Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_asbestosman]

No, it wasn't voluntary.

Meaning that you had no choice in whether you adhered to being a Hebrew? I think you're right now that I think about it.

In the New Testament, there isn't much instruction about government other than to pray for leaders and submit. It says next to nothing about the proper role of government.

True. However, it does say to render unto Caeser the things which are Caeser's. It also did not condemn Matthew for being a tax collector. So I think it approves of taxes to some extent. However, when I take all of Christianity together, I do not think Christ's message was that we should compel others to be generous. While I may not have expressed this clearly, that has been my main point, not the details on what the Bible says for government. My bad. Mea culpa. You get full points for that.

You are misrepresenting the liberal position. Liberals generally aren't concerned with everyone being equal. What we are concerned about is that every body has opportunity, and that means an infrastructure that allows people to gain the necessary skills to contribute and to be fairly rewarded for their work.

I agree with those sentiments to some extent, but not as far as liberals tend to. I think everyone should have the opportunity to earn what I do. I do not think they should all have an equal chance to all the rich children. That is where I disagree with liberals on equality.

When banks get bail-outs and schools get budget cuts, something is seriously out of whack with our societal priorities.

No disagreement with the sentiments there. Although I think the particular repercussions of bank failures may be more immediately drastic, I don't think they felt enough pain compared to what we are doing to schools. That is indeed out of whack.

At any rate, I see you have shifted from there is no biblical support for the rich paying more to suggesting that it doesn't matter if there is biblical support since that part of the Bible no longer applies. But if you are going to do that, then we also have to recognize that there is nothing in the New Testament (the part that DOES apply to Christians) that defines what is good governance to begin with. I think we are better off with a government that strives to provide opportunity for all.

My shift is not that drastic. Whether that part of the Bible applies was implicit from the beginning, but I probably should have clarified so you get full points for calling out my goalpoast shifting. My bad. I always find it to be bad form when someone else does it. I thought and still think that requirement should have been implicitly obvious, but I was apparently mistaken. I hope it's okay that I didn't explicitly I was also considering more widely-held interpretations of the Bible--again implicit in me defending the idea the Christians are not commanded to compel rich neighbors to aid the poor.

I think we need to consider the Christian message as a whole. Since it says little directly about the proper role of government, we need to ask ourselves whether Christ would have us compel others to be good. I think the answer is a definite no. That said, I think there is support for the idea of providing opportunity for all. I just disagree with how much or how equally such opportunity should be provided. I'm fine with rich parents sending their kids to private schools as long as public schools are as good as the ones I attended and that poor people have those opportunities. They currently do not.

[_asbestosman]

I once thought like you Asbestosman. Thinking that capitalism and our government has no any right to determine who and how wealthy someone may get in this life.

But then I thought, what if the government IS actually determining who and how wealthy some people are getting?

A good book to read about how the deck is being stacked is: Pigs at the Trough by Arianna Huffington.

(K.G. thanks for the great book suggestion)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll be honest and say I probably won't read it. Maybe if I find it as an audiobook at my library as I did another book. That way I can listen to it while exercising, driving, etc. I'm more likely to read the other thread you mentioned.

My first impressions are still that I do not care so much that the deck is stacked against me. I already knew that to some degree. Perhaps I don't realize how stacked it is. Where that would make me change my mind is in how I would reconsider fairness of taxes. While I don't want to compel my rich neighbor to be generous, I do believe in taxes as a necessary evil, and think everyone should pay their fair share. What a fair share is may be somewhat ambiguous, but I think there are some lines that should be apparent. I would prefer to remove ambiguity by closing most of the tax loopholes and shelters, but then also lowering the overall rate while increasing overall revenue due to more taxable income / assets.

That the deck may still be stacked against me because I'm not rich and can't send my kids to expensive private schools? Meh. If they can live as good a life as me (and the poor as well), that's good enough for me. Let the rich have their privileged fun. Just make sure they actually pay their share. I would prefer a more equal tax rate for the rich and people like me to help ensure my idea of fairness. I don't, however, think people with less means than me should pay the same rate. And no, I'm not exactly rich. I only own one vehicle and I do not use it for my daily commute.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll be honest and say I probably won't read it. Maybe if I find it as an audiobook at my library as I did another book. That way I can listen to it while exercising, driving, etc. I'm more likely to read the other thread you mentioned.

My first impressions are still that I do not care so much that the deck is stacked against me. I already knew that to some degree. Perhaps I don't realize how stacked it is. Where that would make me change my mind is in how I would reconsider fairness of taxes. While I don't want to compel my rich neighbor to be generous, I do believe in taxes as a necessary evil, and think everyone should pay their fair share. What a fair share is may be somewhat ambiguous, but I think there are some lines that should be apparent. I would prefer to remove ambiguity by closing most of the tax loopholes and shelters, but then also lowering the overall rate while increasing overall revenue due to more taxable income / assets.

That the deck may still be stacked against me because I'm not rich and can't send my kids to expensive private schools? Meh. If they can live as good a life as me (and the poor as well), that's good enough for me. Let the rich have their privileged fun. Just make sure they actually pay their share. I would prefer a more equal tax rate for the rich and people like me to help ensure my idea of fairness. I don't, however, think people with less means than me should pay the same rate. And no, I'm not exactly rich. I only own one vehicle and I do not use it for my daily commute.

Paying a fair share sounds good to me also. I probably am influenced by the statement "Where much is given, much is required." There are many among us who are given the free pass, loop holes and breaks which the rest of us have not been given the luxury to possess.

[_emilysmith]

While I don't mind that the rich have far more wealth than I do, I do think that everyone should have a decent chance to earn the sort of living I have.

Do you honestly think that everyone has a decent chance at earning the sort of living you have? I have no idea what your standard is, but I suspect that the current system, or anything similar, makes that chance quite impossible for most people.

[_Kevin Graham]

However, I'm having trouble finding the passage in scripture which says I should force my rich neighbor to do likewise. Perhaps someone will enlighten me there?

Quite simply, it is a straw man with no basis in reality. That isn't what Liberals are trying to do anymore than they are trying to shove morals down your throat by opposing war. Funny how folks on the Right don't mind "forcing people to pay" for the slaughter of millions (my tax dollars fund "defense" spending), but you'll pitch a fit if the Rich have to pay more taxes in the slightest degree. Suddenly that's considered a loss of "freedom and liberty" even though the proposed tax rate is still lower than that which was implemented under Conservative icon, Ronald Reagan.

What a crock.

The delusion here is that a fair tax system that takes care of everyone, is somehow forcing others to do something. It isn't. It is simply adopting a different system where the market doesn't decide fairness. The market has never been fair, unless you think abject poverty on the perpetual rise is fair.

[_asbestosman]

Do you honestly think that everyone has a decent chance at earning the sort of living you have?

No.

I thought I already said so.

[_asbestosman]

However, I'm having trouble finding the passage in scripture which says I should force my rich neighbor to do likewise. Perhaps someone will enlighten me there?

Quite simply, it is a straw man with no basis in reality. That isn't what Liberals are trying to do anymore than they are trying to shove morals down your throat by opposing war. Funny how folks on the Right don't mind "forcing people to pay" for the slaughter of millions (my tax dollars fund "defense" spending), but you'll pitch a fit if the Rich have to pay more taxes in the slightest degree. Suddenly that's considered a loss of "freedom and liberty" even though the proposed tax rate is still lower than that which was implemented under Conservative icon, Ronald Reagan.

What a crock.

The delusion here is that a fair tax system that takes care of everyone, is somehow forcing others to do something. It isn't. It is simply adopting a different system where the market doesn't decide fairness. The market has never been fair, unless you think abject poverty on the perpetual rise is fair.

Kevin,

I'm not a die-hard conservative. I actually do support taxes as a necessary evil. I'm also not a huge fan of making the USA the nanny of the world. I even support the idea of a certain standard of welfare among us--greater than we now have, but not to the extent I'm hearing from liberals who want to make everyone have an equal chance of striking it rich.

I oppose poverty and the cycle of poverty. I am okay forcing others to end this cycle because I believe it makes the country safer for everyone altogether. I am opposed to complaints about how unfair it is that the deck is stacked against us and for the rich. I don't think that matters. I think everyone should have a decent shot at living the kind of life I live, but I'm fine with Paris Hilton getting privilege for nothing other than being lucky to have rich parents. That said, I do think we need to get rid of many of the tax havens the rich enjoy which we do not. We probably need to change the way politics works so that we can have more actual free trade instead of interference by big companies to squash competition.

By the way, I enjoyed your comments on the thread Wisdon Seeker linked to. I'd say you know your stuff. I'm willing to be enlightened by you. However, I don't think you quite get my position yet even though it is evolving in part due to conversations I've had with Kishkumen on the subject.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm not a die-hard conservative. I actually do support taxes as a necessary evil. I'm also not a huge fan of making the USA the nanny of the world. I even support the idea of a certain standard of welfare among us--greater than we now have, but not to the extent I'm hearing from liberals who want to make everyone have an equal chance of striking it rich.

From my perspective, the Left is more interested in seeing less death and destruction in the world. The primary causes are war and poverty. You don't have to be rich to not be dead or starving. I don't think anyone on the left realistically envisions a society where veryone is filthy rich. They are more worried about making sure people aren't dying for no good reason, in America and abroad. This is why the Left supports social programs. The Right doesn't because they have a very individualistic mindset. They actually think they got where they are today on their own, with no help from anyone around them, and they think it is nobel and very "Founding Fathers"-like for them to grab their guns and fight for what they "earned." Well, in my view they didn't earn it on their own, and at the very least they need to do what they can to make sure the society from which their wealth was made possible, doesn't suffer.

By the way, I enjoyed your comments on the thread Wisdon Seeker linked to. I'd say you know your stuff. I'm willing to be enlightened by you. However, I don't think you quite get my position yet even though it is evolving in part due to conversations I've had with Kishkumen on the subject.

I think I get the gist of it. You said you do not like the idea of forcing your rich neighbor to act morally. This is a common Right Wing talking point so forgive me if I mistook you for a Right winger. In what way do you see this happening if you're all for taxing the rich to support the poor? Just trying to clarify.

[_asbestosman]

From my perspective, the Left is more interested in seeing less death and destruction in the world. The primary causes are war and poverty. You don't have to be rich to not be dead or starving. I don't think anyone on the left realistically envisions a society where veryone is filthy rich. They are more worried about making sure people aren't dying for no good reason, in America and abroad. This is why the Left supports social programs.

As do I, but I'm not left-winger.

The Right doesn't because they have a very individualistic mindset. They actually think they got where they are today on their own, with no help from anyone around them, and they think it is nobel and very "Founding Fathers"-like for them to grab their guns and fight for what they "earned." Well, in my view they didn't earn it on their own, and at the very least they need to do what they can to make sure the society from which their wealth was made possible, doesn't suffer.

I don't think the wealthy necessarily earned their wealth. They do enjoy advantages that the poor do not--even ones I do not. I take exception to statements which compare what the rich make to what I make. I don't care (except when it comes to political power), so long as I have sufficient (I do), and others have sufficient (they do not--so we need change).

I'm not sure that it's their obligation to make sure that society doesn't suffer. However, I do think a stable society benefits all of us--something I believe is a good purpose for government. Therefore I do think it justified to force them to help create a stable society. What I reject is that it's a Biblical mandate for me to force the rich people help others because it's what Jesus wants.

get the gist of it. You said you do not like the idea of forcing your rich neighbor to act morally. This is a common Right Wing talking point so forgive me if I mistook you for a Right winger. In what way do you see this happening if you're all for taxing the rich to support the poor? Just trying to clarify.

Since I believe that removing poverty provides a stable society, I support laws which will do this. While I deeply regret forcing anyone to pay taxes against their will, I think it is a necessary evil. However, I think the burden should be equal. Currently my idea of equal is a flat tax in as much as possible for everyone who has more than enough. I have more than enough. I don't think the wealthy should be taxed more than me just because they have more.

I actually think my taxes will probably need to go up. I'm okay with that and don't think it would significantly hurt me. I think we need to remove tax shelters for the wealthy. What I oppose is taxing the wealthy without making me feel similar pain. I think it's wrong to make them shoulder more of the burden simply because they have more ability. I see percentages as being a bit more equal in one sense. If we all had to sacrifice the same number of hours for the government, I would think that is equal. For the rich, that time would be worth more.

The rich may not have earned their money fairly. Many simply inherited it, but I don't think most of them got it by slavery or stealing from me. However, I don't think it's realistic to expect people to break free from the cycle of poverty without help--more help than we currently give. I'm not even sure how to give all the help they need. I enjoyed some things many may not buy such as a stable home and parents who were involved in my education. The poor are less likely to have parents who can do those things, but neither will money guarantee it. Even so, I think money is one necessary ingredient for those things.

I see this working out by actually raising taxes overall, but perhaps slowly over time. I see it working by still having a huge divide between rich and the rest, but with the rest having enough for basics such as decent housing, healthcare, food, etc. I see the rich continuing to enjoy their privilege while the rest of us move out of poverty. I imagine that we'll still be jealous of the rich, but we should learn to ignore them and instead enjoy what we'll have.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

As do I, but I'm not left-winger.

I would suggest that based on your comments, you are, at least, moderately liberal.

What you reject is the liberal strawman presented by some on the right.

But then again, so do most liberals. (Hence the reason it is a strawman.)