Are any of you watching Glen Beck this afternoon at the CPAC conference? He's giving them their money's worth. He says the worst is yet to come. kwg

Doin' what he does best I'd say. His message was clear and he didn't pussy foot around.

And I thought his words rang quite true. We do need to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps........

I liked that he described the democrats as tax and spenders and the republicans as spenders. Along with the Ron Paul victory in the straw poll tells me America may be on the mend. But we have a long difficult road ahead. kwg

The best of Glen Beck.He echos the heart of America.

CPAC more of the same old BS from the same people. Kick them to the curb or under the bus.

I saw it.. One of the best speeches I've heard to date..

DANG...that was GOOD!!!

Did he include his 1-800 buy gold pitch in his speech?

Kwg020: Glenn Beck INDEED gave them HELL!
This country is about 5 clicks off of a full fledged armed revolution - in which EVERY liberal lawyer, every liberal professor, every tax and spend liberal politician, every liberal judge and every liberal media type is taken out and castrated and then hung!
I am NOT advocating this - its just an observation of the rage that I am aware of in my country. The outcome would be a good thing but it WOULD be a PR nightmare!
When the LIFE of your country is at stake maybe "the blood of tyrants should flow for a while"?
I ABSOLUTELY agree, this country is simply unable to repay what the socialists (both demoncrats and some Republicans!) have spent on their "Chinese Credit Card"!!!
We NOW owe our sole and future generations soles and toil to the friggin ChiComs?? WTF!!!
This country in no way shape or form should be BORROWING money at high interest rates from COMMUNISTS!
It should be lending money to other countries at livable rates.
Every politician that has voted and allowed the U.S. of A. to become a third world debtor, beggar nation should be HUNG - out to dry!
Long live Glenn Beck!
Long live the U.S. of A. (I hope!)
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I think Glen does a good job of identifying the problems. We now need someone to lead America into the rest of this century. Unfortunately I don't see that ONE person. That means we as individuals have to collectively do it. I'm starting by scrutenizing everyone who runs for office for my region and state and supporting only those who will do what is difficult and campaign on a platform of fiscal and social responsibility. Tax and spend or business as usual will not work. We MUST stop borrowing money from China. There is so much that is wrong aboout that.

As per Glen and the Constitution, the only thing the federal government is to do is protect us from the bad guys. Here we are, borrowing from the bad guys and letting them in on our military and manufacturing secrets and our business model for success. Ron Paul is way out there in right field but he is demanding that the federal government live within the Constitution and forcing government agencies and banks doing business with the federal government to open their books and let us see where our money is going. We should have been doing this ALL ALONG!!!.

This country is in trouble Varmitguy. We are in a world of crap and someone is reaching for the handle. It's time to sink or swim. Don't forget your water wings. kwg

Did he cry like the little girly man he truly is? There's probably less than half a testicle in that puzzy's sack. Has Glen got anything other than words that he's ready to lay on the line?

We've got major problems that need addressing, but if we are looking to trash like Beck for leadership, we are in a deep hole indeed. And I don't know what the answer is either. The process of running for President in this country is so demeaning that no true leader would be willing to endure it.

Say what you want Oly, he delivered a message America needs to hear and see. It should have been mandatory viewing for the country. kwg

+1

x2........He may be a different kind of messenger, but the message he delivers needs to be heard!

I suppose we should ask if its the message or the messenger that some object to.

Oly is worried about his testicles and wildbill is hung up on his selling gold for his advertisers. Seems like they don't listen to the message. miles

We watched him, great speech.....

Watch some here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/

You thought Beck gave a great speech, yet you think that Ron Paul is an idiot? It's essentially the same message with a different delivery system. Cut taxation, cut spending, increase liberty, resistance to large government, advocated by both, same same. The only difference is that Beck is somewhat in favor of the wars, and Paul is not.

And defense is a huge difference my man......I never said RP is an idiot. I think his followers are!

Don't believe all the PM's you get.

What PM's?

Besides, Paul is all for national defense, just not for maintaining bases in 120 countries around the world at our own cost, or fighting undeclared wars. I happen to agree with him on the former, but disagree on the latter, as IMO authorization for the war was given by Congress, however weak it might have been. Others have different opinions on that subject, and we've heard them all.

It's the water....

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I'm not an idiot.

Did it ever occurr to you that those people you see as idiots are ones that never participated in the political process to begin with until Ron Paul got his message out? Perhaps something he said resonated with them that they never heard from the usual suspects in politics.

You can't have a small government, low taxes, no deficit spending, and all that while spending the better part of one trillion dollars a year on two wars in two different foreign countries.

It is a logical disconnect to even suggest that you can do it.

So, you're in your mid 20's, or you simply haven't been compelled to participate in the process and let someone else take the lead?

I'm in my mid-40s and have been voting since Reagan's second term.

You've obviously missed my point which was an observation of RP's younger and rather enthuiastic supporters that seems to gain the attention of his detractors rather than RP's message of smaller govt.

Right. Were I as successful as RP has been in Congress I'd be courting the young/never been involved in politics before and I don't believe the American military should be as strong as it is, too.

What is your point?

You stated have a problem RP because of some of his supporters and not his positions. There's no logic in that.

Well, you need a re-do on the reading of your statement.....but, if I've got your code down I think you'll find that RP's positions are attractive to the young, naive follower that idolizes your man.

Much worse than the young and naive are the mature, uneasy in today's troubled world American citizen who think RP is the new dude for hope and change. I mean, where have y'all been?

New dude for hope and change? How about a reversion back to the Constitution? We "mature, uneasy" are tired of having our wealth taxed from us, our savings inflated away, and our progeny saddled with ever icreasing debt. We see no one willing to speak to reducing or changing that, only to slow it down, with the exception of a very few, one of whom is Ron Paul.

Paul may be a weak vessel to carry the message, but at least he carries it, unlike supposed stronger messengers like McCain. Unfortunately for us, most such as McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich et al are in favor of modifying and "improving" existing government programs, which will not solve the problem, it will only kick it down the road for a few more years and end up at the same destination.

Bro, I agree with fiscal responsibility and I don't want any of the old guard (Gingrich, Huckabee, Newt, etc) at the top of the Republican ticket.....but, you can't ignore defense! Come on!! Some of y'all need to pull your heads out of the dark.....RP may make a Treasurer Sec but never a POTUS.

Congress didn't pretend to declare war. Proof of that is that when Ron Paul put a declaration of war before them, they scoffed. What Congress did was pretend to transfer the power of declaring war from themselves over to the executive branch of government, but only a constitutional amendment may lawfully shift powers from one branch of government to the other.

The Us spends more on Defense than every other country in the world COMBINED. Our closest competitor, China, spends about 1/10th what we do.



Do I want a strong military,..dam right I do. But I sure as hell don't think it's our responsibility to protect the rest of the world on our dime as we let other countries spend their resources on their economy.

Ever hear of throwing pearls before swine? That's a hint. Don't waste your key strokes interacting with StanV.

+1

Or, you can make a list of campfire RPeeer's and decide if you want to wallow with pigs, or not.

Stan....Newt's star is going to rise.

Mike, you know the military can't function without forward bases, or an intel agency (he's called for abolishing the intel apparatus, as well). Load up and pull out of SWA....yeah, that's a good plan to defend America. Weakness and retreat would be guarantees of more attacks on us and our allies.

And his BS about just abolishing the income tax and the central bank are just silliness.

he says a lot of good stuff, but so does Glenn Beck. He says too much ridiculous stuff to be taken as a serious man or a serious candidate.

I was not a follower of RP and I am not now. But, he does say what I think for the most part. Mr. RP and I differ on some of the defense issues but I'm with him on many of the others. So is it better to be mostly right than to be mostly wrong just because you don't like the personality who's delivering the message? RP and Glen Beck are on track. I'm hoping the big government (including the RINO's) and liberal left retards are feeling the heat that is sneaking up from behind. kwg

Be careful not to get your information about Ron Paul's national defense stance from his avowed enemies.

There was a time I was a huge supporter....no one can speak and deliver a message like Newt.

+2

I understand about forward basing, especially IRT logistics, but having men in 120 countries around the world and all at our expense? Why do we still have troops garrisoning Japan and Germany? Let them pick up the tab for their defense, or pay us for it, and not by purchasing our debt. All that does is make us beholden to them. Let them pay us what it costs. Same with the rest of the freeloading world. This activity has us well along the road to bankruptcy, because between military expenditures and our social programs, we cannot afford it anymore. Something has to give, and expenditures for defending people who can afford to defend themselves is one that has to end.

What's silly about abolishing the IRS and going to a straight flat tax paid by everyone-no exceptions, and no "progressivity". I would even go with a consumption tax if we could rid ourselves of the 16th Amendment. At least with either a universal flat tax or a consumption tax, everyone would have skin in the game, and would be much more wary about how and why funds were spent.

You already know my feelings on the Fed. When the ponzi scheme that is the Fed implodes under its own weight of debt, and we're held liable for it, and our currency is finally destroyed by the Feds activities, then maybe people will understand how pernicious an institution it is. There's a very good reason that most of the founders did not want a central bank, and you're seeing the reason why unfold every day.

I've yet to hear a good counter argument from the pro nation building crowd.

Mike,
Very well thought out and very well delivered. You sum it up nicely. Add several other small items as part of the fiscal insanity such as continuing to fund the postal service instead of giving it to Fed Ex or UPS, the unfunded liability in Medicair and SS, and an administration that thinks it can buy anything no matter the cost and we have a perscription for disaster.
Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits,and rid our Congress of all incumbants regardless of the party and the cure begins. My order is backward because we won't get item #1 or #2 until we the people purge the halls of government.
The real sad thing here is practically every state has hundreds of billions of unfunded liability problems as well. I used to dismiss Beck as a nambling naysayer of negativity. Unfortunatley the guy has it right regards the fiscal incompetance.

Dave

hard put to separate logical from illogical, it just leaves you "ill"

RP= creepy. Creepy people sell records but not votes.

Steve , I've found you to be right more often than not, but [and I'm not an R P er] the fact is that we don't KNOW what would happen were we to pull out of a bunch of countries militarily and stop this discredited nation building strategy .

Anybody showing an inclination to roll the dice [ like Goldwater ] and depending on our country to manage the aftermath , has always been branded a " kook " .

Life is full of chances and trying to avoid ANY downside to an option is a sure path to failure .

Never happen without blood in the streets. Nor should it. Billionaires at the same tax rate as a couple kids working three jobs trying to feed a couple of kids? That would give the Obama's of the world all they need to bring real live marxism to America.

Then you might as well resign yourself to continued class warfare and "tax the rich" rhetoric, with a concomitant continued expansion of the welfare state.

When 51% of the public can vote to tax the other 49% into oblivion, there's no reason to continue working to support the system. Eventually, you run out of other peoples money and the system collapses.

Unless everyone has skin in the game, and receives the same level of taxation, nothing changes. An 11% flat tax on everyone, including business, would cover our current expenditures. Not having participation by all citizens is what started this problem, and it won't end as long as some feel it is their right to take other peoples property for their own benefit.

=============

Well, for one, Russia and China would probably assume tenancy. 2nd, our presence assures rapid,necessary forward movement of air strikes and delivery of supplies to battle areas in timely fashion and many of you, I suggest, are completely ignoring our forward base's impact regarding the maintenance and continuation of global capitalism. Maintaining military power on these forward bases insures continued world capitalism which, of course, is necessary for the maintenance and continuation of economic globalization.

It's because we are there that we live the way we do here!!

Cut at home, there's plenty of room here to make a huge forward progress styled dent. The taxation scheme Mike speaks of, deportation of illegals and a shut down of 70% of the handouts this country gives would be more than a significant beginning to recovery. Our national defense and strategically placed forward bases need be left untouched for the most part to maintain that which we now take for granted.

You all don't seem to mind the Guantanamo forward base policy now that they wish to try these POSs in the states. If you wish to place our competitive super powers in our forward bases in our stead, then I'd suggest you're focusing on a very simple aspect of the global picture and not the broader ramifications.

Well,...that much is true.

It absolutely should. The math, and concept is simple. The billionaires will pay much, much, much ... more than the poor. A flat percentage of a whole lot, is a whole lot. A flat percentage of very little, is very little. If everyone pays a flat percentage, they all have a stake. And my how wonderfully simple filling out the income tax return would be. Granted, H&R Block and friends would need to seek new hunting grounds.

I just finished his book, Arguing with Idiots.

If you haven't read it yet, wait no longer!

WN

rise to what?

Contention.

who do you think he would team with?

Romney.

Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich? Newt gives a good speech, but I have reservations. Give him a maybe. Romney? No way, no how. RINO through and through, regardless of his business background. There are plenty in business who are more than willing to spend OPM on their pet ideas.

I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.

Oh I'm so loving the "libertarians" complaining about voting here. LOL. Nice one Mike762.

The RPer's offer nothing but an unrealistic immediate return to 1789 in theory as a dogma.

It simply cannot happen. Even Jefferson used military power projection as a tool.

Facts are there are not any reasonable leaders with a reasonable plan reduce the size and scope of the Federal government, competently manage a national currency, control spending and taxation while maintaining an effective reality based defense of the nation. It's not 1804 and 50 seperate currencies for the 50 states is not an option for anything but disaster. National defense isn't about 20 pirate ships powered by sails hanging out in Tripoli it's about nations with ballisitc missiles, nukes and the desire for genocide. Trade isn't simply farm goods and housewares, it's technology and information too. Get a grip people RP is deluded, narrow and regressive in thinking. Now many of his points are good and need to be heeded particularly on spending and scope of the Feds. The rest of it is amusingly deluded. Just abolish the IRS? have you noticed the already 17% real unemployment rate? Perhaps we shopuld just dump a few million more people on that number? Get a grip people.

I'll settle for half OK with you,Mike.

We're 3 years away,man!!

I'm focused on November. Actually, I'm focused on lunch...I'm starving!

3 years away from the absolute yes---BUT the campaigning will begin with the 2010 election results.

The same argument could be made for abolishing the mafia.

Campaigning appears to have started last week in the real world and in 12/08 for many of the "24" members.

True---

Go get you a bowl of chili at the 29 Diner.

"The era of Reagan is over. ... It's the end of the Reagan era." - Newt Gingrich

I didn't know you were a Marxist, dude. Learn something new every day.

I suppose we agree to disagree. The other option is a flat consumption tax. Pay according to use. I fail to see how a flat tax is unfair. Of course with a flat tax, some will pay less than they did before, and still pay a whole lot more than those at the bottom of the rung. Greater use of infrastructure? ... You say you understand how percentages work. Since the wealthy do pay more on a flat percentage as they make more, how are they getting a free lunch? The tax paid scales proportionately. Can YOU quantify this greater use of the infrastructure? Or should we just pad that tax rate to make sure? Ah. I don't know why I bother. Your mind is made up, and so is mine. I do know this, I sure would benefit now. But when I started out my working life at the very bottom at $3.35/hr minimum wage, I never supported the idea of soaking those of greater means to pave my way working up the ladder, and voted accordingly.

How would a flat or consumption tax work with interest bearing credit card purchases??

Obviously, you don't.

The graduated income tax was a central plank of Marxism. I believe it was No. 2 of his 10 central planks.

Do you know who said, "to whom much has been given, much will be required"? Hint: it was not Karl Marx.

RickyD,

Jesus wasn't talking about taxes. He was talking about being accountable for the resources we've been entrusted to be good stewards of. In fact, I would argue that if I have a finite amount of resources (which I do), that I could do much better to further God's kingdom and help the poor myself than to give the money to our very wasteful government.

If you are concerned about the allocation of infrastructure costs, then make those pay as you go with the users picking up the tab (e.g., toll highways, etc.).

Furthermore, RickyD, did not God set out the model for contributing to the common good with the tithe of the Old Testament?

With the tithe requirement, everyone was required to give 10% of what he/she had, regardless of how much they had. God didn't require a rich person to give more than 10% (although God certainly will hold a rich person accountable for what he does with "his" money), and God didn't allow a poor person to give less than 10%. Bottom line, I think a flat tax, with a exemption on the first X amount (poverty level) of income for everyone, is more in line with biblical principles than a misleadingly-named "progressive" tax.

My thought is that the federal government should be able to get by on 10% of the nation's income, so that's what they should charge us. If the federal government has to privatize some things, so be it. The people will decide what is important. If the federal government can't get by on 10% of what the American people make in a year, then there is a serious problem.

This is my thought on infrastructure costs, although I didn't initially go there because the thread sort of evolved as they often do. The subject of taxes can really be rather broad in terms of sourcing for given usage.

Your example of tolls is an excellent one, although I prefer fuel tax. Fuel consumed is proportional to road usage. Heavier vehicles use more fuel. And the time required to stop for fuel can not be escaped. Stopping for tolls adds to congestion when not necessary if the tax were already paid at the pump. While ez-tag scanning toll systems are now available, the toll stations are redundant, and so add to cost. Also, traffic still tends to slow in the scanner lanes as drivers pass through the toll stations. Why build toll booths when gas stations already exist? Anyways, either a toll or a fuel tax can be directly tied to infrastructure usage and cost. Either makes much more sense than trying to tax income to cover this expense.

It is wrong to use taxation as a form of charity.

Fixed it for you .

Thanks for the response , Isacc . I'll only address the first paragraph since I'm in agreement with your domestic " agenda " .

What is wrong with us stepping back and letting Russia and China go at it ? Or do you think the paranoid Russians would lose their fear of China and form a real alliance capable of doing us harm ?

Granted , there would be a global upheaval of some magnitude if we leave troops only in those nations which are historically our allies , but I'd rather see us " managing the aftermath " than continue down the " nation building , global policeman " route .

Our nuclear subs provide the only real deterrant we need for Russia or China .

We could buy a strip of land along our southern border and give it to the jews provided they get out of the Middle East .

Solve two big problems that way .

Glenn Beck is a Neocon:

Ah yes, more TRH and his status as seer and sage of all that is and shall ever be.....what would we do without his insight.

I opened a new box of cereal this morning and found a toy!


(were I thinking of joining the RPeeer's I'd take a hard look at the current membership and consider if that's who I'd want to be connected with)


On a side note, Bill Bennett ripped into Beck about his alcohol recovery analogy with the Republicans.....

I don't believe you can just isolate the first paragraph and disregard the rest without necessarily weakening your own thoughts.

Don't lose sight of the concept "forward". It truly does mean something. Our subs aren't anywhere near capable of the rapid strike responses of our air fleet or quickening the delivery of needed materials, supplies and armaments to our troops.

Look at what bases have closed down in the last 100 years and look what bases have been established during the same time period through today.

It's rather interesting when you actually piece it together.

Seems ironic that we're not hearing much about closing Guantanimo during the last few months, isn't it??

You two make such a cute couple. Any thoughts of finally tying the knot?

You back for some more, lightweight??

He wasn't just talking about taxes, but I fully believe He was talking about everything involved in this life. He did speak on taxes and essentially said to pay what you are told to pay. His faith allowed Him to pay His a little easier than you and I get by with, unless you have taken yours out of a fishes mouth, too.

No. He set out what was to be set apart as Holy for Him.

LMAO......man this place has been good for a laugh the last couple of days.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller: Where ever Newt goes, he is always the smartest man in the room.
Newt�s American Solutions works for me as well today as his Contract with America did in �94. That balanced budget was a LONG time ago!

Some others have laid out good plans of action besides just say NO to the Dems, but nobody that I can see has done so with the detail built into it and the organization built behind it as well as Newt has.

He may or may not be electable and you may not think his play book is perfect, but I would like to see someone stand before the voters, get in their faces, and read that book to them from deer season 2010 to deer season 2012. and with the right minded people voted in; in2010 and 2012, we might take back andgain some ground.
BUT I could be wrong. I voted for Goldwater.

No, Ricky, Jesus was talking about what we have a choice in, not something compulsory like taxes. Jesus didn't say anything about the level at which taxes should be levied, just about the fact that Christians are to pay their obligations to the government.

We in the U.S. are citizens, not subjects, so we can tell our elected representatives what we think our taxes should and should not pay for, how much the total tax bill should be, and how those tax obligations should be divided among the various tax-paying entities, and theoretically, our elected representatives vote accordingly or get voted out of office. There is nothing in the Bible that states someone making more money should be taxed at a higher percentage. In fact, I'll address that issue again below.

To address the other issue
<<<Quote:
Furthermore, RickyD, did not God set out the model for contributing to the common good with the tithe of the Old Testament?

No. He set out what was to be set apart as Holy for Him. >>>

If God didn't "tax" people for His earthly work's funding (through the tithe obligation) at a variable percentage based on income or wealth, why should our government? Are you saying that our government knows better what to do with money than God (through His designees on earth) does?

Ricky - How about this. Let's all live by Biblical principles and have Congress set our contribution to the federal treasury at 10% of our gross incomes, and then RickyD, if you feel like from your conscience that you're not paying enough based on how much you make or own, you can feel free to contribute more. That's the way God works, and our government is not even in the same universe of deserving funding as God's work is. Then we would all pay 10% of our income in federal tax that is compulsory, and we can all answer to God for how much additional we hand over to the Feds. I think that would work well as long as spending was capped to match.

No question he's been a shooting star. He weakened considerably on several occasions....sitting on a park bench with Pelosi agreeing on global warming, the era of Reagan is over, stating the Republican party needed new ideas instead of insisting on Conservatism.

Will we look at Newt and believe him when now he says he's All Conservative All the Time? It's not gonna take much for Conservatives to throw up a red flag. RINO season is open!

And frankly, no way would Romney and Gingrich pair up for a Presidential run.

Unless Dennis is in the room with him. At that point, the room reeks so much with IQ that the average Joe isn't going to understand the conversation.

Newt does have good sense economically, and he never budges from his thoughts on it and how to fix an ailing America. There are many sensible leading economists in the country that wholly agree with him. Is he right for the US and electable? Probably not. We'd be better off with Dennis.

"We'd be better off with Dennis"
NOW I really like that idea!
What ever the outcome, it would be the election to end all elections!
How about Miller/Gingrich or vs?
They could watch each other's back.
The bad guys wouldn't know what hit em!
You may be on to something here!
Or at least on something.

Miller is brilliant....

Edited to add this: Miller and Beck!!!!!

I think Dennis would be great, but he's WAY too smart to take on that job and ruin the great gig he's got. Like Dennis, there are a few others that would be absolutely great candidates (and I agree Beck would be one of them) that have lived on both sides of the liberal/conservative coin. Those that have are the most rounded in their ideas and values, and have the best insight on what makes things 'tick'. A couple that come to mind right off the top of my head would be Michal Medved and Jon Voigt. I truly believe Jon could be elected if convinced to run.
Jim

Forward bases are important if your response to threats is going to be " boots on the ground " . Those boots are necessary if your aim is to control terrain . If your aim is to respond to threats from nations , well , we never set foot in Japan itself . All the lives that were lost taking the islands in the Pacific could have been saved if we had been able to respond with the BOMB on Dec. 8 , 1941 .

Since 1945 we have been like a guy walking all thru Africa with a 22 and a big sign saying " I've got a 460 Weatherby at home so don't mess with me . " The lions read the sign and leave him alone but the snakes can't read and every time he turns around he's gettin' snakebit .

Our subs and air fleet don't need forward bases to carry out their missions .Their mission is to seek and destroy .

I don't know how many bases we have shut down and new ones established in the last 100 years . Actually , the period from 1945 on is the one we can learn from . The BOMB was a game changer but we still act like the game is the same .

I don't know why you mention Guantanamo . I do know that when we put missles in Turkey , Russia wasn't afraid to roll the dice and put some in Cuba and they came up eleven . We took ours out of Turkey .

All of life is a gamble . Given the population of the 'fire , it's a certainty that some guy is thinking of getting married with no guarantee he's getting a good deal . Another is getting a divorce because his situation has become untenable .

He is willing to hire a lawyer and get the deal going and is prepared to deal with the aftermath one day at a time because where he is , is untenable .

Our situation is becoming untenable and it's time to roll the dice , I'm thinking .

Good post.

Geez, bases all over the world since the 40's and in the last two years we now can't maintain our forward presence?

Panic is setting in......

Funny, He didn't mention any of the caveats you pose. We'll just have to disagree on that.

Of course we can maintain our bases . Except for Okinawa , of course where I happen to have spent some time . Now we're moving to Guam , because our good friends , the Japanese , want us gone .

The question is not can we , but should we .

But you knew that was the question and my answer .

Face it - you just miss Isaac .

I'm obliged .

I'm with Ricky on the meaning of what He said . He also admonished the tax collectors to not take more than what was due but He didn't set the amount .

Wisdom literature is like that . It's like a perfect diamond in that it's right no matter which angle you view it from .

The IRS took Him at His word when He said the deal about requiring more from those who had been given more .

Buncha stawlwart christians - them IRS boys !

We left Subic Bay years ago. As our tech capabilies improve we don't need bases where we're not wanted.....if asked, we leave. But, being near trouble spots on the planet is good for our security.

And yes, I miss Isaac.

You actually believe Jesus was a communist? Do you think he intended to reverse the commandments against 1) stealing, and 2) coveting thy neighbor's goods?

I'm not as well versed in history as a lot of you . Except the parts that involved me .

This is one of the things that forward bases do for you in " peacetime " when the generals in the pentagon ain't got enough to keep themselves occupied and some defense contracts are nearing completion :

In 1961 on Okinawa we put on a big demonstration/war game for some bigwigs from a pissant country that the State Department wanted to join the SEATO alliance .I was with a 155 howitzer battery , and we were supposed to show them how quickly we could respond to bail them out if they were attacked .

I won't go into all the details about how we " fudged " on the rapid response deal except that our guns were laid in and dropping rounds exactly on target a couple days ahead . Then the aiming stakes were left in place and the wheel positions were marked .

We rapidly responded before daylight the morning of the day of the exercise and the bigwigs were in helicopters observing all this .

What I remember most was dropping off my howitzer and hooking it to the staging area for the trucks where we already had camoflouge netting stretched . We almost hid too good 'cause a bunch of planes shooting napalm came screaming over the horizon right behind us .We probably were not in real danger 'cause they probably - I'm guessing they fudged ,too, since it's the military way - just happened to have flown the area prior to that morning and spotted our netting as being out of the ordinary .

Yep , that SEATO deal really worked out good for us didn't it . Couldn't have done it without that forward base .

No, financial reality. We either admit it and do something about it, or risk being unable to recover our assets and get our troops and equipment home when our currency collapses. Kind of hard to pay for stuff when no one wants your paper and you have nothing else to offer.

Jesus didn't put any caveats because the context is very clear - He was talking about the choices people make.

The proper way to understand and apply Scripture precludes jumping straight to application, or even interpretation, from just reading a passage or part of a passage. The first step is Observation, then Interpretation, and finally Application. Observation is the step where context is observed and understood. Only when the context is understood can a passage be competently interpreted, and only when the passage is competently intepreted can it be correctly applied.

I heard a story that all of our embassies used to keep many millions of dollars in US currency in their safes just in case they needed it for something like that, but that recently they've been hustling to transition into other more solvent currencies.

The Messiah wasn't saying that it was a holy practice to pay taxes when he instructed his followers to "render unto Ceasar".

He was simply pointing out the insignificance of money as it compares to spiritual matters.

People wanted to ask him tax advice.

He showed them the coin,...told them it had Ceasars pic on it,..so it must be his,...so give the damn thing to him and quit worrying about it.

It was a buncha earthly crap.

The Messiah wasn't sent to earth to waste his time being a tax consultant.

True dat, as they say in the almost White House. They have been instructed to keep relatively large quantities of both local currencies and other major currencies except the pound. Source was the Schultz Letter. Here's a link from Marketwatch. It is an 8 month old link, but I can see its validity, as our embassies have numerous local that they must pay, and they wouldn't be able to operate should we have a currency crisis. Right now the FRN$ is getting some love because of the Greek debt debacle, but when the CDS crowd turns its attention to the greenback, look out.

www.marketwatch.com/story/schultz-paints-bleak-picture-of-future

Alla this trying to tie money in with Christianity makes about as much sense as saying that what you eat says something about your spiritual development.

Sorry,...but it just doesn't wash with me that somebody is going to be condemned to eternal damnation because they didn't report $37 of income to the IRS and later in the day ate a pork product.

I just can't see St. Peter saying,..

"Well, guy, you had it going on there for a while,...but then you succumed to an Al Purnell's Old Folks Country Sausage biscuit, and didn't pay the IRS that $1.79 you owed back in '92,.... so it's off to hell with ya!"

TFF! Glad I don't have to buy a new keyboard.

Well,...it's kinda funny, but it's kinda *not*.

Some people who consider themselves well versed in biblical matters are spreading the word that you risk the fires of Gehenna if ya shortchange Ben Bernanke.

I mean,...you know,...*fug* Ben Bernanke.

He got his own damn money printing press,...and he wants my money too?!!

He could work 30 minutes of overtime running the damn thing and print up more money than I'll *ever* see.

Now I got ta listen to some Jimmy Swaggart wannabee tellin' me that I'll go to hell for keepin' my own damn money away from him?

That's too much, man,....too much.

I gotta call bullshit.

No. Jesus was compassionate. A concept obviously lost on you.

Exactly.

That might be fine when dealing with what boneheads like me and you write, RR, but God's meanings are a little more encompassing than your little process allows. Very few things in scripture are as limited as you suggest. Read it one day and yeah, so what. Then read it another and it jumps off the page and into your life situation.

Let's just let this slide. You and I don't see eye to eye on the tax thing or the biblical analogy, and that's fine. No sense beating it into the mud and cluttering up a thread. My bad for introducing what I did. But I can be unpredictable when called names by arrogant spoiled brats(not you).

Have a blessed day!

So robbing someone at the point of a gun so you can keep 90% for yourself and your jackal buddies, and then give 10% to the poor (while telling them you did it all for them, so please support me in the next election) is an exercise in compassion??? Seems to me to be a violation of a couple of commandments.

Compassion is when one gives of their own accord, out of their own pocket, and to please God alone, not to secure their future position as a politician.

I've heard it said the bible has more references about money and what to do with it than any other topic including love. So maybe the Lord was not so much a tax guy as a financial consultant.

Never really saw it as all that fair, or encouragingly instructive, that the Lord didn't have to pay His taxes, either. A fish did. Maybe I just need more faith.

Did someone rob you? I hope they were apprehended. Apart from that, this makes little to no sense to me in the context of the post you reference. Have a nice day.

The tax man doesn't ask you kindly for a donation.

I think you mean well and won't be disrespectful. But I will call it like I see it.

Christ didn't advocate coercion either, a fact lost on many Christians. Forcing others to give as you would give is just that. That's what charity is for. Charity is a beautiful thing. It is a gift of generosity of one's own free will. Taxing others as you deem fit to be taxed for charity, is coercion. You have a skewed interpretation of the scripture. Everything about the gospel is joined at the hip of personal choice. You think it's OK to vote taking away that choice from someone else. The quote,"to whom much has been given, much will be required," does not mean you have the right to decide what is required, above and beyond the norm for everyone, of anyone other than yourself. When you vote to support progressive tax rates, you take away others choices to do with that which they earned. That is a vote for theft, and no amount of rationalization will change that fact. How those who are blessed make use of their blessings is up to them, and it is between them and God how it is to be judged.

Now, IF you believe that the wealthy use more infrastructure, and so justifies a higher income tax, I'd sure like you to elaborate on this greater use. Furthermore, given that use of infrastructure can be tied DIRECTLY to usage, why does it make any sense to bundle that cost into income taxes?

Government and compassion should be kept separate. When making law, FAIR and JUST is what matters. One's morality and religion are personal. The founding fathers understood this and they were Christians.

Good post, but I would take exception to the "fair" word IRT making laws. That is the road that liberals and progressives have used to implement a progressive income tax, as well as other social equalization legislation. Is it fair that someone is smarter or more productive than his neighbor? No, but the libs think that laws can make it so. It extends to other areas too, especially economics. I think equality before the law is a much better yardstick, where no man is given either advantage or disadvantage because of his circumstance or connections.

The meaning of "fair" is different for liberals and conservatives. For a liberal, fair means equality of outcome enforced by state power. For a conservative it means equality of the ground rules, and let the chips fall where they may based on individual capability, fortune, effort, etc. To a conservative, making sure the rules of a baseball game are applied without any consideration for the differences in the abilities of the two teams or the individual players equates to a fair game. To a liberal, a fair baseball game is one where the less able team is given some degree of favoritism by bending the rules a little, and making sure that everybody gets an equal amount of time in play, regardless of their ability. A conservative thinks the latter, by definition, unfair, and the liberal thinks the former, by definition, unfair.

How explain this difference? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I see your point, and agree that when idiots are involved in the interpretation of FAIR, one can run many miles in the wrong direction. I see no difference in the word "fair" and the phrase "equality before the law." But perhaps the phrase is more specific, and God knows, we need specificity in our laws in an age of "What is the meaning of IS?" Point taken .

I think any time one is dealing with politicians and dissemblers, language needs to be very precise. An unfortunate, but true, aspect of living in our age.

This is not directed at anyone in particular - it's more of an " if the shoe fits , wear it" - comment :

I didn't know until Ricky pointed it out , and I take his word for it on the black part of the bible , that the bible devotes so much space to money , but it makes sense that it would . Jesus also talked more about Satan than He did about the Father .

Both sound like warnings to me .

That's why when I read christians on here spending so much typing time on taxes , I wonder if maybe their priorities ain't a little skewed .

If the gov't left you more money , what you gonna do with it ? Maybe " lay it up here on earth " ?

Like it's any business of yours?

That would come down to the free choice aspect of biblical teachings, and is not for some entity here on earth to decide, at least not in a free society.

I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it .

Advocate? No. Acknowledge the presence and continuation of coercion, most certainly He did, and that included not just coercion but major persecution all the way to horrible deaths. Of course, He wasn't wrong.

We weren't talking about charity but taxes to run the government.

You believe it's fine to pay the same tax % that someone making a shadow of what you or I do. Sure that would be great for us, but I do not believe it is either fair or in the best interest of the country. Put people in a situation where they cannot meet their essential needs and they will dispair or rebel. There is much more of that coming, and soon.

I don't feel like going into any detail beyond that. I have much to do today and need to get to it.

We can agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and neatly sidestepped the point. You believe it is OK to coerce.


Yes, I do think it's fair to pay a flat rate. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay. It's simple and fair. Your idea of "fair" is charity by taxation, which is coercion.


Likewise, other than to say that sometimes one has to be hard with others if they are ever to grow and prosper. It's not something one has to be comfortable with, but one does what has to be done. And I can assure you, I come from a humble start.


We agree on this much.

I strongly agree with most of Beck's basic conservative principals, but his shaky grasp on 20th century history keeps me from taking him very seriously. Specifically, his equating Theodore Roosevelt with the racist, elitist, self righteous Woodrow Wilson seems to be based on one book and not on any in depth historic study.

I don't know about TR being a racist, but he was one of the foremost progressive Republicans of his day, and set the stage for most of the items that killed the Republic as it was designed, namely, the 16th and 17th Amendments and the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

I was trying to say Wilson was he racist, not TR. Your analysis of TR is the same as Beck's incorrect opinion.

So tell me where he and I are incorrect.

Well said.

Very well said!

"I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair."

Gotta disagree. IME, the dregs are the biggest consumers of infrastructure resources in the community I work. It's not the mid to upper class folks who are calling 911 to come get their kids out of bed for school. They aren't the people calling for a "bamblance" ride to the hospital for some silly reason. The list goes on.

In the 60's when LBJ was pres., there was talk of a flat tax. Someone figured out that a 5% tax on ALL income and a 10% tax on businesses would clear the deficit in less than 2 years. And this was during the Vietnam War. IIRC in 10 years there would be so much money accumulated that the taxes could have been reduced.

Of course the fat-cats didnt want to pay taxes, and money talks, so this idea was dropped... but they (congress) kept spending.

a little off-subject, but i wonder how much he's being paid on an annual basis? anything he makes, is well worth it, not complaints. a dollar up front is far better than a dollar thirty years in the future, right?

so, how much do our favorite broadcasters make?? the Rush, the Hannity, the Beckman, etc..etc.

Entertainment pays well, doesn't it??

Some of it does . You , on the other hand , are free .

[quote=curdog4570]Some of it does . You , on the other hand , are free . [/quote)

i'm beginning to think the Beck Man might be a self-serving entertainer? but, of course, i could be wrong, couldn't i??


entertainment for a fee, in order to stir the masses, what a concept.

Yeah....
Don't quit your day job, Gus!

thanks for the good advice.

the last day job i held, they couldn't decide if i was there to help or to hinder. in fact, no decision has been made, even yet.

Did anyone see or hear Beck today? He brought up the subject of government pensions. Bottom line, he asked "Why do have to have them?" Not everyone does.

This will probably open a can of worms but I thought it was a very interesting topic. After all, why can't WE all have pensions (sacasim) is what Beck was asking. Then, he went into the various sides but he raised alot of valid points. For the most part, unless you are a government employee you are left outside.

Living in Jacksonville, our local economy is is playing hell with them. The local pensions guarantee at least 7% each year. I don't know about you but I would love to have that guarantee with the stock market. It is costing our city a bundle. I am in full support of those that recieve it like police and firefighters, but 'come on man. Can I get a pension (or anything) that guarantees this a year? What are your thoughts?

Mac,

I don't disagree with your observations in your community, but across the country, the wealthy do take up plenty of infrastructure. Think about the cost to the economy of the fake energy crisis in 2002? Think about the cost of the ENRON collapse, think about the cost of the financial bailout, some of which went straight to "bonuses".

I would submit that a cop in Michigan is going to see plenty of government spending on the poorest of the poor. But look around at all that crumbling infrastructure, that was built to support and help and promote the auto industry. (including freeways across the country)

America has always spent plenty on supporting private industry (I'm not saying that is bad). Those subsidies made our economy strong, and provided lots of jobs.

Ia Arizona we have slanted our tax codes and our zoning and our water law to benefit developers, NOT sheet-rockers.

Now that the economy is in the tank, the developers are down to their last $10 or $100 million, and we (the tax-payers of Arizona) are STILL building roads and sewers out to their semi-abandoned developments.

And the cops here are arresting plenty of out of work, drunken sheet-rockers, NOT developers.

Just the way the world works.

Sycamore

My friend, please include a link to that guarantee (and a link to a job application, while you're at it! )

Any place that has a pension that goes up 7% a year is a place I want to work.

Think about it: in 11 years it is doubled, in 17 it is tripled, in 22 years it is quadrupled, in 25 years it is quintupled.

Sycamore

all differences aside, i just wish we had a "theory" that would allow continuous growth without any kind of repercussions.

yes, we have theories of growth, but what about the countryside?

therein lies the issue or problem. we have a growth theory that allows for the advancement of humans on the Earth, but what happens next, pray tell??

i mean, how much Growth can the Earth sustain?? why, that ain't our problem, is it? oh, it is our problem pray tell?? so, how do we best solve it?? growth, without an impact? the Architects knows, don't they?? and they speak with the Engineers, and the gov't planners. they all know, don't they??

MMMMM! Eat Earth. Eat lots of Earth. Mongo like Earth. Eat all Earth. MMMM.