I just fail to understand how anyone can support a candidate who will tax the poor and let the rich off the hook. It's not a matter of 'voting your wallet.' It's a moral issue. Scripture says that God abhors a dishonest scale, and that applies as much to the President as it does to the butcher.
There are other issues to vote on, I understand that. But why do we refuse to view this one as a moral issue? Why can we not find pro-life candidates who are not also thieves in corroboration with billionaires, executives and oil companies?
I think that it's very slowly killing me.
How long, O Lord? Turnest thou away unto the end? Shall thy anger burn like fire? -N. D. S. Roark
Comments (8)
The rich in this country are in no way off the hook. They pay an exorbitant majority of taxes, with huge percentages. I believe everyone who pays taxes (which is only people who make over a certain amount) should pay lower taxes, and if government spending was reined in, that could happen.
I do not, ever, in any way, at any time, believe the government should redistribute more of the incomes of the "rich". That's called socialism, and it's never worked. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work for society. It doesn't make things better for the poor; it just makes things worse for everyone, as history has illustrated over and over.
Economic growth doesn't start from the bottom up (though, as I said, I totally support tax cuts for everyone who pays); it starts from the top down, and everyone benefits. I believe that tax cuts at the top help everyone, and I am in favor of a candidate who supports them; in fact, I prefer candidates who are way more aggressive on this than either choice we have right now.
That's why I am more than happy, delighted, in fact, to vote for a candidate who is conservative fiscally.
@Pickwick12@xanga - I think you're crazy, but genuine. I think that the candidates you would vote for, on the other hand, are with few exceptions plundering thieves and deceptive in nearly everything they say.
Sadly, the same is true for most of the candidates I would vote for. 'Everyone looks out for their own interests, and nobody for the interests of Christ.' Rare is the populist candidate who even looks out for the interests of the people.
Anyway, I'm with your buddy Chesterton on economics - distributism all the way.
-ND
@sirnickdon - When I was in high school, I read a book called Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, who is a senior fellow at Hoover University and Stanford University. He won the National Humanities Medal in 2002 for his scholarship. I consider his book extremely influential in my beliefs about economics. I would highly recommend it.
I think distributism is a nice idea; unfortunately, history keeps kindly reminding us, in country after country, that it doesn't help anyone except those at the very top.
I am in no way saying that capitalism is perfect or a Christian ideal. The problem is, people are not perfect. No system is without flaws, but capitalism has been shown to be the one that is the most beneficial to the most people.
Thank you for calling me crazy; it's an honor.
@Pickwick12@xanga - No, you're right. Pure socialism/distributism in a nation has always been fairly disastrous. But a stimulated free market with higher expectations on the obscenely wealthy is a far cry from pure socialism. I believe that bottom-up economic policies (or Obamanomics, as I hope they will become known, contra Reaganomics) can be done well, and can make a society more humane and moral. Nobody deserves to be obscenely wealthy; I don't care how hard they've worked for it. And especially, nobody deserves the kind of wealth I will inherit when my parents die. I could retire and live well for the next eighty years on my inheritance. That is both ridiculous and unfair.
By the way, any ideas what I should do with that wealth when it happens?
-NDSR
My guess is that you're talking about McCain, but I think that it's very simplistic (and also very incorrect) to state that he is simply going to tax the poor and let the rich off the hook.
@sirnickdon - I believe people should voluntarily share wealth, but that governments simply cannot do it well. It has been shown over and over. Government officials constantly pass laws that sound nice, but confuse intentions with results. No matter how humane a policy seems, the proof is in the humanity (or lack of humanity) of the results. Government intervention has poor results for everyone, particularly those people that the laws are specifically designed to help. In Sowell's book, he outlines specific examples of this in modern America. I wish I could remember them all.
I am all about the idea of you choosing to use your wealth to help others in ways that God impresses on you. How about researching missions projects and starting a list of the ones that touch you?
I like the term Obamanomics. It gives a name to what I oppose.
It's nice to know we'll be canceling each others' votes out come Novermber, isn't it?
@no_more_grace@xanga - Exactly
I am so with you on this one.