Purple Politics: A Christian Rapproachment?

[Jaltus]

This country is divided by colors, and I do not mean the so-called "race wars," rather I am referring to how the politics of today is split along blue-red lines. After doing a lot of reading (okay, not a lot, but a bit) on different approaches to rendering this divide moot, I thought of Solly and his committment to a Christian political party in the UK.

Why don't we have that here in the US?

One the one hand, I like the conservative approaches to abortion, execution, right to life, gay marriage, and the place of religion in society.

On the other hand, I like the liberal approach to the environment, the poor, and health care (though I disagree with their solution).

As Christians, we are called to defend the life of all people, except those who have forfeited their right to life (murderers). But defending the right to life does not mean defending unborn babies, the elderly, and those on lifesupport, it also means defending the starving, those without medical care, and the homeless. When did we go astray from this calling?

Remember, Christianity began as a movement of the marginalzied to a certain extent. The 12 were not religious leaders or learned men, rather they were faithful followers of their master. I wonder if we can really say the same right now.

I am no longer red, and I am not blue. Today, and from now on, I have decided to be purple.

Won't you join me?

[themuzicman]

What do you consider the conservative approach to the environemnt, the poor, and health care to be?

[Aletheia]

I am no longer red, and I am not blue. Today, and from now on, I have decided to be purple.

Won't you join me?

Yup. I'm proud to be purple.

:teeth:

[Darth Executor]

This country is divided by colors, and I do not mean the so-called "race wars," rather I am referring to how the politics of today is split along blue-red lines. After doing a lot of reading (okay, not a lot, but a bit) on different approaches to rendering this divide moot, I thought of Solly and his committment to a Christian political party in the UK.

Why don't we have that here in the US?

One the one hand, I like the conservative approaches to abortion, execution, right to life, gay marriage, and the place of religion in society.

On the other hand, I like the liberal approach to the environment, the poor, and health care (though I disagree with their solution).

As Christians, we are called to defend the life of all people, except those who have forfeited their right to life (murderers). But defending the right to life does not mean defending unborn babies, the elderly, and those on lifesupport, it also means defending the starving, those without medical care, and the homeless. When did we go astray from this calling?

You mean Christians don't donate to charity? Conservatives are against having the government do it, but that does not mean Christians do not help the poor. I disagree with this method but to say that Christians went astray from this calling isn't fair.

I am no longer red, and I am not blue. Today, and from now on, I have decided to be purple.

Won't you join me?

No. I hate purple and hippies have a monopoly on green. I'd go white but then I'd be associated with the Klan so black it is.

[Jaltus]

What do you consider the conservative approach to the environemnt, the poor, and health care to be?

Inadequate.

Seriously, the environment in conservative circles tends to be ignored, not int terms of doing nothing about it, but in not making it a priority. We are called to be stewards of the earth, and I do not think we can rightly say that we are doing a good job with that. We need to find more that is biodegradable, have less reliance on gasoline powered cars, and limit corporate ability to pay to avoid complyng with environmental standards. The Republicans are the ones who passed the pay-to-play laws in terms of einvirmental coupons.

I think that welfare needs to be completely redone in terms of who gets it and why, but that is a critique against both parties. However, welfare has been a longstanding plank in the Democratic party whereas dealing with the poor is barely even a blip on the Republican radar.

As for health care, I think more needs to be done to cover the poor. I do not think socializing medicine is the answer, but I do think there needs to be something done to drive down the costs, such as setting max amounts that can be charged for specific surgeries, or socializing emergency rooms only, something along those lines.

[themuzicman]

Inadequate.

Seriously, the environment in conservative circles tends to be ignored, not int terms of doing nothing about it, but in not making it a priority. We are called to be stewards of the earth, and I do not think we can rightly say that we are doing a good job with that. We need to find more that is biodegradable, have less reliance on gasoline powered cars, and limit corporate ability to pay to avoid complyng with environmental standards. The Republicans are the ones who passed the pay-to-play laws in terms of einvirmental coupons.

A poor effort, maybe, but an effort nonetheless.

I think the GOP has its share of conservationists, which are far more thoughtful about the environment in terms of managing forests and such, as opposed to the environmentalist who cost the US human, animal and plant life when they pushed through their plan to let the forests grow, rather than managing them.

And I seem to remember part of the SOU speech dedicated to reducing dependence on oil.

I think that welfare needs to be completely redone in terms of who gets it and why, but that is a critique against both parties. However, welfare has been a longstanding plank in the Democratic party whereas dealing with the poor is barely even a blip on the Republican radar.

Perhaps you missed the welfare reform act of 1996 or the efforts by President Bush to assist faith based initiatives? Or how about the GOP led "project zero", which sought to provide welfare recipients with both the means and accountability to get off welfare? (There are several counties in Michigan that have zero welfare recipients because of this program.)

I do happen to think that the government will be unable to effectively deal with long term recipients, since the first thing many of them need is a change in attitude and work ethic. The government can't hold people accountable for these things.

As for health care, I think more needs to be done to cover the poor. I do not think socializing medicine is the answer, but I do think there needs to be something done to drive down the costs, such as setting max amounts that can be charged for specific surgeries, or socializing emergency rooms only, something along those lines.


Actually, I think the GOP is onto something with Health Savings Accounts. Rather than some plan telling you what it will and won't cover these are personal accounts which you may use for medical purposes as you wish, no deductibles, no co-pays, no wrangling with the insurance company. Of couse, someone has to put money into it, normally it's a combination of employers and employees, but it's pre-tax.

I actually think that those that have insurance are over-insured, since those that have insurance don't care what medical care costs. In that kind of market, there's no controls on price, so it just keeps going up. I think ending the federal income tax exemption on health care benefits would return some sanity to the health "insurance" market, such that it's what insurace is supposed to be: a hedge against the catestrophic. As it stands now, an insurance company can take about 30 percent of what you pay them and never give it back to you, and you wind up ahead, because that is money that would otherwise go to the federal government.

This would also have the impact of lowering federal tax rates, since there would be more "income" (in terms of benefits) to be taxed, so those without insurance would pay less (if they were paying anything at all), and would encourage health savings accounts, and would have the side effect of introducing price competition back into the health care market, keeping those costs lower for those without, as well.

The GOP has been pushing HSAs for a while, but they don't seem to get a lot of traction, although they are staring to show up.

So, I can see why needing to be thoughtful rather than a blind follower of one party or the other is important, but I don't find much redeeming value in the Democrat party, right now.

Michael

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

A poor effort, maybe, but an effort nonetheless.

I think the GOP has its share of conservationists, which are far more thoughtful about the environment in terms of managing forests and such, as opposed to the environmentalist who cost the US human, animal and plant life when they pushed through their plan to let the forests grow, rather than managing them.

And I seem to remember part of the SOU speech dedicated to reducing dependence on oil.



Perhaps you missed the welfare reform act of 1996 or the efforts by President Bush to assist faith based initiatives? Or how about the GOP led "project zero", which sought to provide welfare recipients with both the means and accountability to get off welfare? (There are several counties in Michigan that have zero welfare recipients because of this program.)

I do happen to think that the government will be unable to effectively deal with long term recipients, since the first thing many of them need is a change in attitude and work ethic. The government can't hold people accountable for these things.




Actually, I think the GOP is onto something with Health Savings Accounts. Rather than some plan telling you what it will and won't cover these are personal accounts which you may use for medical purposes as you wish, no deductibles, no co-pays, no wrangling with the insurance company. Of couse, someone has to put money into it, normally it's a combination of employers and employees, but it's pre-tax.

I actually think that those that have insurance are over-insured, since those that have insurance don't care what medical care costs. In that kind of market, there's no controls on price, so it just keeps going up. I think ending the federal income tax exemption on health care benefits would return some sanity to the health "insurance" market, such that it's what insurace is supposed to be: a hedge against the catestrophic. As it stands now, an insurance company can take about 30 percent of what you pay them and never give it back to you, and you wind up ahead, because that is money that would otherwise go to the federal government.

This would also have the impact of lowering federal tax rates, since there would be more "income" (in terms of benefits) to be taxed, so those without insurance would pay less (if they were paying anything at all), and would encourage health savings accounts, and would have the side effect of introducing price competition back into the health care market, keeping those costs lower for those without, as well.

The GOP has been pushing HSAs for a while, but they don't seem to get a lot of traction, although they are staring to show up.

So, I can see why needing to be thoughtful rather than a blind follower of one party or the other is important, but I don't find much redeeming value in the Democrat party, right now.

Michael
I'm with you jaltus. I'm not American at all, of course, but supposing that I was, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm a theonomist, and my alliegance is to God.

[Mentalist]

This country is divided by colors, and I do not mean the so-called "race wars," rather I am referring to how the politics of today is split along blue-red lines. After doing a lot of reading (okay, not a lot, but a bit) on different approaches to rendering this divide moot, I thought of Solly and his committment to a Christian political party in the UK.

What is this christian political party in the UK please?

Please bear in mind the rules for posting in this forum. Theist only. If you have a question for someone else who posted in here, you are, of course, more than welcome to send your question directly to that member.

[Ryokan]

This country is divided by colors, and I do not mean the so-called "race wars," rather I am referring to how the politics of today is split along blue-red lines. After doing a lot of reading (okay, not a lot, but a bit) on different approaches to rendering this divide moot, I thought of Solly and his committment to a Christian political party in the UK.

Why don't we have that here in the US?

One the one hand, I like the conservative approaches to abortion, execution, right to life, gay marriage, and the place of religion in society.

On the other hand, I like the liberal approach to the environment, the poor, and health care (though I disagree with their solution).

As Christians, we are called to defend the life of all people, except those who have forfeited their right to life (murderers). But defending the right to life does not mean defending unborn babies, the elderly, and those on lifesupport, it also means defending the starving, those without medical care, and the homeless. When did we go astray from this calling?

Remember, Christianity began as a movement of the marginalzied to a certain extent. The 12 were not religious leaders or learned men, rather they were faithful followers of their master. I wonder if we can really say the same right now.

I am no longer red, and I am not blue. Today, and from now on, I have decided to be purple.

Won't you join me?
I am mauve, I think.

[One Bad Pig]

This country is divided by colors, and I do not mean the so-called "race wars," rather I am referring to how the politics of today is split along blue-red lines. After doing a lot of reading (okay, not a lot, but a bit) on different approaches to rendering this divide moot, I thought of Solly and his committment to a Christian political party in the UK.

Why don't we have that here in the US?
Historically, third parties have never done much more than play the part of spoiler. The party you envision would tend to draw many more red than blue voters, and would most likely only have the effect of getting more blue candidates elected.

One the one hand, I like the conservative approaches to abortion, execution, right to life, gay marriage, and the place of religion in society.

On the other hand, I like the liberal approach to the environment, the poor, and health care (though I disagree with their solution).

As Christians, we are called to defend the life of all people, except those who have forfeited their right to life (murderers). But defending the right to life does not mean defending unborn babies, the elderly, and those on lifesupport, it also means defending the starving, those without medical care, and the homeless. When did we go astray from this calling?
I don't agree with the liberal approach to any of these. We need to care for the environment, but we need to think through all the consequences of our actions before we implement them; sometimes the liberal approach ends up doing more harm than good. The poor (and health care for them) should not be the province of the government, especially not at the federal level. The myriad regulations governing health care prevent the application of charitable medical care that can be done in many other countries by groups like Doctors Without Borders.


Remember, Christianity began as a movement of the marginalzied to a certain extent. The 12 were not religious leaders or learned men, rather they were faithful followers of their master. I wonder if we can really say the same right now.

I am no longer red, and I am not blue. Today, and from now on, I have decided to be purple.

Won't you join me?
:no: The Republican party is already more purple than I'd prefer.

[Teallaura]

Just as an aside: You do realize that the color purple already has political overtones, right? And it ain't moderation.

[Raptor]

Just as an aside: You do realize that the color purple already has political overtones, right? And it ain't moderation.
We could use the teal color instead.

On second thought, Nah.

[Teallaura]

We could use the teal color instead.

On second thought, Nah.

Well, that's a relief! I certainly wouldn't want the noble Teal sullied by political association.



You know, they need an animal as well as a color. The Dems have a donkey; the GOP has an elephant. I think this new school of moderation needs it's own animal - what about a Velociraptor?


:grin:

[Jaltus]

You mean Christians don't donate to charity? Conservatives are against having the government do it, but that does not mean Christians do not help the poor. I disagree with this method but to say that Christians went astray from this calling isn't fair.

Really? Tell me, then, why is it that there is welfare in general?

Answer: because the church has not done its job. we tend to care about programs and not people.

No. I hate purple and hippies have a monopoly on green. I'd go white but then I'd be associated with the Klan so black it is.

Wow, that was totally irrelevant.

[Jaltus]

A poor effort, maybe, but an effort nonetheless.

I think the GOP has its share of conservationists, which are far more thoughtful about the environment in terms of managing forests and such, as opposed to the environmentalist who cost the US human, animal and plant life when they pushed through their plan to let the forests grow, rather than managing them.

And I seem to remember part of the SOU speech dedicated to reducing dependence on oil.

A speech means nothing until action is taken.

I am not anti-GOP, but I think they could be much more proactive instead of reactive.

Perhaps you missed the welfare reform act of 1996 or the efforts by President Bush to assist faith based initiatives? Or how about the GOP led "project zero", which sought to provide welfare recipients with both the means and accountability to get off welfare? (There are several counties in Michigan that have zero welfare recipients because of this program.)

Again, I did not say they are doing nothing, I said they are not doing enough.

I do happen to think that the government will be unable to effectively deal with long term recipients, since the first thing many of them need is a change in attitude and work ethic. The government can't hold people accountable for these things.

I agree. But making education of high quality available to all would be a step in the right direction.


Actually, I think the GOP is onto something with Health Savings Accounts. Rather than some plan telling you what it will and won't cover these are personal accounts which you may use for medical purposes as you wish, no deductibles, no co-pays, no wrangling with the insurance company. Of couse, someone has to put money into it, normally it's a combination of employers and employees, but it's pre-tax.

Frankly, that would leave people like me out in the dark: a student whose wife makes very little but has HUGE medical expenses.

I actually think that those that have insurance are over-insured, since those that have insurance don't care what medical care costs. In that kind of market, there's no controls on price, so it just keeps going up. I think ending the federal income tax exemption on health care benefits would return some sanity to the health "insurance" market, such that it's what insurace is supposed to be: a hedge against the catestrophic. As it stands now, an insurance company can take about 30 percent of what you pay them and never give it back to you, and you wind up ahead, because that is money that would otherwise go to the federal government.

I'm not sure about that, but I do think the government needs to step in a regulate health care costs.

This would also have the impact of lowering federal tax rates, since there would be more "income" (in terms of benefits) to be taxed, so those without insurance would pay less (if they were paying anything at all), and would encourage health savings accounts, and would have the side effect of introducing price competition back into the health care market, keeping those costs lower for those without, as well.

The medical community tends to work together on setting high prices across the board.

The GOP has been pushing HSAs for a while, but they don't seem to get a lot of traction, although they are staring to show up.

So, I can see why needing to be thoughtful rather than a blind follower of one party or the other is important, but I don't find much redeeming value in the Democrat party, right now.

Michael

As I said, I am not in favor of many solutions offered by the blue, but they at least see the problems the red tends to overlook.

[Jaltus]

Historically, third parties have never done much more than play the part of spoiler. The party you envision would tend to draw many more red than blue voters, and would most likely only have the effect of getting more blue candidates elected.

I am not really thinking of starting a purple party per se, rather I am trying to get people to think about tying their Christian faith to all aspects of their politics rather than blindly following either the blue or red. Lord knows that TWeb is chock full of such people.

I don't agree with the liberal approach to any of these. We need to care for the environment, but we need to think through all the consequences of our actions before we implement them; sometimes the liberal approach ends up doing more harm than good. The poor (and health care for them) should not be the province of the government, especially not at the federal level. The myriad regulations governing health care prevent the application of charitable medical care that can be done in many other countries by groups like Doctors Without Borders.

Ok.

:no: The Republican party is already more purple than I'd prefer.

Not me. I see the moderate Republicans dominating, but the moderates are those that compromise on all the wrong issues.

[Jaltus]

Just as an aside: You do realize that the color purple already has political overtones, right? And it ain't moderation.

Yes, but that was not my point.

[One Bad Pig]

I am not really thinking of starting a purple party per se, rather I am trying to get people to think about tying their Christian faith to all aspects of their politics rather than blindly following either the blue or red. Lord knows that TWeb is chock full of such people.
Oh, ok. Carry on then.

Not me. I see the moderate Republicans dominating, but the moderates are those that compromise on all the wrong issues.
True enough. :frown:

[Teallaura]

Really? Tell me, then, why is it that there is welfare in general?

Answer: because the church has not done its job. we tend to care about programs and not people.


...

Jaltus, this isn't supportable. The forces that led to the eventual state of welfare were born in the pulpit - as was the beginnings of modern liberalism. It was precisely because people decide to put their faith to work that most of the social change in our century got started.

The history of welfare begins in the great depression, when the church did respond but was unable to create the solutions that government could. Government proved able to do things at a pace and a magnitude that the church had never demonstrated - but then again, it hadn't needed to previously, either. The logical leap was made that if government could do the tremendous job it did in the New Deal that government would be an effective instrument of social change - a premise the church seems to have accepted at the time. The willingness to use the government in that manner came from the pews - at the time perceived as the same tune, different instrument by many.

Best laid plans being what they are, welfare turned into a disaster by the time it hits its zenith in the early 70's. The logic that said single females with children needed more support than intact families had disastrous results - men who couldn't support their families in the huge wave of unemployment (these things happen when thirty million extra folks suddenly show up looking for work) left those families in order to allow their wives to collect welfare. Many never came back.

Criticism of the program was seen as heartless - especially as it was directed toward costs (I was guilty of this one - had negative views of conservatives for a very long time because of it). The government was filling the need so people weren't donating to the church as they once had (not to mention inflation making that more difficult) simply because they regarded the job as taken care of (erroneous as that happened to be).

Now we have two generations of kids grown up to view charity as a governmental function - is it terribly surprising that the modern church hasn't taken its proper ownership of the matter?

Granted that's a simplified version of a lot of history, events and forces involved, but my point is that it is a gross oversimplification to say that the church no longer cares about people. A better criticism might be that we as a church have gotten into the bad habit of seeing only the trees and not the forest - using programs to reach people rather than just reaching out to people. Be that as it may, government doesn't care more about people than the church - it simply became the tool which we as a nation choose to use to address a problem - one that it turns out government isn't best suited for.

[themuzicman]

A speech means nothing until action is taken.

I am not anti-GOP, but I think they could be much more proactive instead of reactive.

Agreed.

Again, I did not say they are doing nothing, I said they are not doing enough.

Agreed.

I agree. But making education of high quality available to all would be a step in the right direction.

"No child left behind?" (Although, if memory serves, parents have more influence on a child education than the school does.)


Frankly, that would leave people like me out in the dark: a student whose wife makes very little but has HUGE medical expenses.

There is medicaid.

I'm not sure about that, but I do think the government needs to step in a regulate health care costs.

They already regulate costs through medicaid and medicare. Health Care providers have to take a loss on all of these expenses, because they comprise about 60 percent of their patients.

In short, the government is already doing this, and driving up costs and killing the budgets of doctors and hospitals in the process.

Honestly, if there was price competition in the market for all customers, you'd find you could get a doctor visit for a lot less than you can today.

The medical community tends to work together on setting high prices across the board.

Because the majority of consumers don't care what the cost is, because they don't ever see it. Were people to start caring about the cost of medical care again, that would change.

As I said, I am not in favor of many solutions offered by the blue, but they at least see the problems the red tends to overlook.

I think you're half right. I think the other half is that the GOP has a problem in communicating its message effectively.

Michael

[Darth Executor]

Really? Tell me, then, why is it that there is welfare in general?

Because the government thinks it is needed and because people think it's one of the government's duties.

Answer: because the church has not done its job. we tend to care about programs and not people.

The church isn't doing its job because there is welfare to compensate. If people had more money they would help more. And like I said, I think this method is inefficient, but you can hardly blame Christians for not trying. There is also the fact that most people don't really care about their religion and the churches can only do so much with a limited ammount of believers who care.


Wow, that was totally irrelevant.

Yeah, I know. Lighten up. :tongue:

[Jaltus]

Jaltus, this isn't supportable.

I hate it when people say that to me. I rarely say anything that is not supportable.

The forces that led to the eventual state of welfare were born in the pulpit - as was the beginnings of modern liberalism. It was precisely because people decide to put their faith to work that most of the social change in our century got started.

Yes and no. You are forgetting about the historic split between the church and liberalism. Yes, the pulpit might have galvanized the movement toward a welfare state, but that movement was dominated by the liberal arm of the church and totally divorced from actual Christianity. The plsit was between the "social gospel" and the "gospel of God," the split that still exists to some extent today. I want to reclaim the social gospel for the true church and combine it with the gospel of God. Saving a life is important, but saving a soul is moreso.

The history of welfare begins in the great depression, when the church did respond but was unable to create the solutions that government could. Government proved able to do things at a pace and a magnitude that the church had never demonstrated - but then again, it hadn't needed to previously, either. The logical leap was made that if government could do the tremendous job it did in the New Deal that government would be an effective instrument of social change - a premise the church seems to have accepted at the time. The willingness to use the government in that manner came from the pews - at the time perceived as the same tune, different instrument by many.

You know your political history, but not your church history.

Best laid plans being what they are, welfare turned into a disaster by the time it hits its zenith in the early 70's. The logic that said single females with children needed more support than intact families had disastrous results - men who couldn't support their families in the huge wave of unemployment (these things happen when thirty million extra folks suddenly show up looking for work) left those families in order to allow their wives to collect welfare. Many never came back.

Criticism of the program was seen as heartless - especially as it was directed toward costs (I was guilty of this one - had negative views of conservatives for a very long time because of it). The government was filling the need so people weren't donating to the church as they once had (not to mention inflation making that more difficult) simply because they regarded the job as taken care of (erroneous as that happened to be).

Now we have two generations of kids grown up to view charity as a governmental function - is it terribly surprising that the modern church hasn't taken its proper ownership of the matter?

Surprising is irrelevant, the point is that the church is not doing its job. There is no excuse for it.

Granted that's a simplified version of a lot of history, events and forces involved, but my point is that it is a gross oversimplification to say that the church no longer cares about people. A better criticism might be that we as a church have gotten into the bad habit of seeing only the trees and not the forest - using programs to reach people rather than just reaching out to people. Be that as it may, government doesn't care more about people than the church - it simply became the tool which we as a nation choose to use to address a problem - one that it turns out government isn't best suited for.

The problem with the world today is the church. Those who believe in the gospel tend to preach it in isolation from meeting the physical needs of people, whereas those who meet the physical needs of the people are rarely part of the gospel believing church. Christ healed holistically, both soul and body, and we are called to do the same. If we are not doing what we are called to do, then we are failing.

[Teallaura]

I hate it when people say that to me. I rarely say anything that is not supportable.The generalization is what I found unsupportable. I still don't think you've supported it.

Yes and no. You are forgetting about the historic split between the church and liberalism. Yes, the pulpit might have galvanized the movement toward a welfare state, but that movement was dominated by the liberal arm of the church and totally divorced from actual Christianity. The plsit was between the "social gospel" and the "gospel of God," the split that still exists to some extent today. I want to reclaim the social gospel for the true church and combine it with the gospel of God. Saving a life is important, but saving a soul is moreso.No, I didn't forget - as I said, I had simplified the matter significantly - it'd take a huge amount of space to really discuss it in depth and I doubted that was necessary - I see that I was right as you obviously followed the point.

I don't dispute the necessity of spreading the Gospel or of reclaiming the social Gospel - what I disputed was the gross generalization that the church doesn't care. Incompetence, even apathy, doesn't always spell indifference.

You know your political history, but not your church history. Care to explain the error? Not disputing the claim as you're correct that I know one better than the other.

Surprising is irrelevant, the point is that the church is not doing its job. There is no excuse for it. Explaining isn't excusing. If you (general) don't understand the underlying causes you're unlikely to effect significant change. And telling people they don't care is a surefire way of losing their willingness to hear you out - let alone impliment your advice.

The problem with the world today is the church.No, it's sin. The problem you seem to be addressing is the church's failure to respond appropriately. That's a valid point, one I even agree with.

Those who believe in the gospel tend to preach it in isolation from meeting the physical needs of people, whereas those who meet the physical needs of the people are rarely part of the gospel believing church. Christ healed holistically, both soul and body, and we are called to do the same. If we are not doing what we are called to do, then we are failing.Granted. But it doesn't support your claim that the church doesn't care - merely that it has failed to do it's job. Frankly, in a lot of ways I concur - but not with your over generalizations about concern or response. The entire body isn't failing, even if a proportion is.

[Jaltus]

Of course the entire body is not failing, good grief TL!

My point is that the church as a universal body is failing in its charge, which you just (I believe) agreed with.

Oh, and the statement "the problem with the world today is the church" is a quote, I just cannot remember who said it.

[Teallaura]

:shrug: That's what you said - and the strong implication of the OP. Maybe you're just sounding more pessimistic (to me, at least) than you intend, but that was the impression I got.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I'm just glad these sorts of conversations are happening.

I'm all about effectively preventing risky behaviors/unwanted pregnancies/abortions and strengthening the family and I do not want all sexual orientations enshrined legally as equal through legal marriages, but we gotta be pragmatic in terms of political strategies and goals for these things and be willing to consider a wider scope of issues as important.

I think Red turned Purple State voters would have the balance of power if enough of them banded together to vote smartly.

Hollywood and the ET may have money, but they don't have that many good movies as of late, and their lauding of Brokeback shows the extent they are out of touch with much of America who recognize propaganda for propaganda and that the issue is more complicated, though homophobic violence is tragically real. I say going after their monopoly power over the US and infuence on the rest of the world is a more pragmatic way to combat the cultural decline in the US than heterosexual marriage amendments that are doomed to fail.

dlw

[A Cup of No]

Good thread. These are valid things for me to keep in mind for 2008, my first chance to vote. I definitely sympathize, Jaltus, about the church's failure in doing a holistic job in reaching all the needs of the people. If we were to function as a body, we would realize that each person had a specific role to play, and that God will use some to give comfort and help to the widows like the deacons of the early church, and others to preach the word and pray.

[Lady Macbeth]

Actually, I think the GOP is onto something with Health Savings Accounts. Rather than some plan telling you what it will and won't cover these are personal accounts which you may use for medical purposes as you wish, no deductibles, no co-pays, no wrangling with the insurance company. Of couse, someone has to put money into it, normally it's a combination of employers and employees, but it's pre-tax.

And, for employers like mine or my husband's, who can't or won't contribute, and families like mine who can't contribute because we can't even pay all of our bills each month, they're moot. If there's no money IN the HSA, there's no money to pay out if an emergency happens.

The GOP has been pushing HSAs for a while, but they don't seem to get a lot of traction, although they are staring to show up.

Primarily for the reason I stated above.

The poor (and health care for them) should not be the province of the government, especially not at the federal level.

Someone needs to tell Miss "Liberty Enlightening The World" to stfu then. :rasberry:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!!

"No child left behind?" (Although, if memory serves, parents have more influence on a child education than the school does.)

No Child Left Behind is already causing many school districts to "fail" (cited here (http://www.nea.org/esea/ayptrends0106.html)) and parents who aren't home because they're BOTH working long hours just to pay for food and heat in the house can't very well take charge of the child's education.

There is medicaid.

Not for my family, or most of the families without health care that live in my area.

The church isn't doing its job because there is welfare to compensate. If people had more money they would help more. And like I said, I think this method is inefficient, but you can hardly blame Christians for not trying. There is also the fact that most people don't really care about their religion and the churches can only do so much with a limited ammount of believers who care.

Untrue. There is no evidence that "people" having more money would encourage them to help more. Consider the flyer that was inserted into my heating bill this winter:

As energy costs continue to rise, it is increasingly difficult for Wisconsin's most vulnerable residents to afford their home energy expenses. Families, senior citizens and individuals with special needs must use more of their limited resources to pay their energy bills. Sometimes they do without necessities like medical care and food in order to pay their energy bill.

This is a choice that thousands of Wisconsin families face each year. Fortunately, assistance is available through the Keep Wisconsin Warm Fund. By contributing to the Keep Wisconsin Warm Fund, you can help keep Wisconsin families warm this winter.

The thing that the flyer is NOT making explicit is that after April 1st, they can turn off the heat to any unpaid accounts EXCEPT the ones they mentioned in that flyer - seniors, families with children under 7 and persons with special needs CANNOT be turned off, and the energy company MUST make payment arrangements with them regardless of their debt.

MY family (which doesn't count as a family, because we are a young couple with no children) CAN be turned off, and they're asking US to donate money to a COMPANY that's going to get their money ANYWAY.

On the other hand, it was demonstrated to our community that those without a lot of money (those shopping at Wal-Mart instead of the mall, and the local Pagan community) donated enormous amounts of money to the tsunami victims and the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief funds. The jars at the mall, jewelry stores and other "pricey" establishments in town didn't generate nearly as much in donations. The funds from our store's donation jar went to Officers of Avalon's (http://www.officersofavalon.com/), Avalon Cares (http://www.avaloncares.org/) program to aid people affected by the disaster with what they DIRECTLY needed to survive and start rebuilding.
Please read the guidlines before posting. This is a Christian area. Also, you may not use abbreviations for profantiy at Theologyweb.

[One Bad Pig]

The poor (and health care for them) should not be the province of the government, especially not at the federal level.

Someone needs to tell Miss "Liberty Enlightening The World" to [shut up] then. :rasberry:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!!
Back when Ellis Island was in operation, it wasn't the government who was helping newcomers get started; it was largely family and church organizations.

On the other hand, it was demonstrated to our community that those without a lot of money (those shopping at Wal-Mart instead of the mall, and the local Pagan community) donated enormous amounts of money to the tsunami victims and the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief funds. The jars at the mall, jewelry stores and other "pricey" establishments in town didn't generate nearly as much in donations. The funds from our store's donation jar went to Officers of Avalon's (http://www.officersofavalon.com/), Avalon Cares (http://www.avaloncares.org/) program to aid people affected by the disaster with what they DIRECTLY needed to survive and start rebuilding.
Pricey establishments tend to have fewer customers, and are less likely to deal in cash transactions, and people shopping there are less likely to have spare change readily available. Such cash donations are also far from the only way to give, and may not be an accurate indicator of how much people are donating overall.

However, I agree with you that charitable organizations are the best way to help people, which is why I don't think the government should be involved (other than regulating the organizations to ensure that the money donated is going where advertised). Government-run charity forcibly takes money from people, then distributes it inefficiently.

[Ryokan]

Back when Ellis Island was in operation, it wasn't the government who was helping newcomers get started; it was largely family and church organizations.


Pricey establishments tend to have fewer customers, and are less likely to deal in cash transactions, and people shopping there are less likely to have spare change readily available. Such cash donations are also far from the only way to give, and may not be an accurate indicator of how much people are donating overall.

However, I agree with you that charitable organizations are the best way to help people, which is why I don't think the government should be involved (other than regulating the organizations to ensure that the money donated is going where advertised). Government-run charity forcibly takes money from people, then distributes it inefficiently. However, even inefficent, the government manages to spend more (in real, obviously, but also in percentage of GDP terms) on charity than those organizations did in the past.

[One Bad Pig]

However, even inefficent, the government manages to spend more (in real, obviously, but also in percentage of GDP terms) on charity than those organizations did in the past.
Yes, but how much of that money goes toward actual necessities, not television sets or lottery tickets or alcohol or...?

[themuzicman]

Living in the poorest county in the lower penninsula of Michigan, I can tell you that even those on welfare can afford cable TV.

[Teallaura]

Cell phones, satellite TV, alcohol, more alcohol....



(Sadly, I see this constantly in my job...)

[Ryokan]

Yes, but how much of that money goes toward actual necessities, not television sets or lottery tickets or alcohol or...?
That has to do with what? Remember, welfare isn't just a moral issue, but a public order one. Too great of disparities can create all sorts of ugly social conditions. In a sense, its bribing the poor to stay good, and providing a net to keep those used to nto being poor from feeling desperate when they hit hard times. Charities don't provide that function. And they didn't even manage to meet basic necessities in the 19th and early 20th century.

[Teallaura]

However, even inefficent, the government manages to spend more (in real, obviously, but also in percentage of GDP terms) on charity than those organizations did in the past.

How would you account for goods and services that were provided, but not bought, for the person as was quite common in the past? Were the recipients genuinely receiving less aid back whenever - or are they merely receiving more money now?

(Honestly, I don't see how you can even know that, given that so many organizations provided charitable services without being charities per se. Even today, millions of churchs give to individuals in need directly - it's not as if churches file tax returns now, let alone in years past {whenever we're talking about} - how would you know?)

[Teallaura]

That has to do with what? Remember, welfare isn't just a moral issue, but a public order one. Too great of disparities can create all sorts of ugly social conditions. In a sense, its bribing the poor to stay good, and providing a net to keep those used to nto being poor from feeling desperate when they hit hard times. Charities don't provide that function. And they didn't even manage to meet basic necessities in the 19th and early 20th century.

*emphasis mine

Would you mind providing a link or other support for that assertion? The period in question is one of the most active for the 'social Gospel' so I'm very curious as to what the basis is for that.

Thanks! :smile:

[Ryokan]

How would you account for goods and services that were provided, but not bought, for the person as was quite common in the past? Were the recipients genuinely receiving less aid back whenever - or are they merely receiving more money now?

Basically, you just have to listen to accounts at the time, Teal. As far as I know, no one has any hard numbers on this. If you can find them, pearls are for you. I do know for a fact economic stratification was much greater, as was poverty and its effects. i also know of no study to suggest that, barring government aid, people give more to charity to make up the difference, so we are both using what knowledge we have to get here, not hard numbers.

[One Bad Pig]

That has to do with what? Remember, welfare isn't just a moral issue, but a public order one. Too great of disparities can create all sorts of ugly social conditions. In a sense, its bribing the poor to stay good, and providing a net to keep those used to nto being poor from feeling desperate when they hit hard times.
It's bribing the poor to stay unemployed and poor. Which group is more likely to commit crimes, the working poor or those on welfare?

Charities don't provide that function. And they didn't even manage to meet basic necessities in the 19th and early 20th century.
You have proof of this?

[Ryokan]

It's bribing the poor to stay unemployed and poor. Which group is more likely to commit crimes, the working poor or those on welfare? The working. But welfare doesn't keep a very large part of the potential work forces unemployed anymore. Thansk to reform.

You have proof of this?
I am certain i can find it. But I am lazy today. Can you prove they did? Accounts I have read seem to indicate it was not the case.

[Ryokan]

*emphasis mine

Would you mind providing a link or other support for that assertion? The period in question is one of the most active for the 'social Gospel' so I'm very curious as to what the basis is for that.

Thanks! :smile:
I addressed it with OBP.

[Teallaura]

Basically, you just have to listen to accounts at the time, Teal. As far as I know, no one has any hard numbers on this. If you can find them, pearls are for you. I do know for a fact economic stratification was much greater, as was poverty and its effects. i also know of no study to suggest that, barring government aid, people give more to charity to make up the difference, so we are both using what knowledge we have to get here, not hard numbers.Fair enough, it just sounded more like something you had hard data on, the way you asserted it.

[Teallaura]

I addressed it with OBP.:rasberry: Lazy!

Seriously, I just wanna know, so if sometime you happen upon a link.... :teeth:

[Ryokan]

:rasberry: Lazy!

Seriously, I just wanna know, so if sometime you happen upon a link.... :teeth:
When i have energy, I will try to get one.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

thoughts:

third parties do not just spoil elections, they've also been able to get the main parties to take on new issues so as to protect their duopoly of control of power.

purple politics people need to focus on rule changes like making the house of reps votes at the state level closer to a proportionality system. This will give third parties a better chance of getting some representation and be better able to force the main parties to take on their issues.

I’d like to make the state gov’t unicameral and with a cross between a representative and a majority rule system. We really don’t need two chambers at the state level. In MN, we could divide up the state into 5 or 6 regions and have representational elections in each region. So for each region, a party would get the number of representatives that is quasi-proportional* to the percentage of the vote they won. This would keep elections local, but make them not winner-takes-all contests and give third parties a better chance of getting some representation. When elections are not winner-takes-all contests major party candidates are more likely to discuss the issues, instead of smearing each other and when third parties have a decent chance of getting a toe-hold onto power then the main party candidates will need to take on more of their issues.

I’d also like to see a state-wide flat tax where all adult citizens would also receive an 1,000 dollar transfer so long as they vote in state and nat’l elections. If this were coupled with having annual state legislative electionsm it would go even further to keep legislators more responsive to the people.

Anyways, I think such state-based institutional reforms are an important precursor for decentralizing more of the power in the nat’l gov’t to the state or local levels.


I think that before we can get more issues on the plate, we need to be true peace-makers in reframing and toning down the polemical tone of wedge issues that have traditionally crowded out other issues. Then, it might be wise to focus on strategic changes in the short-run that'll make it easier for us to have more options to choose from later on...

I also think that the Basic Income Guarantee program maximizes the poverty-reduction and minimizes the ability of people(of all income levels) to game the system and lets the local communities and congregations deal with exhorting people to spend their money more wisely. Inasmuch as income instability hurts family stability, this truly is something that ought to qualify as fitting well with purple politics.

dlw