pogo said...

Into Obama's hands I commend my health care.



VW unlion: Churchill he ain't.

TRO said...

"@TRO

One wonders if there was a similar OJDS for white people after Orenthal walked on an obvious double-homicide."

I don't believe so. There was shock and disgust with the injustice of it, but nothing that required any therapy I am sure - LOL.

And if it did then his being convicted years later surely helped.

jprapp said...

Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s redistributionist theology never had a prettier face.

elHombre said...

Dave wrote: It's not totalitarian. It's democracy. Laws are passed all the time in this country, without agreement from every single person.

Actually, this is a republic.

I'm curious, Dave, in your "democracy," is there any ethical consideration arising at any time to limit "the majority" from confiscating wealth from one group to give to another?

It's pretty clear that's what MnMark was posting about.

PatCA said...

"We are God's partners..."

Don't laugh. This guy means it.

Robert said...

I think this illustrates the problem with the last Presidential election. To Paraphrase Matt Stone- I hate(d) John McCain, but I really @#$%# hate Barack Obama. (Or what he stands for, anyway) I love Ms. Alhouse's snark. She is a genius of sarcasm. However, looking at what Obama had done in his life, and with whom he associated, I could see this coming all along.

PatCA said...

"Obama doesn't stand with Jesus. He stands as the leader of the Sanhedrin, using religion to get more fame and power."

Well said. But he has learned his false truth from a certain Rev. Wright.

Elliott A said...

If the government has the moral obligation to care for the sick, what happens if there is a shortage of physicians? Will suitable individuals be coerced into Medicine? Will the State determine our careers and professions?

elHombre said...

tim maguire wrote: All the christian imagery should finally put to rest the claim that Obama is a Muslim.

H-m-m. Maybe you meant "Christian," not "christian." Or maybe you meant obama and muslim, not Obama and Muslim.

If you meant Christian, then you probably realize that Obama's use of the bible and Christian imagery are both manipulative and imperfect, just like his Christianity. It proves nothing.

I'd bet that whether he is Christian or Muslim depends on the audience.

Paul said...

"I'd bet that whether he is Christian or Muslim depends on the audience."

Absolutely.

Obama is a devout Obamanian and it leaves little room for anything else.

Narcissistic personality disorder ain't hard to spot unless you're busy projecting your own desires on the person.

jprapp said...

Beside Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s redistributionist theology never having had a prettier face ...

What’s really whack is that economics even at Norte Dame jettisoned heterodox econometrics (including mixing theometrics - applied empirical theology - to economics), because Norte Dame is selling out to neoclassical economics.

Norte Dame bows down to the god-of-rational-choice market. The Friedman shrine. Sainthood, next.

This at the same time that Greenspan confesses to Congress fundamental errors in the god-of-market-rationalism.

What else can we say?

Friedman’s econometric of rational choice is insinuated into consumer theology itself. Consumers we are. Buying a theology of choice.

Obama, our next religious salesman. As if Jesus "fashioned" a whip to cleanse the Temple, but sold it for a better offer.

Maybe Obama’s sales-job is just the new high priesthood of Pascal’s Wager (at our expense), namely, a wager by Obama that the market really isn’t rational after all – that we can be sold this bill of goods, sold the new Herod the Great's Temple of Obamacare, all without rational debate.

It’s tragic. Buridan’s Ass-tragic (if you look at the ambivalence in the polls).

Soon to be Buridan’s Ass-tragic ridden by Nurse Rached’s Cuckoo's Nest Bureaucracy.

What’s more tragic is that religion cannot get elevated to being more than the cheap whore of New Temple rhetoric – that religion cannot offer a shred of heterodox economic empirical rhyme nor reason, not even to save even the great mother of Norte Dame from selling out to neo-classical – consumer theology.

The new morality.

William said...

I was deeply saddened to see that my 10:04 post in defense of Soviet agriculture and the character building famines it engendered aroused such hostility. I can see now why Stalin and Mao found it necessary to send so many retro souls to re-education camps. The profit motive is a weed with many roots and many thistles. Only the most severe measures against this weed can allow the flowers of the collective spirit to blossom.....I know that the same hysterics that so bitterly criticize the public option will try to define these reeducation camps as some kind of gulag. How asinine! These reeducation camps will more closely resemble communes than gulags. I think given the chance to do some hard, honest labor growing organic arugula lettuce for the poor even the most recalcitrant opponents of Obama's health care will come to see the errors of their ways. It's a win win situation. Such farms will provide affordable organic produce for the poor. At the same time, the discipline of hard, outdoor work will heal the infirm souls of so many of the greedy bastards who infest our health care system.....I thank hawkeyedjb for his kind words. The new system will need humane administrators, and there are people paying attention not just to the nay sayers but to those who cast an affirming light.

Dave said...

"Actually, this is a republic.

I'm curious, Dave, in your "democracy," is there any ethical consideration arising at any time to limit "the majority" from confiscating wealth from one group to give to another?

It's pretty clear that's what MnMark was posting about."

I'm disputing MnMark's idea of what totalitarian is. Congress passing legislation regulating the health care industry is not totalitarian. It is representative democracy. We held elections, issues were debated, health care among them. We will hold future elections, issues will get debated, health care will be among them, I am sure.

The process might be a lot of things, but totalitarian isn't one of them .

Scott M said...

@William

So it's #3 - yer out of your friggin gord.

Charmingly so, though :)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

However, looking at what Obama had done in his life, and with whom he associated, I could see this coming all along

I saw it too.
Told you so Demonize the insurance companies, demonize the banks, demonize the conservatives, demonize the entire American Public.

Told you so again October 12 2008

"Yes even our emails will be scrutinized."

and .....

"5. Anyone who deviates from the 'right thinking' will be accused of racism, sued to be taken off of the television or movie screens. Only the proper expressions will be tolerated and all others will be shouted down and silenced."

I was accused of being "out of my mind" HA...the people who were and are out of their minds are those who continue to think that Obama is a good man with good intentions.

vw = mistra

Sorry for the link whoredom....but I DID tell you so.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Dave @ 11:09 --

Democracy is not the opposite of totalitarianism.

They answer two different questions.

WHO has power? and

How MUCH power do they have?

Hitler was democratically elected. So was Chavez. "Democracy" is not the issue.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Scott M said...
@William

I keep sniffing that, but I've yet to catch a waft of irony.
1) Are you serious?
2) Did you write that yourself just now or did you lift that from somewhere else and paste it?
3) Assuming your answer to #1 is yes, are you out of your friggin gord?
$) Have you checked on the current status of said Bolsheviks?



Scott, you might want to run your irony detector in to the shop and get it recalibrated.

I have those days too.

paul a'barge said...

Obama wants YOU to support HIS brother.

That's the dirty little secret of Euro-style neo-socialism.

Compare and contrast with Obama's vacation on Marthas Vineyard.

wv:diddbe (or didn't he?)

Oligonicella said...

Dave --

"It's not totalitarian. It's democracy. Laws are passed all the time in this country, without agreement from every single person. That is why we have elections."

We're a Republic as someone stated, but I'll even give you that point.

Only problem for you is, it's apparently not the policy those who did vote for him thought (foolishly) he was about.

This is one reason so many of them are now being very invective in their examination of him. Bait and switch really pisses off the mark.


wv: diatfall - regaining that weight

Dave said...

"Democracy is not the opposite of totalitarianism.

They answer two different questions."

No one said it was the opposite, Bart.

"WHO has power? and

How MUCH power do they have?"

And why do they have that power? They were elected. And in our country, should the voters not agree with how the majority wields their power, they get voted out. Or they lose seats in Congress.

Scott M said...

@Dave

Democracy is not the opposite of totalitarianism.

I agree. If you want a polar-opposite to totalitarianism, it would be anarchy.

Totalitarianism is all power centralized. Anarchy is complete de-centralization of power. This, for me, is the perfect visualization of left and right. As you slide left, power centralizes and you get more government. As you slide right, power de-centralizes and you get less.

Dave said...

"We're a Republic as someone stated, but I'll even give you that point. "

You don't have to give me anything. I use democracy, like countless others do, to mean representative democracy, a term that applies to our form of government.

"Only problem for you is, it's apparently not the policy those who did vote for him thought (foolishly) he was about. "

I don't see why any of this is a problem for me. Barack Obama, and the democrats, clearly meant to reform the health care system. They had countless debates (twenty something?) which addressed the issue. This was not sprung on anyone.

LarsPorsena said...

@William:

"..I can see now why Stalin and Mao found it necessary to send so many retro souls to re-education camps. .."

Health Care Kulaks..real vermin.
Poison weeds in the Garden of the People.

elHombre said...

Dave wrote: The process might be a lot of things, but totalitarian isn't one of them.

I notice you didn't answer my question: "... in your 'democracy,' is there any ethical consideration arising at any time to limit 'the majority' from confiscating wealth from one group to give to another?"

As Bart Hall pointed out democracy does not preclude totalitarianism. Perhaps that will bring my question into clearer focus for you.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Scott M. said...

This, for me, is the perfect visualization of left and right. As you slide left, power centralizes and you get more government. As you slide right, power de-centralizes and you get less.

It's not that simple. There are big-government conservatives and small government liberals too. Statist<->Libertarian is a seperate axis from Liberal<->Conservative.

Der Hahn said...

Points at Dave.

Jeremy/Gene/Lucky - if you're watching.

That's the way to troll.

(Golf clap)

vw - oveter. Quit looking here, start looking ove'ter.

JAL said...

God help us.

And I don't mean BHO or whoever / whatever BHO is referring to.

I mean the real guy.

WV = obricing
Price controls instituted as part of Barack Obama's EDP -- economic destruction package.

Dave said...

"I notice you didn't answer my question: "... in your 'democracy,' is there any ethical consideration arising at any time to limit 'the majority' from confiscating wealth from one group to give to another?""

I didn't answer your question b/c that was not the issue I took with MnMark's post. Just because your tax dollars are spent on things you don't agree with, doesn't necessarily make the process which produces that result 'totalitarian'. And, in our country, that is clearly not the case.

Scott M said...

@Ignorance is Bliss said...

It's not that simple.

Is is that simple.

There are big-government conservatives and small government liberals too. Statist<->Libertarian is a seperate axis from Liberal<->Conservative.

Correct. But I never said anything about liberal or conservative monikers. This spectrum is issue-neutral. The same person might be all over it depending on the issue at hand. That doesn't mean clustering isn't insignificant, though.

former law student said...

The religious left - that is truly frightening to contemplate.

The Christians I know are all liberals, which is as anyone who has read the Gospels would expect. Run down this checklist, and see if you identify with it:

love their fellow man like themselves (Mark 12:31)
love our Christian brothers and sisters more than ourselves (John 13:34)
genuinely love their enemies (Luke 6:35)
not care for earthly possessions (Matthew 19:23-24)
give away their earthly belongings to follow Him (Luke14:33)
who would be completely unselfish in all their actions (Luke 9:23)

"All men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another."
(John 13:35)

To the present point, if you don't help strangers when they are sick, you will not have eternal life. (Matthew 25:43-46)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I use democracy, like countless others do, to mean representative democracy, a term that applies to our form of government.


You mean wrongly? We are a representative republic not a democracy. Or at least we used to be before our representatives decided they don't need us anymore.

Democracy is how you elect prom queen and king.

Just Lurking said...

Obama is either a delusional narcissist, or an increasingly ineffective con-man. On second thought, maybe both.

Delusional in the sense that he really believes that by sheer force of his personality he can turn bad economics into a working, solvent program. Sort of like turning water into wine.

Con-man in the sense that he knows the economics for his health plan are bad, wants the bill for the power it affords him in his autocratic dreams, and will do and say anything to make it pass- misspeak, intimidate, ridicule, cajole. How long before he openly threatens us?

Ineffective because the harder he pushes, the more his ratings drop. The rational people who are paying attention, are on to him.

I didn't vote for him- I found him too inexperienced and too socialist for my taste- but I had hoped he would surprise me. He has, but not in the way I wanted. His personality disorder and dishonesty are far more apparent than I expected.

bearbee said...

Got Religion?!!!

Not much O-man won't stoop to.

When do we see ads with dying child?

wv - expeati: veggie rebirth

Maguro said...

The Christians I know are all liberals, which is as anyone who has read the Gospels would expect. Run down this checklist, and see if you identify with it:

Impressive...I had no idea the essence of the Bible could boiled down into a 6-line "checklist" in a blog comment.

You must've attended one a them fancy divinity schools.

Scott M said...

The Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) and a potential global Caliphate are both good examples of the religious left.

Now...fetch the Comfy Chair!

former law student said...

Delusional in the sense that he really believes that by sheer force of his personality he can turn bad economics into a working, solvent program. Sort of like turning water into wine.

More like Reagan's voodoo economics. Note how Reagan was able to single-handedly reverse the National Debt's decline. The debt continued to grow under both Bushes, although it declined while Clinton was in the White House.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-GDP-by-President.htm

vw: blead -- eyewitness news aphorism: if it bleads it leads.

Paddy O. said...

FLS,

A lot of Christians I know are liberal. A lot are conservative. A lot of Christians I know live according to those verses as best as they can, and are conservatives. A lot of Christians I know live according to those verses as best as they can and are liberals.

A lot of Christians I know don't live according to those verses, but judge others about how they do or don't. Both conservatives and liberals.

I'm mostly conservative, and I try to live according to those verses, as I think my life bears out.

The confusion of a great many of religious people on both sides is taking those verses and making specific policies, specific legislation be the exact equivalent of what was intended.

I like what CS Lewis wrote on a "Christian" political party saying that Jesus said to feed the poor, he didn't say the specific ways this had to be done.

I am conservative because I think that corruption in government is, presently and historically, one of the most destructive and evil attacks on the poor, and any government which condones corruption among its own shows itself inherently anti-Christ in regards to the poor.

I have very good, very liberal, Christian friends who I really respect. The big difference, I've found, is who we trust and who we don't, what policies we think will work and what we think won't. Throwing out important verses as self-evident support of some supposed liberal value system, when those same values have in many cases, historically and presently, been entirely destructive of especially the poor in many regions is disingenuous.

When there are men like George Soros funding the liberal side in massive ways there is simply no room to say one side is inherently more akin to those verses than the other.

There's a reason why the church has tended to be conservative over the years and it's not because of inherent hypocrisy. Co-opting Jesus for specific legislation is a sure way to get the table you're selling it on overturned.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I had no idea the essence of the Bible could boiled down into a 6-line "checklist" in a blog comment.

"@corinthians luv iz teh roxxor." --St. Paul

former law student said...

You must've attended one a them fancy divinity schools.

Hey I found an illustration from the Christian Right's edition of the New Testament:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenspice1964/2554477412/

Scott M said...

@fls

More like Reagan's voodoo economics. Note how Reagan was able to single-handedly reverse the National Debt's decline. The debt continued to grow under both Bushes, although it declined while Clinton was in the White House.

Most of the PHD economist types I've discussed the matter with agree that the president has very little to do with the ups/downs of the economy while they serve. They do admit, though, that presidents are heaped with credit or shame depending on what happens regardless of their relative impotence to do anything about it/to it.

elHombre said...

Dave wrote: I didn't answer your question b/c that was not the issue I took with MnMark's post.

Nonsense. Perhaps you are not answering my question for the same reason Obama doesn't tell the truth about his plans. Leftists just don't believe there are any ethical and/or moral objections to confiscating wealth for purposes of redistribution.

That is the essence of MnMark's 10:30 post to which you responded. If you answer my question, either way, you lose the argument.

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

Good Lord, here comes fls reducing the Bible to cherry-picking the Gospels, reducing Christianity to liberalism and changing the subject to Reaganomics.

Lemme outa here!

former law student said...

There's a reason why the church has tended to be conservative over the years and it's not because of inherent hypocrisy.

Sure, of course. Christ's guiding principle was "Don't make waves." He got into a little trouble once with the government -- shot off his mouth, don't you know. But he paid the fine, toned it down, and lived a long, happy life.

Co-opting Jesus for specific legislation is a sure way to get the table you're selling it on overturned.

If you're trying to persuade people of faith (or anyone really), showing them how your program fits their values makes sense.

LarsPorsena said...

@FLS:

"...More like Reagan's voodoo economics. Note how Reagan was able to single-handedly reverse the National Debt's decline. The debt continued to grow under both Bushes, although it declined while Clinton was in the White House."

I can't believe you have the gall to bring this up considering BO's contempt for any fiscal responsibility. Their combined debt looks like a rounding error when measured against BO's 1.5 trillion deficit (only to this point this year) and counting.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

I would be more receptive if Obama actually helped his own relatives, here or in Kenya. Or if he followed up on the promises he made about the school in his Kenyan family's home town. Or if he had given more than an embarrassingly low amount to charity before he considered running for President.

Nevertheless, he is going to get most of what he wants in health care. The Democrats have the votes, and they are afraid of the consequences of losing this fight. They will ram it through.

cookasia said...

Does anyone know to whom he spoke? what were their responses? would be interesting to know which denominations partook of this odd and chilling conversation......
what a creep he is....

former law student said...

Most of the PHD economist types I've discussed the matter with agree that the president has very little to do with the ups/downs of the economy while they serve.

This is nice, but doesn't address my point. Reagan cut taxes without cutting spending. W. cut taxes and increased spending. You don't have to have a PhD to see that cutting income but not spending leads to increased debt.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Run down this checklist, and see if you identify with it:

Satan can also cite scripture for his purposes.

I'll ask it again for our liberal commenters. Why can't Obama and his party simply extend Medicare to the uninsured/uninsurable Americans and call it a day? The very fact that they find the need to introduce a 1000+ page bill under the guise of 'reform' tells me that don't give two shits about providing coverage for the uninsured and instead are seeking yet more control over our lives and the private sector.

former law student said...

BO's contempt for any fiscal responsibility.

At least let the man borrow as much to rebuild America as W. spent to rebuild Iraq. It's not Obama's fault that W. maxed out the credit card while the country went into recession.

Dave said...

"That is the essence of MnMark's 10:30 post to which you responded. If you answer my question, either way, you lose the argument."

Since the verdict is in, there's no need to respond.

But I would just add, there's nothing in my arguments to classify me as a 'leftist'. That's your projection.

Paddy O. said...

Christ's guiding principle was "Don't make waves."

Yes, because the present conservatives are being so much like that. Obama's issue is that he just can't get the country to not make waves, to start caring about government and speak up.

Jesus made everyone made, conservative and liberal, and he had a lot of things to say about the particular hypocrisy's on both side. Conservatives respond to this by saying that it's best if government not corrupt itself, and the country, by gaining too much power.

Precisely why separation of church and state was fought for. So that churches aren't corrupted by having state influence.

It's fine to try to use religion to convince religious people, but if those religious people get the feeling that the sincerity of the religion isn't really there, then they too have the right to use religious language right back in contrast.

If Obama wants to show genuine religious zeal for helping the poor he would do well to start by gunning into every single member of congress and his administration for ethics issues and even a hint of profiteering. Republicans crashed because they rode that wave. Democrats are crashing because they can't see you can't fill your pockets with the taxes from the rich and poor while at the same time daring to bring up Jesus as the model for their inherently corruptable legislation.

That's not the religion of Jesus, that's the religion of the filthy tax-collectors. Give all the money they personally have benefited from, give fourfold of it to the poor, and then we'll see those government leaders acting like the tax-collectors who understood it took personal sacrifice to align oneself with Jesus.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

FLS - do your liberal Christian friends support killing the unborn? WWJD?

BJM said...

Willam @11:56 <

Ungratful bastards all; to the ice floes with the Kulaks!



wv: moulfur = an unpleasant gagging sensation experinced by moderate Obama voters.

former law student said...

Why can't Obama and his party simply extend Medicare to the uninsured/uninsurable Americans

Medicare was a great program -- in 1960. Health care delivery models as well as health care itself have changed a lot since then. But you can't blithely take a model meant for pensioners and apply it to every one. Because everyone contributes and everyone will benefit (if they live long enough) extending Medicare to the uninsured will violate that basic premise. This flaw could be remedied by requiring everyone to use Medicare, of course.

traditionalguy said...

"God" is a ruler you cannot challenge, says the Inquisition. That is The reason we have so much talk about "separation of Church and State" so that all arguments are free to be made and heard in public when political actions are about to be taken by the government. What President Obeyme means to say is that he has God's authority on his side in political debates. The Inquisition is not far behind that kind of Established Church attitude. IMO Obama is clearly not a Christian any more than Mohammed was a Christian, although both recognise Jesus to be a Hebrew Prophet, but not the Son of God who was crucified dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day (See, Apostles Creed to define what are the required Christian beliefs).

LarsPorsena said...

@FLS:
"At least let the man borrow as much to rebuild America as W. spent to rebuild Iraq. It's not Obama's fault that W. maxed out the credit card while the country went into recession."

The deficit is now four (4) times what it was under Bush. And we are only 7 months into the One's reign.

Let me know about all those ongoing 'rebuilding' projects.

ricpic said...

People raised grain and baked bread not to feed the hungry masses but to make money.

Say what you will about those kulaks, William, they made a nice black bread, a nice black bread.

Pelalusa said...

Dennis Prager discussed this on his show yesterday, albeit from a completely different angle. The fact is that in every Socialist society, the State has supplanted Religion. To deny this is beyond naive!

former law student said...

The deficit is now four (4) times what it was under Bush.

I don't like it, but the alternatives were the collapse of our financial system and a deep recession. Cashflow will improve when W's tax cuts for the better-off expire.

Realize that the National Debt increased from 60% of GDP to 80% on W's watch. That doesn't leave his successors much maneuvering room.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Cashflow will improve when W's tax cuts for the better-off expire.

Yes, there is a perfectly linear correlation between tax rate and revenues. Because people absolutely do not change their behavior in response to changes in the tax code.

ricpic said...

They've got lots of maneuvering room, it's called less spending; but don't expect them to do anything but run howling from such a notion, like vampires from a cross.

jprapp said...

Paddy O,

Yes. And it’s the religion of Pascal’s Wager betting on the fact that we need the Insurance of the Great One.

It’s a shame empirical theology has never produced a metric for social policy beyond the maths of the improbability-counting of natural theologian-physicists capable of debunking multi-verse theory in theoretical physics.

Or beyond Collins using Bayesian metrics to deduce God from the genome. The same genome that makes us suckers for theo-idolatry of rhetoric driven religious boosterism, dead to running numbers with the big dogs.

We don’t know what we’re being sold.

The irrelevance of theology in praxis is enough to make atheists wish that God exists - to stop the madness.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Yes, remember this?

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

former law student said...

The fact is that in every Socialist society, the State has supplanted Religion.

What does this even mean? Does Socialist = Communist, or does Socialist = 100% health care?

Of the countries with national health care, England has a state church, as do Sweden and Norway.

Governments in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, and Iceland all have universal health care and all collect taxes to fund their churches.

Superdad said...

"Breaking the 9th Commandment?"

Well the 8th if you are Catholic or Lutheran. And it is Obama who is failing to keep it. As Luther puts:

"The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."

Seems the Pres. is not putting the best construction on those who disagree with his proposal.

Pogo said...

For the left to fall back on religious exhortations for state welfare boosterism is both cynical, grotesque, and mocking.

It tells me Obama is incapable of feeling shame.

Pogo said...

"Governments in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, and Iceland all have universal health care and all collect taxes to fund their churches

Now museum pieces with sparse and aged attendance.

In contrast, the buildings topped by minarets are packed full.

JAL said...

Shameless poseur.

No wv joke.

JAL said...

Seriously -- the scripture I am familiar with (Jewish, Christian, some Hindui, Buddhist) are about individual choices and responsibility.)

Where does he get off mis-using the sacred texts to demand that we give the GOVERNMENT control of what are moral and ethical choices?

wv = phair
It's not about phair.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But you can't blithely take a model meant for pensioners and apply it to every one.

Why not? It's not just pensioners but folks who are deemed disabled too.

Because everyone contributes and everyone will benefit (if they live long enough) extending Medicare to the uninsured will violate that basic premise.

I'm sorry can you explain? What premise is violated? Everyone who has a job (theoretically) pays into Medicare to one extent or another. Medicare beneficiaries also pay a Part B premium.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Realize that the National Debt increased from 60% of GDP to 80% on W's watch. That doesn't leave his successors much maneuvering room.

No it doesn't. Then again common sense dictates that when in a financial hole. I think we would all be better served by Obama spending more effort getting jobs back online than health care for all.

JAL said...

Oh and one more shot before I go do something that means something --

Since the moralist and ethicist in chief is lecturing the holy men, how about him cosidering what is moral and ethical about aborting babies sometimes by sticking instruments in the back of their living brains?

Oh, yes, I forgot. It is a difficult democratic decision that is sad.

Oligonicella said...

Dave --

"Only problem for you is, it's apparently not the policy those who did vote for him thought (foolishly) he was about. "

I don't see why any of this is a problem for me.

Because (I may be wrong) you appear to support it.

Barack Obama, and the democrats, clearly meant to reform the health care system. They had countless debates (twenty something?) which addressed the issue. This was not sprung on anyone.

Reform and tear asunder are two distinct things.

Many, many liberals are now saying this was sprung. You're not the voice of liberalism, only one component.

wv: fruin - MD for frere.

Just Lurking said...

"More like Reagan's voodoo economics. Note how Reagan was able to single-handedly reverse the National Debt's decline. The debt continued to grow under both Bushes, although it declined while Clinton was in the White House."

Reagan's economic plan was based on the theory that lower taxes raise revenues. And often they do. You can disagree with the theory but at least it has some basis in reality. Unlike O who makes no pretense that he knows where the money is coming from to pay for his health plan.

He knows, the Congressional Budget Office knows, and those of us paying attention know it will be outrageously expensive. He cannot promise it will save money or be more efficient than what we have. There is not enough money to pay for it, even with his proposed wealthy tax (or has that already been scrapped? I can't keep up). So he fudges, and misspeaks.

And if you think growing budget deficits are a problem, do you give Obama a pass, the man who is ushering in the largest deficit growth in history?

Yes he inherited a large deficit. One would expect some fiscal sanity in response to that reality. Not spending on the scale he is proposing. He and his cronies are nuts.

The ordinary man on the street has more sense than O's economics team. A lot of the protesting took off after the CBO projections came out. It makes no more sense to spend your way out of debt than it does to dig your way out of a hole.

AJ Lynch said...

Laura:

Thanks for sharing that gem.

It was early evidence that Prez Obama is a socialist and an idiot when it comes to arithmetic and economics.

Roger J. said...

It appears that O man is indeed a miracle worker: he has made Jimmy Carter look serious and statesmanlike.

Bearing false witness: tonsillectomies, rapacious surgeons getting 50K per amputation; the AARP supports my bill--He lies his ass off--he's the MSNBC of politicians.

Darcy said...

Haven't read the whole thread, but do you think it's fair to ask how Obama is keeping his own brother?

In a hut, last I heard.

(H/T Rush today)

Triangle Man said...

@elHombre

Why can't Obama and his party simply extend Medicare to the uninsured/uninsurable Americans and call it a day?

I took a stab at answering this above.

hdhouse said...

what else do you say about liars? i think the "false witness" is a nice way of saying you are a lying sack of shit and you are lying on purpose.

its the truth isn't it.

bearbee said...

although it declined while Clinton was in the White House.

Only because revenues exploded almost doubling, going from $1164.5 billion in Clintons 1st year to $2025.5 billion in final year. As a % of GDP debt decline but the dollar amount grew by $1.2 trillion.

Federal revenues (billions)
'92 $1091.3 pre-Clinton
'93 $1154.5 first year
'00 $2025.5 final year
'01 $1991.4 post-Clinton

Public Debt (billions)
'92 $4064.5 pre-Clinton
'93 4411.5 first year
'00 $5674.2 final year
'01 $5807.5 post-Clinton

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why can't Obama and his party simply extend Medicare to the uninsured/uninsurable Americans and call it a day?

I took a stab at answering this above.


And I responded, see my 9:44 reply. Sorry but the goalposts seem to be continually moving on this issue. First it's covering the 47 million uninsured. Now its proving better health care to all. Sorry but I don't buy it. 80-85% of Americans are satisfied with thier health care. Fine, fix the 15% who either don't have it or can't get it. That doesn't require a sweeping 1000+ page piece of legislation.

Kirby Olson said...

Your best post EVER. Thank you!

Obama is more and more like Satan every day.

hdhouse said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"What's he going to do next? Issue a fatwa against those who are questioning Obamacare?"

No you fool. Is the use of the term fatwa a religious dig at something or a racial stereotype. either way you used it on purpose and it stinks and you know it.

Tell us, bright boy, what is your fuckin' solution? got one? got game here? doubtful.

medicare is a highly functional program. you don't like it because you are paying for it but when your time comes you'll love the daylights out of it.

this kind of shallow, knee jerk reaction might actually be beneath you.

Chip Ahoy said...

"... some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,"

" ... that I am my brother's keeper ... "

HA HA HA ha ha ha ha HA HA HA ha ha ha ha HA HA HA ha ha ha ha

STOP IT already, you're killing me over here.

HA HA HA ha ha ha ha HA HA HA ha ha ha ha HA HA HA ha ha ha ha

* slaps knee *

Those are good ones.

Com'on, do it again in your ambulist-televangelist voice.

JAL said...

The Democrats have the votes, and they are afraid of the consequences of losing this fight.

They should be terrified of "winning" this fight.

We still have scheduled elections in 2010.

Thank God. (he real one.)

Triangle Man said...

Fine, fix the 15% who either don't have it or can't get it. That doesn't require a sweeping 1000+ page piece of legislation.

This is apparently how Congress works. The inefficiency of the legislative process in no way implies that Obama has sinister motives.

Dave said...

"Because (I may be wrong) you appear to support it."

I've said NOTHING about the bill. Nothing.


"Reform and tear asunder are two distinct things.

Many, many liberals are now saying this was sprung. You're not the voice of liberalism, only one component."

Please show me where the many, many liberals are. It is just not credible to have watched the Demoractic debates starting in 2007 and running through the general election, and to say you did not know health care reform was on its way if Obama won.

Roger J. said...

HD--You really did use to be coherent--I am a bit worried about you.

The fatwa thing? pretty obviously aimed at mohammadens, since only their clerics issue fatwas. See how easy that was? The kaffir clerics dont use fatwas--some of them use the auto de fe. That should confirm all your paranoid suspicions.

I was going to say "raghead," but that would have given you two fainting spells and a case of the vapors.

Scott M said...

@Triangle Man

"sinister" is a completely relative term.

What is NOT relative, however, is HOW UNBELIEVABLY EYE-POPPING THE NEW AVATAR TRAILER IS IN QUICKTIME HD!!!

BJM said...

bearbee @2:17

Exactly, the 90's economy was supercharged by the home PC and cell phone roll-out and dot com bubble. Home computer ownership went from around 15% to 85% saturation in 5-6 years.

Much of the Clinton era prosperity and surplus was fortuitous, not a result of policy by either party.

Imagine what the economy and deficit would have been in the 90's and today without the digital technology boom (the final industrial leap of the 20th century?).

Just Lurking said...

Addendum to my previous comment:
BTW don't say Obama is basing his health bill on Keynesian economic theory. Keynes believed in priming the pump, so to speak, through govt spending in order to stimulate growth. One could argue the Stimulus Package was based on Keynesian theory.

But there is no justification for the spending of the health bill. There isn't enough water in the well to pump. He risks bankrupting the economy down the road. Yet he wants to ram it through anyway, largely unread by our alleged representatives Why?

elHombre said...

@Triangle Man

"@elHombre ... I took a stab at answering this above."

Sorry, I didn't ask that question, but I'll check out your answer any way. :>)

WV "duedumbo" -- just desserts for Obama

Triangle Man said...

What is NOT relative, however, is HOW UNBELIEVABLY EYE-POPPING THE NEW AVATAR TRAILER IS IN QUICKTIME HD!!!

On this, we can all certainly agree.

Triangle Man said...

@elHombre ... I took a stab at answering this above."

Sorry, I didn't ask that question, but I'll check out your answer any way. :>)


Oops. Well, thanks.

knox said...

What a train wreck.

knox said...

Pogo, excellent "Single Payer Prayer"

Synova said...

Hey, why not go with Scripture, hey?

10%

TEN PERCENT of our income to tithe and not a penny more.

Not a SINGLE penny more.


I have a serious question... this religious language, the "false witness" and "brothers keeper" and obvious attempt to use the authority of God for secular purposes... I know how my Scandi Fundy-Protestant roots react to that, and I can't quite see it working on Catholics either,.. Maybe it's that I'm familiar with churches that are big on authority, as in, who has it and who *doesn't* and a strong STRONG tradition of congregationalism... but...

Does this sort of language WORK with black people?

Synova said...

I mean... did someone say to Obama... Hey, dude. People are scared because you seem way more liberal than they expected you to be. Even socialist. And Obama said, Oh? Well, sounding more conservative might work... I know! I'll talk about GOD!

AJ Lynch said...

Synova:

I was wondering recently if the govt could encourage some level of tithing (not necessarily 10%)to a charity and then Uncle Sam gives the taxpayer something if they reach the goal.

Like a toaster- nah kidding. But it would be a way of encouraging giving and maybe get rid of some of these govt boondoggle programs.

[who am I kidding - this would never happen cause it is all about control and power].

elHombre said...

fls wrote: Realize that the National Debt increased from 60% of GDP to 80% on W's watch.

This is more of what we call "flsBS"!

If it ain't there, make it up, just like The One.

Synova said...

You know... Sarah Palin would be *crucified* for using that kind of language.

Methadras said...

To a marxist like President BarelyCare the government has always been viewed as a religious institution and that everyone should come to worship within it.

Methadras said...

Darcy said...

Pathological narcissist. I'm believing that now.


Malignant narcissist with a dash of sociopathy.

Methadras said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'll ask it again for our liberal commenters. Why can't Obama and his party simply extend Medicare to the uninsured/uninsurable Americans and call it a day? The very fact that they find the need to introduce a 1000+ page bill under the guise of 'reform' tells me that don't give two shits about providing coverage for the uninsured and instead are seeking yet more control over our lives and the private sector.


You will not get an answer. I can't even get an answer as to why this is even necessary at all, but all of a sudden, IT'S A CRISIS!!! I've also said that if you can't do it with medicare, start a new, partitioned, experimental program to net these 47 million alleged uninsured people and see how it works, how it's funded, how the billing/funding cycle works, whether they burden the system or frankly to see how many of the 47 million alleged uninsured actually go to use it and what level of care they receive. It won't happen and you won't get an answer

Joan said...

Where does he get off mis-using the sacred texts to demand that we give the GOVERNMENT control of what are moral and ethical choices?

I'm in a discussion on Facebok where I asked this same question, and I got back a reply, "Abraham Lincoln did the same thing, when he freed the slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. did, too." IOW, those two great historical figures used religious speech to support their causes.

I'm not sure but I think my opposite was vaguely implying I'm a racist for opposing the President's policies. I am sure, however, that the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 24th, and 25th Amendments to the Constitution, and whatever else Civil Rights-era legislation you want to point at, would not, combined, come anywhere close to 1,000 pages. The first four barely approach 1,000 words.

Which reminds me: can someone point me to the enumerated power in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate health care/insurance like this? I believe the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been sufficiently abused, but even they couldn't be used to justify this mess, could they?

Methadras said...

Florida said...

They aren't interested in bringing Medicare to the masses. They want to force the masses to pay up but not receive anything.


It's wealth redistribution via healthcare shifting. Letting the most burdensome on the system die while extracting the most money from those that are healthiest and don't need it or use it. It's a new ponzi scheme of wealth redistribution. A deviously marxist plan.

WV = tedlio = What Ted Kennedy's hommies call him when no one is looking.

Ralph L said...

Sarah Palin is jprapp's Norte Dame.

Methadras said...

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

If the core of ethical and moral obligation is that we look out for one another is the underlying theme, then why must government be the facilitator for that coverage? Furthermore, this presumes a collectivist mentality that not only do I provide for myself, but at the same time for those outside of my family. Little does he realize that we aren't a collectivist society, but a society that is collectively made up of individuals. The Constitution is not a collectivist document, but a document that address the individual. The bill of right is instituted for the individual and his/her individual rights, not for a collective, but as you can see this is how a marxist like President BarelyCare thinks.

WV = swacksab = a new hr3200 medical procedure

elHombre said...

Dave wrote: Since the verdict is in, there's no need to respond.

Quite right. I think that was my point.

... there's nothing in my arguments to classify me as a 'leftist'. That's your projection.

Feel free to read my post again. One of us may be confused about the meaning of "perhaps."
-----------------------------------
WV egoismi = the megalomania of El Uno

former law student said...

elHombre said...
fls wrote: Realize that the National Debt increased from 60% of GDP to 80% on W's watch.

This is more of what we call "flsBS"!

If it ain't there, make it up, just like The One.

Sorry, you can't prove me wrong simply by moving the goal posts. Judd Gregg's analysis leaves out more than a third of our total debt -- the money the government borrowed from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. These funds would be in a lot better shape had our leaders not replaced the cash with $4.3 Trillion worth of IOUs.

In fact, it's a tad inconsistent of Senator Gregg to make such a big deal out of $9 trillion of projected additional debt when he completely ignores $4 trillion we already owe.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
08/19/2009 7,384,038,351,054.48 4,334,194,051,271.58 11,718,232,402,326.06

jprapp said...

Ralph L,

That’s as whack as thinking that you’ve read HR3200 for yourself.

Or that weed growing in your agri-pharm allows your reading comprehension to understand it.

Palin is the symptom of the failure of religion in the market place of ideas. Not the cure.

I do poverty law. I care about these issues. I’m not a Norte Damite. Save when Touchdown Jesus scores. Against So Cal.

Where I went to school, Milton was god. Not the poet. Friedman.

As a quasi-Quaker, sociometrician, and poverty law practitioner, I root for Touchdown Jesus - as a Friedman derivative thrill. My lament for Palin is about as real as rooting for Touchdown Jesus.

My real lament is for the ploy by Obama against economic illiteracy of theologians.

Vote your conscience, Ralph_L.

But damn well improve your reading skills.

I’m reading HR3200.

Potential consequences for the poor concern me.

It may look small to say that poorer people will pay only about 1.5%.

I see a huge problem. There is a penalty income tax of 8% for employers not offering insurance. So the real costs to the poor (or to marginally poor) who are employed in non-offering companies could end up closer to 10%. If non-paying companies cut wages, cut hours, cut other benefits, perhaps cut jobs - the poor get poorer. This 8% penalty on non-offering companies affects the very poor that cannot pay insurance otherwise. Why hire a poor person? - and risk an 8% penalty?

Maybe you don’t see the poor in your agri-cotton fields ... try picking some out of your ears.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I see a huge problem. There is a penalty income tax of 8% for employers not offering insurance. So the real costs to the poor (or to marginally poor) who are employed in non-offering companies could end up closer to 10%. If non-paying companies cut wages, cut hours, cut other benefits, perhaps cut jobs - the poor get poorer. This 8% penalty on non-offering companies affects the very poor that cannot pay insurance otherwise. Why hire a poor person? - and risk an 8% penalty?



What do you mean RISK an 8% penalty. Compared to the cost of paying insurance premiums now as a percentage to wages in many small firms, 8% is a bargain.

The CDS Board that I sit on is going to cancel the employee comprehensive gold plated insurance coverage now to move to a less expensive high deductible HSA plan. Even then we are looking at well over 15% of payroll and for some employees the percent to wages is in the 80% mark. We pay an additional 80% over the cost of wages for the older employee and the ones that work less hours.

8% will be a deal buster for many businesses who are currently shelling out anywhere from 15 to 30% of salaries. Expect that low wage earners in medium to small businesses will be losing their coverage in droves.

Quayle said...

My kingdom is not of this world, said one former Leader.

Maybe parts of His kingdom can be adapted and put to work to advance my political agenga, says another current so-called leader.

I leave an intelligent public to distinguish between the two.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

CSD Board. Community Services District.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 243   Newer› Newest»