Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6859)

Bloggingheads 07-04-2011 12:24 AM

Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 

Wonderment 07-04-2011 03:05 AM

Circle of Protection
 
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.

Ocean 07-04-2011 08:52 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 215143)
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.


That guy Land is nauseating. I couldn't take more than five minutes. And he calls himself Christian? Interesting. He will certainly have to be born again a few times to understand some of the most basic moral teachings in Christianity. He's a fraud.

chamblee54 07-04-2011 09:10 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Mr. Land is such a Baptist that he cannot say G-d's last name.
But he can quote statistics.
His ideas about geography are not always based on reality. Can anyone say sophistry?
chamblee54

harkin 07-04-2011 09:36 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Haven't listened yet, do they get to the morality of a union vote-buying scheme (called a 'stimulus plan') that cost $278,000 per job?

After that they can tackle The Great Society-type welfare vote-buying schemes that have destroyed the black urban family.

Then Jim can look into the morality of unions gouging the states under the facade of collective bargaining rights.

For Jim to be a so-called champion of the poor and to either ignore or be unaware of the plight of the black child due to lack of a 2-parent family is staggering. He's like David Axelrod with a collar.

Quote:

The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.
Apparently over 40 years ago Jim went to Detroit to help the poor. Look at Detroit today and the result of the government policies he advocates.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 09:48 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 215143)
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

That's not true at all. You just don't like Richard. They were both mouthing the slogans of their sides and talking past each other. There's a lot of that going on these days.

Jim insists the way to solve the Social Security crisis is to raise the limit on taxable income. I have read several articles that dispute this approach but I suppose those articles could be wrong and Jim is right. Richard thinks it's best to means test SS benefits. This is one battle in the great debate which is going on right now in our country. It's stupid to think that one side is right and the other side is wrong.

bkjazfan 07-04-2011 09:55 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Massive deficits and national debt: dems-no cuts/repubs-no new taxes:no solution. Default prediction: repubs cave but won't call it that. In politics it's imperitive to cut through the B.S.

DenvilleSteve 07-04-2011 10:02 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 215143)
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue. ...

I am telling you, the country is going to break up because of the liberals. They make no sense. And they don't have the discipline to address one issue at a time. Richard lays out his facts regarding means tested social programs which cost huge amounts of money. Jim responded by talking about the cost of foreign wars.

Look how the elite liberals who staff the Manhattan DA's office took forever to figure out that the maid accusing DSK of rape was herself a scam artist. Because of liberals locking themselves away in their make believe worlds, there is no way we can get thru the turmoil to come and stay intact as a nation.

DenvilleSteve 07-04-2011 10:09 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 215161)
Massive deficits and national debt: dems-no cuts/repubs-no new taxes:no solution. Default prediction: repubs cave but won't call it that.

Bohner has to go. The republicans in the house have to lead the way and cut spending now. No retirement payments to federal workers until they are 65. No more unemployment insurance past 20 weeks. And UI recipients have to work in the recycling center or some such job to receive their checks. No student loans for colleges where the tuition is over $5K per semester. Replace food stamps with soup kitchens or donated food pantries. Group homes for single people getting renters assistance.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:20 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 215154)
For Jim to be a so-called champion of the poor and to either ignore or be unaware of the plight of the black child due to lack of a 2-parent family is staggering. He's like David Axelrod with a collar.

I didn't see a collar.

The wealthier need to pay their fair share and everything will be good. Jim doesn't get the part about people not being willing to work if they see that working more won't get them more income. I think this kind of thinking also occurs when people on the low end don't want to work because they will see a cut in their subsidies if they do. Everyone is very interested in the bottom line.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:27 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 215165)
Bohner has to go. The republicans in the house have to lead the way and cut spending now. No retirement payments to federal workers until they are 65. No more unemployment insurance past 20 weeks. And UI recipients have to work in the recycling center or some such job to receive their checks. No student loans for colleges where the tuition is over $5K per semester. Replace food stamps with soup kitchens or donated food pantries. Group homes for single people getting renters assistance.

Recently I heard a proposal that suggested that people should be able to opt out of unemployment insurance. This seems like a viable idea. Employers would certainly like this idea. And what about workman's comp? That is a huge restraint on hiring. Certain professions don't require that people be covered for on the job accidents, like say, a secretary.

I also like the idea that people should have to contribute in order to receive government assistance. There would certainly be obstacles to overcome in such a scheme, but linking work to benefits takes the entitlement out of entitlement.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:31 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 215163)
I am telling you, the country is going to break up because of the liberals. They make no sense. And they don't have the discipline to address one issue at a time. Richard lays out his facts regarding means tested social programs which cost huge amounts of money. Jim responded by talking about the cost of foreign wars.

Look how the elite liberals who staff the Manhattan DA's office took forever to figure out that the maid accusing DSK of rape was herself a scam artist. Because of liberals locking themselves away in their make believe worlds, there is no way we can get thru the turmoil to come and stay intact as a nation.

What the heck are we gonna do? Maybe we should hope for increased global warming so half of us can be wiped off the face of the planet. Hey, just a suggestion.

Starwatcher162536 07-04-2011 10:31 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
I took six months off from school once while I built up some funds while working a job that compensated well and afterwords had to switch back to a minimum wage job at a local movie theater when I went back to school. About a year later I found out my mother supplied me some wrong information about Texas's unemployment policies and I would have in fact been eligible. I would have been eligible for unemployment checks that exceeded my wages from my 20 hour a week part time job.

/sigh...

DenvilleSteve 07-04-2011 10:32 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 215170)

The wealthier need to pay their fair share and everything will be good. Jim doesn't get the part about people not being willing to work if they see that working more won't get them more income. ...

a big problem with raising taxes on the rich is the government considers a rich manufacturer or farmer or franchisee in the Midwest the equivalent of the rich lawyer or hedgefund manager in a coastal city. Wealthy people in republican states contribute a lot to their communities in the form of prosperous businesses that employ a lot of people. By taking their money and letting the feds redistribute it to democrat voters you do great economic harm to republican states.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:38 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 215148)
That guy Land is nauseating. I couldn't take more than five minutes. And he calls himself Christian? Interesting.

Have you considered taking Maalox before viewing nauseating conservative Baptists? I guess that whole tolerance and understanding project doesn't extend to certain types of people.

Quote:

He will certainly have to be born again a few times to understand some of the most basic moral teachings in Christianity. He's a fraud
Yeah, Christianity doesn't prescribe to reincarnation, though. You just get one shot at this whole redemption thingy.

DenvilleSteve 07-04-2011 10:40 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 215173)
What the heck are we gonna do? Maybe we should hope for increased global warming so half of us can be wiped off the face of the planet. Hey, just a suggestion.

Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:46 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 215174)
I took six months off from school once while I built up some funds while working a job that compensated well and afterwords had to switch back to a minimum wage job at a local movie theater when I went back to school. About a year later I found out my mother supplied me some wrong information about Texas's unemployment policies and I would have in fact been eligible. I would have been eligible for unemployment checks that exceeded my wages from my 20 hour a week part time job.

/sigh...

That's interesting. So the good job laid you off? Or was it voluntary because you couldn't work the hours required because of your school schedule?

I always thought that if you quit a job you aren't eligible. Having been self employed for most of my life, I've never collected, nor contributed.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 10:49 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 215177)
Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.

But there is a lot of crossover stuff that would have to be addressed, such as, as I wrote before, whether a gay marriage in one state would be recognized in a state that doesn't recognize it.
I see your enthusiasm for such a project, but have you fully examined the unintended consequences?

sugarkang 07-04-2011 10:54 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 215177)
Recognize we are not a united people. We have to let states control their borders and their economies. I think it could all be very nice actually if the mountain west and midwest were an autonomous region. The key is to break the tax power of the feds. Where individuals pay taxes to their state. And the state pays taxes to the feds.

This is hilarious on July 4th. If you're advocating for secession then okay. But realize that what you'd have to do is come up with an independent army, declare sovereignty and then prove it with a war against the other states. I believe we've been down this road before.

I say you go for the path of least resistance and advocate for smaller taxes and smaller government. Then, I'll back you.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:01 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Neither Wallis nor Land have a very good sense of the causes of the deficit in the second segment, although Wallis is closer to the mark. Anyone who can argue about this without using the word "recession" isn't accurately describing the situation we're in. Here's the big chart again:


http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...ficitChart.png

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:11 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Richard Land is wrong, wrong, wrong here. He disputes Wallis's claim that tax rates on the wealthy are historically low by pointing out that the taxes on the wealthy constitute an historically high share of total tax revenue, but that's not the same thing. In fact, Jim is right that their rates are historically low. While the wealthy do pay a higher share of the total tax burden than they have in the past, that's because inequality is so much higher that even a smaller percentage the their income is a larger amount of money relative to tax income from the poor than it was 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:17 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Huh? After spending the first ten minutes talking about the urgent need to cut the deficit, tax cuts get brought up and Land becomes a Keynesian? The longer I listen, the more obvious it is that Land knows nothing about the economy or the budget. He's just armed with talking points that support the Republican agenda. There's no coherent worldview here at all, just tax cuts uber alles and Drill Baby Drill.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:29 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Speaking of cheap talking points, here we have Land pushing the "Obama is taxing the middle class line" that's built around a misunderstanding of marginal tax rates. For starters, $200,000 is nearly four times the median income. That might not make you super-rich, but it's something of a sick joke to deny that that's a level of wealth and privilege well above the average American. Plus, the tax cuts on the wealthy (that didn't pass) wouldn't have increased taxes at all for someone making $200,000 or even $250,000 per year. What Obama wanted to pass was an increase of the marginal rate that applies to all income over $250,000, so that means small additional taxes on people making $300,000 or $350,000 (6 and 7 times the median income), and additional taxes that only become large when we're discussing truly massive levels of income. It's just not true at all to assert that small increases in the top marginal rate are going to hurt anyone that isn't rich.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:36 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Land gives the game away with his piano tuner anecdote. His example of taxes discouraging work involves a 90% marginal tax rate, but he's using it to argue against raising the top rate from 35% to 39%. If we were looking at even a 70% marginal rate I'd probably agree with him that we shouldn't soak the rich any more, but that's obviously not the case today.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:50 AM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 215176)
Have you considered taking Maalox before viewing nauseating conservative Baptists? I guess that whole tolerance and understanding project doesn't extend to certain types of people.

You guys have a lot of fun making this particular bullshit argument, don't you?

badhatharry 07-04-2011 11:53 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 215197)
Land gives the game away with his piano tuner anecdote. His example of taxes discouraging work involves a 90% marginal tax rate, but he's using it to argue against raising the top rate from 35% to 39%. If we were looking at even a 70% marginal rate I'd probably agree with him that we shouldn't soak the rich any more, but that's obviously not the case today.

yeah, you should only soak the rich up to a certain point.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 11:55 AM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 215206)
yeah, you should only soak the rich up to a certain point.

Yes, you should. Wait, were you going to make an argument or something?

badhatharry 07-04-2011 12:25 PM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 215208)
Yes, you should. Wait, were you going to make an argument or something?

No, I figure everyone is taking the day off from making points on this fine holiday.

I was struck however by your admission that the main objective is soaking. That paying their fair share stuff was getting old.

Don Zeko 07-04-2011 12:37 PM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 215216)
No, I figure everyone is taking the day off from making points on this fine holiday.

I was struck however by your admission that the main objective is soaking. That paying their fair share stuff was getting old.

Call it what you want, so long as we get the revenue we need.

chiwhisoxx 07-04-2011 01:17 PM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 215143)
Thanks for your patience with Richard, Jim. You told him about 50 times that you agreed with entitlement reform, but he never heard you and kept repeating the same slogans about "one size fits all," as if he were doing a monologue.

He also, (unchristianly, if I may) ignored your concerns about cutting programs for the poor (Head Start, RSVP, mosquito nets, Pell Grants) that we know to be efficient and beneficial.

In my community, veterans, faith groups, seniors, minorities, homeless advocates and the secular peace and social justice movement are all working together to stop the relentless bullying of deficit hawks whose notion of protection apparently only extends to corporations and the upper middle class.

I wish you had pushed back more both on Richard's alarmist views about an imaginary 5-year "cross the Rubicon" moment in deficit reduction. Ditto for gargantuan hegemonic military spending. The religious right's kneejerk blessing of war and military spending is no less obscene today than it was 40 years ago when you began Sojourners and your wonderful ministry.

beneficial? sure, without factoring in cost/benefit. efficient? I know less about the rest of those, but at least for head start, it's anything but efficient. there's very little evidence that head start even helps a little bit, let alone being an efficient program considering the billions of dollars we've spent on it.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 01:44 PM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 215218)
Call it what you want, so long as we get the revenue we need.

guns are good.

rcocean 07-04-2011 01:52 PM

Mr. Land doesn't know what he's talking about
 
We don't need to 'Means test" social security. There is no "'crisis" - and talking about "78 million baby boomers on social security !!!!" is nothing more then scaremongering.

Its all been said by Krugman and the facts are in the SS trust fund report. Get rid of the SS cap on payroll taxes (currently at $100,000) and SS outlays- receipts will be in balance for the next 40 years. Or we can just borrow another 1% of GDP to cover the difference. The problem is "Medicare" - since the cost per person is still increasing.

Finally, i consider it very odd when religious leaders start discussing politics. Picking quotes out of the Bible to support-denounce Federal policies in 2011 strikes me as bizarre. I doubt if God cares about Social Security one way or the other. Maybe thats why Jesus said, "Rend unto Ceasar..."

BTW, didn't the SBC start in order to defend slavery? And I think the Huckster is SBC too.

rcocean 07-04-2011 01:56 PM

Its easier for a Rich man to pass through the eye
 
of a needle than to enter the kingdom of Heaven. So of course, Mr. Land is all for helping the rich get richer and thereby go to Hell.

Quite clever Mr. Land.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 02:27 PM

Re: Mr. Land doesn't know what he's talking about
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 215239)
Its all been said by Krugman and the facts are in the SS trust fund report. Get rid of the SS cap on payroll taxes (currently at $100,000) and SS outlays- receipts will be in balance for the next 40 years. Or we can just borrow another 1% of GDP to cover the difference. The problem is "Medicare" - since the cost per person is still increasing.

Just an itty bitty pushback:

Serious discussion of raising the cap, however, needs to recognize the substantial policy problems associated with the idea, and most especially as a provision offered in isolation. It would adversely affect a substantial number of workers, and it would not at all address the equity issues usually invoked in its support. Raising the cap would also produce a nettlesome choice between severing Social Security’s time-honored contribution-benefit connection vs. obligating more benefits to those who need them least. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even a large and economically painful cap increase would only modestly reduce Social Security’s future financial shortfalls.

Wonderment 07-04-2011 02:51 PM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

I know less about the rest of those, but at least for head start, it's anything but efficient. there's very little evidence that head start even helps a little bit, let alone being an efficient program considering the billions of dollars we've spent on it.
Here's what I know. The government has cut and plans to eliminate RSVP in the next budget. This is a very inexpensive program which funds one of the services I perform for my local community. What I do as a unpaid vounteer is deliver meals-on-wheels to elderly people trying to stay in their homes rather than go to EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. I also drive a wheelchair-equipped van that takes the same population to doctors appointments, supermarket, etc. which also keeps them out of EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. The funding that Republicans despise -- that doesn't amount to an hour's worth of war in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to train the drivers and pay their liability insurance. There are also a few paying jobs: transportation coordinator, cooks, etc.

When this program is cut the service will cease to exist and become unaffordable for the elderly. They will suffer and, if the data on living independently is to be believed, die sooner. This is what Jim means when he talks about the Circle of Protection.

Thank "God" he has the patience to talk to conservatives about this stuff, even though they almost always respond without a mustard seed's worth of compassion or understanding.

rcocean 07-04-2011 03:12 PM

Raising the Cap Covers any Shortfall in SS
 
Here's the link to the Senate Report:

See table 2 on page 13. Needless to say, the wealthy don't like this & are putting out massive amounts of propaganda to confuse the issue - or ignore the revenue side.

Frankly, the average American is such an idiot, so I fully expect nothing to be done except to cut benefits. After all, we all might be millionaires one day, and hey what about those Dodgers?

Ocean 07-04-2011 03:19 PM

Re: Circle of Protection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 215246)
Here's what I know. The government has cut and plans to eliminate RSVP in the next budget. This is a very inexpensive program which funds one of the services I perform for my local community. What I do as a unpaid vounteer is deliver meals-on-wheels to elderly people trying to stay in their homes rather than go to EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. I also drive a wheelchair-equipped van that takes the same population to doctors appointments, supermarket, etc. which also keeps them out of EXPENSIVE-GOVERNMENT-FUNDED-MEDICARE nursing homes. The funding that Republicans despise -- that doesn't amount to an hour's worth of war in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to train the drivers and pay their liability insurance. There are also a few paying jobs: transportation coordinator, cooks, etc.

When this program is cut the service will cease to exist and become unaffordable for the elderly. They will suffer and, if the data on living independently is to be believed, die sooner. This is what Jim means when he talks about the Circle of Protection.

Thank "God" he has the patience to talk to conservatives about this stuff, even though they almost always respond without a mustard seed's worth of compassion or understanding.

Good post.

Perhaps that's the same mechanism that Ryan wanted to put in place to save Medicare: expedite an earlier death so that they don't get around to using healthcare as much.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but every time we turn around there come the Republicans with their killer plans. And, yes, they don't want to be called heartless or evil. Why don't they prove that they're not by showing what they're going to do to avoid the consequences of measures like this?

I'm with cousin rc on this one.

badhatharry 07-04-2011 03:20 PM

Re: Raising the Cap Covers any Shortfall in SS
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 215253)
Here's the link to the Senate Report:

See table 2 on page 11. Needless to say, the wealthy don't like this & are putting out massive amounts of propaganda to confuse the issue - or ignore the revenue side.

Frankly, the average American is such an idiot, so I fully expect nothing to be done except to cut benefits. After all, we all might be millionaires one day, and hey what about those Dodgers?

Yeah, it's all those right wing think tanks that are the problem. Like I said to DonZeko...guns are good.

qingl78 07-04-2011 03:26 PM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
wow, this Land guy is really delusional. The part that I watched was when he said that 700 billion was being paid out to single mothers after that I realized that this argument was entirely faith based.

Better debaters please.

tom 07-04-2011 03:45 PM

Re: Values Added: A Moral Budget (Jim Wallis & Richard Land)
 
As the opposite of a wonk (I'm sure the favored term for that is not very flattering), I have a question about that chart:
Does the category "Recovery Measures" include automatic stabilizers like unemployment payments, or does it specifically refer to fiscal stimulus that wasn't already in place before the recession? If the latter, would unemployment payments be included in "Economic Downturn", or does that category just represent decreased revenues as a result of decreased income?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.