Contributors

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Get To Work

"Men with guns will come to your house and take you to jail."

Between Pastor Ed and Doctor Sean at the gym as well as several of my regular commenters, this line has been beaten to death of late so I decided to dedicate a post to it and clear up some very serious misconceptions and (surprise surprise) childish dishonesty.

The whole thing really started with these verses from the Bible (2 Corinthians 9, 6-12).

Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. As it is written: "They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."

Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.

These verses are pretty plain to me: share your wealth and God will reward you. It's basically up to all of us to engage in one, gigantic wealth redistribution system. This simple instruction flies directly in the face of Ayn Rand's enlightened self interest bull shit so I say that any of you who embrace Rand and Jesus have a serious ideological dichotomy to overcome.

The part of this verse that seems to cause all the frothing at the mouth is this one:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Clearly, this means under compulsion from God, not the government. This jibes with everything else JC because it's all about coming to the Lord under your own free will, not being forced. But, as they often do, the right has made this there Biblical evidence for having very little or no taxes. This is especially true of (gasp!, horror of horrors) Social Security and Medicare taxes which help people every day.

Let's assume that Paul, who wrote 2 Corinthians, was also talking about the government. He wasn't but I'm going to say that he was for the sake of this discussion. At first glance, it does indeed seem like we have no choice. Those taxes come out without our permission and we are not cheerful givers. We are being forced to pay them and men with guns will come to our use and take us away if we don't. As is usually the case with right, they don't look beyond that first glance, tap into their inner rage, and create a fantasy world in which Mom and Dad (the government) won't let them stay out past midnight...give them the keys to the car...do what they want to do...blah blah blah...

Because when you start to look honestly at how taxes and social programs started, the majority of this country are, in fact, cheerful givers. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states. Social Security and Medicare were passed by our elected representatives (see: TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION) and enjoy the support of the majority of Americans today. In fact, 57 percent of Americans think their taxes are fair while 43 percent and 4 percent consider the amount right or too low. Interestingly, 50 percent think their taxes are too high but many of these still think their taxes are fair and nearly two thirds want taxes raised to cover Social Security and Medicare which clearly illustrates the overwhelming support for both of those programs.

At worst, all of this shows that half of the country has no problem with taxes being taken out of their check. At best, closer to two thirds support this type of taxation. They continue to support elected representatives that would continue to collect all of these taxes. When they cast their vote, it means that they are all now cheerful givers. That includes myself. When I vote for Democrats, I am essentially saying that I want money removed from my check for federal taxes and social programs.

This still leaves a good chunk of people that do not support this type of taxation and bitch about it constantly. Adding insult to injury, they lost (and continue to lose) this debate (see: the worst ever, man!) hence the reason why they froth at the mouth about men with guns forcing them to do things and whine about their freedom being inhibited. My message to you is the same one I give to lazy teenagers:

Get off your ass and do something about it.

Your vote and, more importantly, the time you invest in support of a candidate with your views and getting like minded individuals to vote with you, means that you can change the situation so that no one is forcing you to do anything. By sitting on your ass, the majority ruled and you lost so I guess you'll have to lump it. The history of this country is filled with examples of people that worked hard to change the way things were done if they didn't like the status quo. They pulled themselves up by the bootstraps (hee hee:)) and put people in office that would govern differently.

This is what we have seen in the last couple of years with the Tea Party. I'm certain that anyone who complains about taxes can work with these groups locally to change how the system works. You may end up not getting enough support but, hey, that's how our country works. If you're not happy with it, you are always welcome to leave. Or redouble your efforts.

Rather than wasting your time arguing with me on this site, devote time to ending men with guns coming to your house and forcing you to fork over the fruits of your labors. Democrats have done it throughout history. They passed Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. It wasn't easy but they used their power of voting to elect people who would pass these laws. Don't be a lazy teenager who gripes about the rules from the comfort of your parent's basement. In short,

GET TO WORK.

38 comments:

Don said...

Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act? Are you sure that isn't revisionist history?

juris imprudent said...

Obviously what M means is that good Democrats helped it pass and bad Democrats became bad Republicans. Oh, and those good Republicans of yore - they all died off.

See M is incapable of understanding why Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, because he wasn't a straight-out racist like Byrd or Wallace.

juris imprudent said...

Oh and M I don't care what your God has commanded you to do (that you apparently can't do without the Federal govt doing it for you). I don't share your belief in God; your beliefs have no more basis for forming public policy than the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention (or any other religious right-wingers that haunt your progressive dreams). Remember how much you have loved to cite Jefferson and his "wall of seperation" - at least when talking about those dreaded theo-cons? I guess this is just another of those if you are going to have a standard, why not a double-standard.

A. Noni Mouse said...

I'm not going to bother repeating the argument, so see here.

Larry said...

M: But, as they often do, the right has made this there Biblical evidence for having very little or no taxes.

Bullshit. "The Right" has done no such thing. Unless you count Anarchists as being of "The Right"? Again. Wanting to pay slightly lower tax rates as the vast majority on "The Right" do does not equate to "little or no taxes" except in Liberal Fantasy Land. Then again, you've proven time and time again that you don't have the understanding of even the most basic logical syllogisms.

M: Get off your ass and do something about it.

Your vote and, more importantly, the time you invest in support of a candidate with your views and getting like minded individuals to vote with you, means that you can change the situation so that no one is forcing you to do anything.


More mind-reading, Mark? Or do you have any evidence that we/they are not doing that? In fact, isn't one of your constant themes here about how we/they are doing exactly that and frightening Wee Widdle Snoogums Marky and his Proggy Tribe?

And stuff it about the Civil Rights Act. The majority of Democrats voted against it, as they voted against all of the prior legislation. And you're a teacher? We can see just what kind of quality education your non-tennis students are getting as you continue to get basic facts wrong.

Now will come the The Ritual Claim of "They're Losing Their Shit" which means, "I got basic shit wrong again, and got called on it again. Waah."

Juris Imprudent said...

You have to kinda laugh at a guy who whines so much about "us proving him wrong"; you think he might try being right for a change.

Juris Imprudent said...

Hey, here is somebody who "got to work"...

Here and here about Corzine - the great liberal Dem, who managed to singlehandedly drive two Wall St firms into the ground. Hey, maybe that was what he meant to do, and collecting million$$$ in the process was just a bonus. That is a bit odd though for someone supposedly concerned about income inequality. Must be that John Edwards school of "two Americas" - and making sure that they are in the upper one.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Hmmmm, that link didn't work. Trying again.

Anonymous said...

So what you're saying is that so long as 51% consider something a moral imperative, FUCK THE OTHER 49%, they can damn well shut up and do what they're told or go to jail. The "I won" mob rule doctrine.

Would you still consider that valid if 51% decided all liberals should be shot, jailed or deported? You certainly didn't consider it valid when the majority (including many Democrats, because Bush actually got Congressional approval for his war, unlike Obama) voted to go to war in Iraq.

Mark Ward said...

Noni, you're not really being forced if you have the power to change the law which you do. We don't have a totalitarian government (despite your fantasies) so if you put in the time and get a majority of people to go along with your ideas, the law changes and no one will come to your house with guns (although that doesn't really happen anyway when you consider how many people delay paying their taxes for years and aren't being hauled off anywhere).

Your real issue lies with the fact that you lost and the majority in this country want SS and Medicare taking out of their checks because it's a good idea. Most people think federal taxes are fair. You don't agree with either. Time to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to work.

Larry and Don, the CRA was introduced by a Democratic president and passed by another. Emanuel Celler was the House Dem who led the effort to strengthen the bill. To say that it was a GOP idea is ridiculous. It was a Democratic Party idea with GOP support. Of course, the southern Dems voted against it. It's why they became (not racist, wink wink) Republicans.

juris imprudent said...

So M that is it for you isn't it. The majority is always right. If you are in a minority well just too bad for you.

You actually teach young people that that is our system of govt?

GuardDuck said...

And Jesus said to give Caesar what Caesar is due. Since we are in a representative democracy then we are all, each of us little Caesars, and we can debate just how much Caesar is due.

But to say that it is charity when a million little Caesars demand an extra denarius is folly.

Charity is given freely. Not demanded by one Caesar in Rome nor a million little Caesars next door.

Larry said...

Well, imagine my surprise wen I discovered Mark was right about the CRA of 1964. I had been reading about the earlier bills a couple of months ago, and got details of those attached in my mind to the later one.

Mark Ward said...

Juris, that's not what I am saying. The majority isn't always right but if the minority has a problem with the way things are, then they should get to work to change it. That's what I teach young people. What would you teach them about our system of government?

Juris Imprudent said...

Juris, that's not what I am saying.

Really?

...the majority ruled and you lost so I guess you'll have to lump it.

Which is true whether you were sitting on your ass or working your ass off. Lump it mofo because the majority makes the rules. Which is exactly what you brayed after the 2008 elections.

What would you teach them about our system of government?

That just because 50%+1 people agree with you, you are not presumptively right. That is precisely why we have the Bill of Rights and other requirements for more than a simple (and typically temporary) majority. That and every power that you believe your side should have will eventually be used by the other side - so choose those powers carefully because you damn sure won't be in charge all the time.

Juris Imprudent said...

And by the way, since you made a point about "men with guns coming to your door" let me remind you that you are talking about agents of government there, not some corporate lackeys (i.e. CenterPoint/RMR). How 'bout that, you actually do understand the difference - when it is convenient for you. How lucky that you are immune to feeling shame.

Anonymous said...

And apparently if 51% think someone who can afford health insurance but chooses not to get it needs care, the taxpayers should subsidize him, that's a good thing.

In short, if someone is a freeloader or a socioeconomic moron (by definition, since they put themselves in that position), we should be required by law to enable that.

Unless he's a white male Republican, of course.

last in line said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203804204577013814139987648.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

In Colorado, they sure don't want money taken out of their checks for education. There's your fantasy world for you - on the same day you. So Mark says 50% of the people think their taxes are too high on the exact same day that Colorado voters rejected a tax increase degigned for education funding.

Fantasy world meets voting results.

Mark Ward said...

That is precisely why we have the Bill of Rights and other requirements for more than a simple (and typically temporary) majority.

Ratification of the 16h Amendment by the required majority of 36 states occurred on 3 Feb 1913. Six more states ratified the amendment after that bringing the total well beyond a majority.

Social Security passed 372-33 in the House and 77-6 in the Senate

Medicare passed 307-116 in the House and 70-24 in the Senate.

All three of these are far beyond a simple majority. Most people in this country think that all three are good ideas and they should because they are successful programs. If you don't think they are good ideas, oh well, I guess you'll just have to live with it. Or leave.

Last, half the country does indeed think that their taxes are too high. But some of these also think their taxes are fair. In addition, you are looking at a state example with its own issues and not a federal one. The other thing to consider is that Gallup always does its polls right before tax day so there is clearly some bias there with people under the gun to get their taxes done.

I guess I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. I'm living in a fantasy world because more than half the country thinks their taxes are fair?

last in line said...

Any comments on the election results or are you just going to stick to your story? I'm not talking about biased gallup polling, I'm talking about election results...and those are from a battleground state and proposed tax increases like that one are usually labeled "for the children". There's a tide turning, just probably not the way you think it is.

I think the conclusions you come to from your writings on here are fantasy. I don't think 2/3 of people support having more money taken out of their checks to support social programs. You take the poll, I'll take the election results. I have no doubt that people support SS and Medicare, I have a hunch that they want them to be structured so they are sustainable going into the future.

btw, the 10:45 pm post from Juris is money.

juris imprudent said...

Alright M since you insist on being obtuse. I and eight friends pay you a visit. We decide to vote on who gets to take as much of your property as we like. The vote is 9 to 1 against you. It was a fair vote, you worked your ass off to convince some of those 8 to not take your shit. Are we in the right just because it was almost unanimous? You were in the minority and you know, you should just lump it, right?

Mark Ward said...

Any comments on the election results or are you just going to stick to your story?

I made a comment above. Was that not sufficient for you?

There's a tide turning, just probably not the way you think it is.

Considering that I spend much more time with this than you do (by your own admission), I'd say you are suffering from confirmation bias and I simply have a greater well of knowledge in which to tap. Taxes are going to have to be raised to address the debt and improve our economy. Overall, this is going to diminish (but not eliminate) the inequality in this country. We don't really have a choice if we are going to continue to be a power in the global marketplace.

I don't think 2/3 of people support having more money taken out of their checks to support social programs. You take the poll, I'll take the election results.

For one state? Seriously, are you kidding me with this? You're offering an example of education funding in one state. I'm talking about Social Security and Medicare. If both of these programs were so unpopular, why do both Democrats and Republicans continue to support them? In your research into this recent referendum in Colorado, did you look into the history of the education department there? Have their been issues in the past with misuse of funds? According to one of the posts in comments from a CO citizen, none of the funds from the last tax increase actually went to education. Any exit poll results that show why people voted the way they did? Your link was a stub article and didn't really contain much in the way of further information so for you to make the claim that you have is short sighted.

juris, once again-childish dishonesty, baiting, weasel words, and weasel questions. In fact, the whole thing is a weasel scenario . I think I just added a 15th point to Boaz's 14. Aren't you a lawyer? How many leading questions have you asked that are this fucking obvious? Are you with me or are you with the terrorists How ironic because your scenario leaves out the government protecting property rights!

Let's see...I say that it's not fair-you win...I say that it is fair and I'm an idiot and you win. I refuse to answer and you call me chicken and you win. At least you aren't trying to prove me wrong and win the argument:)

Seriously, go get some help. You are now equating a gang seizing your property and Social Security? They're coming to get your luggage now, too, juris...buy some locks and a tin foil hat!!!

juris imprudent said...

juris, once again-childish dishonesty, baiting, weasel words, and weasel questions.

No, just a logical conclusion to your train of thought - a conclusion that even you reject. Yet that does not cause you to rethink anything, it merely causes you to vent your frustration at being unable to better conceal your intellectual shortcomings.

How ironic because your scenario leaves out the government protecting property rights!

Like in Kelo? Yes indeed, govt is supposed to protect property rights. Fine, my friends and I are local voters, as are you, and you have no principled objection to what we just did - because by your moral calculus - the majority is always right. Lump it dude.

All you had to do to avoid the apparent discomfort you just felt was say "oh, just being the majority does not make you right". But you can't concede even the obvious. Childish? Oh yes, childish and dishonest.

Mark Ward said...

Except that I already admitted that the majority isn't always right. You're still missing my point. And your comparison is completely ridiculous.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Noni, you're not really being forced if you have the power to change the law which you do.

If I have the power to change the laws, then why are they still the way they are? Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes this month because I have to pay for major repairs to my daughter's car so she can get to work?

Why are you so silly?

So let me see if I've got your other claims correct:

God wants us to take care of the poor. He also wants the government to use the authority they borrow from God to do the opposite of what He does with His authority.

Oh, and BTW, the Bible is just a book of fairy tales written by men. Furthermore, what we have today isn't even close to what they originally wrote, so there is no way to know what God actually wants.

Is that about right, Mark?

A. Noni Mouse said...

Mark sez:

get a majority of people to go along with your ideas, the law changes

the majority ruled and you lost so I guess you'll have to lump it.

The majority isn't always right

Which is it? Does the majority define "right"? Or is "right" something which exists and can be discovered? You sure seem to be arguing for the majority defining what is right. (Otherwise known as "might makes right.")

juris imprudent said...

Except that I already admitted that the majority isn't always right.

Really? How did I miss that? What exactly was it you said to clarify your "lump it" to minorities? You aren't piling up childishness on top of childishness are you?

Mark Ward said...

Really? How did I miss that?

From above...

"The majority isn't always right but if the minority has a problem with the way things are, then they should get to work to change it. That's what I teach young people. What would you teach them about our system of government?"

then why are they still the way they are?

Well, one obvious reason is that you are wasting your time arguing with me. Another would be that perhaps you are wrong and things work better this way. But we KNOW that can't be right:)

Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes this month because I have to pay for major repairs to my daughter's car so she can get to work?

I bet if you did the IRS would simply send you a delinquent notice and not a single man wouldn't come to your house with a gun to take you away. Millions of people are years behind on their taxes and no one gets hauled away. This vision you have feeds your adolescent power fantasy and honestly has no basis in reality.

God wants us to take care of the poor.

Yes, that is said several times in the Bible.

He also wants the government to use the authority they borrow from God to do the opposite of what He does with His authority.

I don't even know what this means.

Oh, and BTW, the Bible is just a book of fairy tales written by men.

No, but it needs to be taken within the context of its culture and ultimately recognized as flawed and contradictory in some parts because it was written by men. In other words, believing in Republican Jesus doesn't make you a "real" Christian.

so there is no way to know what God actually wants.

If God is perfect and man is not than how can we possibly know and understand fully what God wants? Are you saying we comprehend in the same way God does? That's awfully presumptuous.

Which is it?

It's something that you continually have difficulty understanding: gray. Ad nauseam, the world is not black and white....snore....

Certainly if one looks at history the majority doesn't always do the right thing. But in the cases we are talking about here (federal income tax, SS, Medicare) the majority won and they were right. We are the superpower we are today because of these effective laws. You don't like them so know the onus is on you to try to get enough support to change them. Good luck. Because most Americans (and not just a simple majority) aren't fucking paranoid about the government and understand (as adults do) that these types of laws are necessary.

last in line said...

Yep, one state! Remember Ned Lamont winning the dem primary in Connecticut a few years back...you said on this blog his primary win was a trend that was sweeping the nation.

Of course you're only talking about ss and medicare - the 2 most popular programs and I see you shift any talk of "federal programs" toward those 2 programs. I was talking about the other govt programs that waste billions of taxpayer dollars. I actually offered it as an example of the people voting down tax increases. btw, I never said ss and medicare were unpopular, not sure where you got that.

I don't always need a weather vane to figure out which way the wind is blowing. You spend more time on this than we do but you when your opposition is on here, they are wasting time. Got it.

Juris Imprudent said...

The majority isn't always right but

Ah, so you said this AFTER I pointed out that you were saying the majority is always right. Didn't you ever learn that when you say something and follow that with a "but" you are invalidating the preceding statement.

I love you but...
You are so smart but...
The majority isn't always right BUT

It is pretty simple M - which should make it accessible even to you - something that is wrong doesn't become right just because more people are in favor of it. Particularly when "men with guns come to your home" to enforce such.

Oh, and about...

It's something that you continually have difficulty understanding: gray. Ad nauseam, the world is not black and white

You of ALL PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG have NO FUCKING BUSINESS making that statement you bi-polar hypocrite!

Mark Ward said...

I don't always need a weather vane to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

And which way is that? Anti-tax? The federal government doesn't have referendums like Colorado did. They have elections every two years and the last time I checked the approval rating of the 112th Congress was lower than the 111th. What does that tell you about the wind blowing?

juris, are you calmer now that you have blown out an O ring?

Juris Imprudent said...

juris, are you calmer now that you have blown out an O ring?

That depends. Are you going to say that you are the one that sees shades of gray and everyone else just sees black-and-white? Because I'll grab another 2x4 and whack you right upside the head if you do. Even if it is a waste of good lumber.

A. Noni Mouse said...

So, you throw out two more (factually inaccurate) reasons why we can't believe what the Bible says to build on all your other (factually inaccurate) reasons. For the sake of argument, let's just cut to the chase and pretend that your claim is true:

[The Bible is] ultimately recognized as flawed

Are you saying we comprehend in the same way God does? That's awfully presumptuous.

Then how the hell can YOU claim to know what God wants when YOU have made the claim that This. Is. Not. Possible?!? Talk about PRESUMPTUOUS!

Juris Imprudent said...

M knows what God wants because God was made in M[an]'s image.

Mark Ward said...

juris, not everyone else...just some that post here including you, it seems, most of the time.

Noni, I honestly don't think anyone can know fully what God wants and that includes me. I think that God has given us the basics and has made a few things pretty clear. It's the "pretty clear" stuff that you seem to have a problem with (e.g. the current period of grace, forgiveness of sin, helping the sick and poor). There's a very large difference between what you do with documents like the Bible and the Constitution and what I do.

I start with the basics of what they say and see how, if at all, they are applicable to today's world. Some things do and some things don't.

You, however, start with your ideology and then begin your titanic confirmation bias argument...beating anyone who doesn't believe EXACTLY the way "WE" do over the head with both documents, saying that they are heretics, the devil, or anti-American if they don't subscribe to "OUR" theology. Why you do this is unknown to me although it's my opinion that you are likely very scared and insecure about many things and need to have a rigid set of rules to keep yourself in line and make sense of the world.

I guess if that works for you, who am I to argue? I, however, don't need any of that. "You will do my works and greater than these"...what does that mean to you?

Juris Imprudent said...

juris, not everyone else...just some that post here including you, it seems, most of the time.

You my fine fucking friend, are no one to lecture anyone about seeing shades of gray, or nuance beyond "with us or against us". You are binary to the core, with your ego utterly invested in the moral superiority of your position. That you should accuse anyone of being a black-and-white thinker is nothing, abso-fucking-lutely nothing more than projection on your part; not to mention hypocrisy of the highest order.

I acknowledge you when you diverge from liberal/progressive dogma (something N seems unable to do), but you constantly throw me in with whatever other people you don't like - simply because anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. I find that just a bit annoying given that you have more in common with right-wing social-cons than I do - namely your shared belief in God, and the obsession with controlling other people's behavior (and belief).

It is pretty clear to me that everything that gets under your skin about the right are exactly the things you want to be able to do as well as they do - but you aren't.

Anonymous said...

...saying that they are heretics, the devil, or anti-American if they don't subscribe to "OUR" theology.

That would be Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the OWSers.

A. Noni Mouse said...

Juris,

I don't know if you followed the other thread, but if you did, you would see that Mark's belief that it's the government's job actually contradicts the Bible, and Mark actually contradicts himself on that one. It wasn't until he could no longer deny that his beliefs don't align with the clear teachings of the Bible that he pulled out his BS excuses (counterfactual "facts" usually used by atheists to deny everything about the Bible, including the parts Marky likes) to claim that his person preferences take priority over what the Bible teaches.

It boils down to this: Marky has made up his mind to believe what he wants to believe. He cherry picks passages to claim that God agrees with him, and outright ignores far clearer passages which disagree with him. The end result is that he is remaking God in his own image and is actively working to impose his own personal preferences on the rest of us via government power; all the while pretending he is doing "God's work."

Mark, your use of government force to enact your personal preferences and beliefs is massively beyond "inserting yourself between me and God" than anything I've done, which is simply exhortation:

1. to urge, advise, or caution earnestly; admonish urgently.

2. to give urgent advice, recommendations, or warnings.


BTW, the Bible commands us to exhort one another:

But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
— Hebrews 3:13

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
— 1 Timothy 4:13

preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
— 2 Timothy 4:2

Arguing with Mark over this has had one effect on me. The Bible does command believers to take care of those with needs. I'm now more actively resentful that government has taken that responsibility from the church—and me in particular—making it so much more difficult to for us to perform those tasks.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”
— John 14:12

Is the government "whoever believes in me"? Not by any measure I can come up with.