Good thing we have public assistance so things like this don't occur in Washington State anymore. (Cool historical site, BTW)

http://depts.washington.edu/depress/hooverville.shtml

After 70 years of Government assistance and support we have this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=homeless&btnG=Search&oq=homeless&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=undefined&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=185307l185307l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l233l233l2-1l1

Tell me it is working. The pictorial evidence does not concur. My point is that the Government should not be the only assistance. It should be for those who cannot work because of a disability (medical or psychological) that has a confirmed diagnosis by a doctor. If you choose to not work for other reasons, or you lost a job (don't get me started on unemployment INSURANCE); you can find a charity that will help you.

Great choice to have the battle on Steve's home turf, Danivon. I will enjoy this...

This guy, Rep. Kelly, hits it out of the park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... EArFmRDtrw

Democrats have not proposed a budget, have attacked Ryan's with great zeal and notable demagoguery, and have proposed trifling cuts and substantial tax increases. In a word, Democrats are clueless.

bbauska wrote:Great choice to have the battle on Steve's home turf, Danivon. I will enjoy this...

Why take the easy road? I have a loooong post that addresses Steve's cites. Still needs some editing though. What I'll say for now is that Steve uses his knowledge for misdirection.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Great choice to have the battle on Steve's home turf, Danivon. I will enjoy this...

Why take the easy road? I have a loooong post that addresses Steve's cites. Still needs some editing though. What I'll say for now is that Steve uses his knowledge for misdirection.

Um, yeah . . . who was it who needlessly brought Jesus into the conversation? Someone was involved in misdirection, but it wasn't me.

Brad and then Steve said:

bbauska wrote:George, RJ, RickyP
How much is too much in taxes to be paid? What percentage for a "super-rich" is too much? What tax bracket (s)would have to pay that?



Gah! Can we push this back to the budget forum?

I think there is another corollary that needs to be answered: how much money would said tax increases bring in? Another: how much might that hurt the economy in terms of jobs lost? Another: can we contain debt and deficits without reforming entitlements? So far, Democrats have been firm, "Kick the can."

As a result of my work, my income has been very variable over the 10 years. I've had years where I've been well into the top bracket and others where I've had no income (and apparently qualified for food stamps, but I would never do that out of pride).

I don't have a problem paying at the Clinton rates (39.6%) if income is over $250,000. There are guys and gals dying in foreign countries; there are people whose work ethic is better than mine, but whose capabilities mean that they'll never make more than $15 an hour. The current top rate is 35% for ordinary income and just 15% for capital gains. I think 5% higher for those making more than $250,000 per year and 10% higher for cap gains is just fine for the privilege of being a citizen of this country. Didn't we pay more than that in the 50's?

I wouldn't do it now, but the Bush tax cuts have been extended through Dec. 2012. The cuts for the top brackets can expire at that point (in fact, they technically do anyway). Most people with incomes over that amount would still work hard to make the money. If you are keeping 60% of every $ that you make, it is still worth it.

I do think that the Republicans should get a lot for this concession. Large spending cuts including a true line by line examination of the budget.

Doctor Fate wrote:Um, yeah . . . who was it who needlessly brought Jesus into the conversation? Someone was involved in misdirection, but it wasn't me.

Well, I was just trying to highlight the juxtaposition of your position with your faith.

but...

Where does he place that responsibility on government

Umm, a bit of a leap there. Firstly, I was saying that he doesn’t give people a pass on helping the poor, just because they are ‘always with us’. Secondly, the government is (particularly in your country) described as being of, for and by the People. I’m pretty sure that whatever responsibilities are placed by the Bible, the intent was that there were for people to accept. And there’s nothing in there to say that the people can’t band together and work through a government of their own. I never claimed that the Bible said that the State had to do stuff, but it certainly has some things to say about what 'people' should do.

I remember that the apostles did it in Acts though. To each according to need

No, they didn’t endorse this

Wowee! And you ‘prove’ this by quoting Acts2:36-47? Interesting selection (and the KJV explicitly says “And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need”, quite why the ESV needed to mess with that, I don’t know). You say it was voluntary, yeah? So let’s read on (McDuff)...

Acts4:32-5:11, ESV wrote: 32Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.

33And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold

35and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

36Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,

37sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

1But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,

2and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

3But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?

4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.

6The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.

8And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much." And she said, "Yes, for so much."

9But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

10Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

11And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

So... it was voluntary, but when one couple didn’t give their all, holding back a bit for themselves, they were each scolded by Peter and then (somehow) struck down dead in an instant. I’ve made this point before, but ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need, or you die” sounds very familiar to me. Kind of has a 1917 feel to it. Which makes your Das Kapital jibe quite funny. Here’s a factoid for you, I’ve not read more than a few pages of Das Kapital, and I’ve read far more of the Bible - including a translation of the Torah that puts the books in the right order, not that of the Christian OT. Sure, I didn’t go to a seminary like you did, and I don’t necessarily have your hyper-Calvinist interpretation of the faith, and so if it comes to insta-quoting chapter and verse, I bow to your vast ability. I just wonder if you really ‘get’ what the basic message is.

I know it’s called the Sermon on the Mount, Steve. I’ve read it all. I’m not sure what the narrowness of the gate has to do with helping your fellow man or the worth of those who are not perhaps as pious and worthy as you are, or avoiding being judgemental lest you be judged yourself, or all the stuff about lilies and birds (hey, perhaps the Welfare State is simply an agency of the Lord, acting through the government, enabling everyone to give to the needy without being hypocrites?). I know that according to the verses you quote a lot of us aren’t going to get the rewards that the likes of you richly deserve. But that small part does not nullify the rest of the sermon, it’s additional.

I’m asking if government slums are better than private slums?

I’ve no idea what you are asking that, really. You seem to be evasive about the existence of private slums before projects were built, or that generations of people might have dwelt in them, or that they might have fostered gang warfare or crime or other social problems. Brad showed us a picture. How about some statistics?

Yes, there still is homelessness. The failure to eliminate it completely is not proof that efforts to combat it have failed, or that the basic method tried (through some state involvement) is always doomed to fail.

On your ‘baby-man’ example, I suspect that the disability he’s claiming is actually morbid obesity (350lb!). It’s hard to tell because his behaviour is what’s been highlighted, but not the details of his claim. I know a guy who’s disabled because he’s missing part of an arm. He’s also an alcoholic (and that’s how he lost his arm, by being drunk). Were I to introduce simply that he’s an alcoholic and he gets disability payments, perhaps that would be just as much a sin of omission as yours is.

And yes, there will always be people who scam a system or who don’t belong in your definition of the ‘deserving poor’ who get help. And the frothing right and the anxious taxpayer will lap up each example as ‘proof’ that welfare itself is a bad idea. What’s missed is how many people who actually are ‘deserving’ are also reliant on the same assistance, and how difficult it is in reality to sort the two out without using hindsight or telepathy. It will always be a key question – do you make it harder for genuine people to claim to ensure no frauds get through, or do you accept some fraud (while trying to mitigate as much as is practicable) so that those who deserve and need it do have that safety net.

Of course, at the present time, with high unemployment and in the wake of a recession, welfare costs will be higher than usual. It’s times like these that the safety net is needed more than ever – and that many of the new claimants are likely to be people who have been contributing.

I think that this bears repeating - a fair amount of the increased spending is due to people who are entitled to claim having lost their jobs since 2007/8 doing so, at a time when jobs are short. Yes, there are people who were claiming before then and still are, and maybe some or many aren't really trying, or have other problems such as drug misuse that they can use as a crutch or excuse. But looking at the high cost now and pointing to them is missing where a lot of the current increases will be coming from.

RJ - I think that if the Republicans took your approach, they'd get a lot of credit. Especially if the Democrats fought against a line-by-line budget appraisal, given that this is what Obama promised. However, I'm not convinced that there would be a consensus among the US right for that.

ray

I do think that the Republicans should get a lot for this concession. Large spending cuts including a true line by line examination of the budget

.

Currently US Federal tax reciepts stand at the lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years... Without recognizing the reality that the deficits and the debt were caused by two things: under taxation and over spending... there will be no solution.

But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Um, yeah . . . who was it who needlessly brought Jesus into the conversation? Someone was involved in misdirection, but it wasn't me.

Well, I was just trying to highlight the juxtaposition of your position with your faith.

Which would be marvelously apropos if I were using my faith as a backstop for my political position. I wasn't.

I believe in helping people. I don't believe government ought to be obligated to support those capable of supporting themselves.

Danivon wrote:but...

Where does he place that responsibility on government

Umm, a bit of a leap there. Firstly, I was saying that he doesn’t give people a pass on helping the poor, just because they are ‘always with us’. Secondly, the government is (particularly in your country) described as being of, for and by the People. I’m pretty sure that whatever responsibilities are placed by the Bible, the intent was that there were for people to accept. And there’s nothing in there to say that the people can’t band together and work through a government of their own. I never claimed that the Bible said that the State had to do stuff, but it certainly has some things to say about what 'people' should do.

It's no leap at all. You have implied the government is obligated to do these things and used Jesus as a support.

I think your line of argumentation is quite humorous, actually. Followed to its logical conclusion, you would have no problem with a theocracy. After all, the people make up the government and they could band together and work through the government . . .

What individuals are commanded to do has nothing to do with the obligations of government--at least in the Bible. For example, government is charged with punishing wrongdoers, but individuals are prohibited from taking vengeance.

I remember that the apostles did it in Acts though. To each according to need

No, they didn’t endorse this

Wowee! And you ‘prove’ this by quoting Acts2:36-47? Interesting selection (and the KJV explicitly says “And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need”, quite why the ESV needed to mess with that, I don’t know). You say it was voluntary, yeah? So let’s read on (McDuff)...

Well, McDoug, you've failed the first test of exegesis. Handling the Word correctly means understanding authorial intent. You have taken description and turned it into prescription. Let's see . . . who else does that? Oh yes, frauds like Benny Hinn. Well done.

So... it was volunary, but when one couple didn’t give their all, holding back a bit for themselves, they were each scolded by Peter and then (somehow) struck down dead in an instant.

Since you have become a Bible scholar, why was that? What did they do?

I'll wait.

Okay, I'm impatient.

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Act 5:3-4 ESV)

Notice: it was still their land ("at your disposal"). They were not obligated to sell the land. They did it because it was the cool, hip, happening thing to do. However, they didn't want to follow through and give everything, so they held back a bit, while pretending to give it all.

You simply can't get any notion that they were under command to do this.

Furthermore, even if it was the case (and no commentator I've ever read would agree that it is), there would still be one problem: it would not be the government, but the church mandating it. So, your principle would still be wrong, even if your flawed premise were somehow proven true.

I’ve made this point before, but ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need, or you die” sounds very familiar to me. Kind of has a 1917 feel to it. Which makes your Das Kapital jibe quite funny. Here’s a factoid for you, I’ve not read more than a few pages of Das Kapital, and I’ve read far more of the Bible - including a translation of the Torah that puts the books in the right order, not that of the Christian OT.

Impressive. I've read in Hebrew. So what?

Sure, I didn’t go to a seminary like you did, and I don’t necessarily have your hyper-Calvinist interpretation of the faith, and so if it comes to insta-quoting chapter and verse, I bow to your vast ability. I just wonder if you really ‘get’ what the basic message is.

You don't know what hyper-Calvinism is, because if you did, you would not accuse me of it. Read Iain Murray's Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists and get back to me.

I know it’s called the Sermon on the Mount, Steve. I’ve read it all. I’m not sure what the narrowness of the gate has to do with helping your fellow man or the worth of those who are not perhaps as pious and worthy as you are, or avoiding being judgemental lest you be judged yourself, or all the stuff about lilies and birds (hey, perhaps the Welfare State is simply an agency of the Lord, acting through the government, enabling everyone to give to the needy without being hypocrites?).

Many read, but few believe.

The interesting thing about the avoiding judgment thing is that Jesus goes on to tell us . . . how to judge--it's all in Chapter 7, but I'm sure you know that.

I know that according to the verses you quote a lot of us aren’t going to get the rewards that the likes of you richly deserve. But that small part does not nullify the rest of the sermon, it’s additional.

This may shock you: I deserve hell.

The great news is that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death, and rose from the grave, so that every believing person would not get what they deserve. Belief is not merely intellectual assent, but issues forth in a transformed life. It's all in the Bible--consistently.

I’m asking if government slums are better than private slums?

I’ve no idea what you are asking that, really. You seem to be evasive about the existence of private slums before projects were built, or that generations of people might have dwelt in them, or that they might have fostered gang warfare or crime or other social problems. Brad showed us a picture. How about some statistics?

It's simple: you seem to be saying poor people lived in slums prior to the beneficent government building slums for them. I'm asking which is worse? Were people worse off before the government gave them substandard housing?

Yes, there still is homelessness. The failure to eliminate it completely is not proof that efforts to combat it have failed, or that the basic method tried (through some state involvement) is always doomed to fail.

And, people are still poor. The modern socialist state has one problem: human depravity. When you give the able-bodied money, homes, food, and no incentive to improve their lot, many people will become complacent.

On your ‘baby-man’ example, I suspect that the disability he’s claiming is actually morbid obesity (350lb!). It’s hard to tell because his behaviour is what’s been highlighted, but not the details of his claim. I know a guy who’s disabled because he’s missing part of an arm. He’s also an alcoholic (and that’s how he lost his arm, by being drunk). Were I to introduce simply that he’s an alcoholic and he gets disability payments, perhaps that would be just as much a sin of omission as yours is.

I would ask what obligation do hardworking people have for those who want to drink themselves into oblivion and won't change even when they lose an arm? What obligation have we toward people who CAN function (Mr. Baby) but choose not to?

And the frothing right and the anxious taxpayer will lap up each example as ‘proof’ that welfare itself is a bad idea.

That's a caricature and you know that. Welfare is not a bad idea. Unconditional welfare to the able-bodied is a horrible idea. It steals their dignity and takes them out of the productive class, where they belong.

As an example, I would not punish people who get a part-time job while they are receiving unemployed or are on welfare. I think this should be encouraged as a stepping stone toward independence.

I think that this bears repeating - a fair amount of the increased spending is due to people who are entitled to claim having lost their jobs since 2007/8 doing so, at a time when jobs are short.

Sure. So why, instead of creating works programs, did Obama fritter the Stimulus away? Whatever one might think of Keynesianism, it ought to be clear that the Stimulus was not well done--there's very little of substance to show for it (hence Obama's quip about "shovel-ready not being as shovel-ready as we thought"). It also poisoned the well with regard to voters' opinions concerning government spending.

Yes, there are people who were claiming before then and still are, and maybe some or many aren't really trying, or have other problems such as drug misuse that they can use as a crutch or excuse. But looking at the high cost now and pointing to them is missing where a lot of the current increases will be coming from.

I have nothing against unemployment for those who lost their jobs. I do, however, think it is wrong to extend it into a permanent state, which is what the Democrats have been attempting.

Ray Jay wrote:I do think that the Republicans should get a lot for this concession. Large spending cuts including a true line by line examination of the budget.

I'll make it easier: the Republicans should force the President to make a public proposal. What cuts is he willing to make? What taxes does he want to raise?

He's the leader of the US. What's his plan?

Why is he cowering in the corner?

Doctor Fate wrote:Which would be marvelously apropos if I were using my faith as a backstop for my political position. I wasn't.

No, but it's still a juxtaposition, and I doubt that you would argue that your faith and your politics and moral views were not at all entwined.

I believe in helping people. I don't believe government ought to be obligated to support those capable of supporting themselves.

'Capable'? Aren't all able-bodied and mentally healthy people 'capable' of employment? Capability doesn't always take account of opportunity.

It's no leap at all. You have implied the government is obligated to do these things and used Jesus as a support.

No, this is your inference. I would argue that 'people' are obligated to help each other out, that 'government' is one among the ways that it can be achieved, and that the message of helping people out is seen (amongst other places) in the teachings of Christ.

I think your line of argumentation is quite humorous, actually. Followed to its logical conclusion, you would have no problem with a theocracy. After all, the people make up the government and they could band together and work through the government . . .

Thats' the problem with erroneously 'following to a logical conclusion', you end up with humorous nonsensical positions.

I'm saying that the Bible doesn't place a limit (and you say it doesn't mandate government - gosh, could the truth include both?). That doesn't mean that I wouldn't place a limit.

What individuals are commanded to do has nothing to do with the obligations of government--at least in the Bible. For example, government is charged with punishing wrongdoers, but individuals are prohibited from taking vengeance.

So who punished Ananias and his wife? It wasn't the Government, was it?

Well, McDoug, you've failed the first test of exegesis. Handling the Word correctly means understanding authorial intent. You have taken description and turned it into prescription. Let's see . . . who else does that? Oh yes, frauds like Benny Hinn. Well done.

So, the disciples and the apostles, living in the immediate aftermath of the Passion and starting out were just 'doing stuff' that is described, and Acts is in no way intended to suggest how Christians should organise? There are no lessons from it, we just read and absorb? Interesting theory.

So... it was volunary, but when one couple didn’t give their all, holding back a bit for themselves, they were each scolded by Peter and then (somehow) struck down dead in an instant.

Since you have become a Bible scholar, why was that? What did they do?

I'll wait.

Okay, I'm impatient.

And you requoted the same passage but from a different translation, which is redundant...

Notice: it was still their land ("at your disposal"). They were not obligated to sell the land. They did it because it was the cool, hip, happening thing to do. However, they didn't want to follow through and give everything, so they held back a bit, while pretending to give it all.

Right... so joining the Church was just 'hip'? There was no-one going around suggesting that joining the Christians was the only path to salvation then?

You simply can't get any notion that they were under command to do this.

No. But I do get the notion that their deaths are supposed to be some kind of example. "This way to salvation - and deviation means death!"

Furthermore, even if it was the case (and no commentator I've ever read would agree that it is), there would still be one problem: it would not be the government, but the church mandating it. So, your principle would still be wrong, even if your flawed premise were somehow proven true.

The church is a form of government. Even the most presbyterian churches have some 'governance' to them.

Impressive. I've read in Hebrew. So what?

You like to continually snark that your opponents on the left are Marxists. I'm the closest thing to one on this board as far as I can tell (active anyway), and I'm not a Marxist. Your uncharitable sneer could have been left alone, but I chose to correct you. Your choice as to whether you absorb it.

Sure, I didn’t go to a seminary like you did, and I don’t necessarily have your hyper-Calvinist interpretation of the faith, and so if it comes to insta-quoting chapter and verse, I bow to your vast ability. I just wonder if you really ‘get’ what the basic message is.

You don't know what hyper-Calvinism is, because if you did, you would not accuse me of it. Read Iain Murray's Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists and get back to me.

Well, well, well, I guess there's a complex soteriological argument at the heart of all sectarian divisions in the Christian tradition. I looked up 'Calvinism' in Wikipedia, and then 'Hyper-Calvinism'. As well as being a general description used against hard-core Calvinists, there's a whole heap of division over a word (reminds me of the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy over "and the Son")

I found this

wikipedia wrote:The term also occasionally appears in both theological and secular controversial contexts, where it usually connotes a negative opinion about some variety of theological determinism, predestination, or a version of Evangelical Christianity or Calvinism that is deemed by the critic to be unenlightened, harsh, or extreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Hyper-Calvinism

Skirting around the pages on the various debates on Calvinist doctrine, I kept finding references to a guy called Dr John MacArthur, promoter of expository preaching and supporter of the 'Lordship Salvation' theory. He was removed from the Bible Broadcasting Network for 'Hyper-Calvinism'. I think I can see why people may be sensitive to the use of it in particular circumstances. So please, accept my apology and change it to "hard-core Calvinism".

This may shock you: I deserve hell.

No, you don't. No-one does. I would not wish Hell on my worst enemy, and I don't believe that a loving God would create such an estate.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Which would be marvelously apropos if I were using my faith as a backstop for my political position. I wasn't.

No, but it's still a juxtaposition, and I doubt that you would argue that your faith and your politics and moral views were not at all entwined.

Fair enough, if my arguments reflect theology, feel free. However, when you make theological arguments, and try to couch them as political ones, I'll call you on that.

My politics and my moral values were fixed to a great deal before I was saved. So, I see no relevance in your argumentation to anything I've said. As I said, you brought religion into this. One might imagine there was a genuine purpose to it and not some mere personal attack, but you've yet to establish any such purpose, so I'm left with the obvious conclusion.

I believe in helping people. I don't believe government ought to be obligated to support those capable of supporting themselves.

'Capable'? Aren't all able-bodied and mentally healthy people 'capable' of employment? Capability doesn't always take account of opportunity.

Right. And, opportunity won't pull someone off the couch either. The safety net ought to be a safety net, not a hammock.

It's no leap at all. You have implied the government is obligated to do these things and used Jesus as a support.

No, this is your inference.

I'm not going to spend one more moment explaining to you the clear meaning of your words. You can shape them after the fact if you like, but they were perfectly clear in the first instance.

I would argue that 'people' are obligated to help each other out, that 'government' is one among the ways that it can be achieved, and that the message of helping people out is seen (amongst other places) in the teachings of Christ.

Read John 4--His interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. Today, she would be receiving food stamps and all manner of government help. The poor woman! What did He offer her?

Answer: eternal life. The scene concludes:

Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did." 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:39-42 ESV)

I'm saying that the Bible doesn't place a limit (and you say it doesn't mandate government - gosh, could the truth include both?). That doesn't mean that I wouldn't place a limit.

I have never argued, ever, that the Bible prohibits the government from helping people, even those who don't deserve help--like Mr. Baby. From a purely legal and political standpoint, I don't believe the government is obligated to help those who will not help themselves, nor should it. Beyond that, to pay someone who will not work is to rob them of all dignity. Teaching them to live on the dole is to teach them to have no respect for themselves at all.

What individuals are commanded to do has nothing to do with the obligations of government--at least in the Bible. For example, government is charged with punishing wrongdoers, but individuals are prohibited from taking vengeance.

So who punished Ananias and his wife? It wasn't the Government, was it?

No, and it wasn't the Church either.

Well, McDoug, you've failed the first test of exegesis. Handling the Word correctly means understanding authorial intent. You have taken description and turned it into prescription. Let's see . . . who else does that? Oh yes, frauds like Benny Hinn. Well done.

So, the disciples and the apostles, living in the immediate aftermath of the Passion and starting out were just 'doing stuff' that is described, and Acts is in no way intended to suggest how Christians should organise? There are no lessons from it, we just read and absorb? Interesting theory.

There is no command for people who join a church to give all they have to a communal pot. And, my Biblical scholar friend, it's not a theory. You know how I can be so confident? Were it not so, there would be no need for instructions on money, like this one:

17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1 Tim 6:17-19 ESV)

1 Timothy is written to a "young" pastor whom Paul has charged to straighten out the Church at Ephesus. So, with regard to wealth within the Church, Timothy's instruction (charge in v. 17 is a present active imperative) is to include this message: they are to be generous and ready to share. He does not say, "Give all you have to the Church" so the church can redistribute it.

Again, if you want to make Acts prescriptive, feel free. You then would see churches raising people from the dead, performing miraculous healings, etc. You would see teleportation as a normative event, then? It happens in Acts 8:39-40.

There are principles in Acts that are normative--and they are taught prescriptively elsewhere. However, for you to use your own inference from Acts and make that normative for the Church today is to ignore the places in the NT wherein Christians are taught how to handle money. Simply put, you've missed the boat.

And you requoted the same passage but from a different translation, which is redundant...

Maybe not, as you've still not grasped it.

Notice: it was still their land ("at your disposal"). They were not obligated to sell the land. They did it because it was the cool, hip, happening thing to do. However, they didn't want to follow through and give everything, so they held back a bit, while pretending to give it all.

Right... so joining the Church was just 'hip'? There was no-one going around suggesting that joining the Christians was the only path to salvation then?

Not what I said.

No, what they saw was people in the church being selfless, giving all they had. Ananias and Sapphira were not going to be left out. They wanted their day in the Sun too. But, they didn't really want to give it all--they just wanted to look like they were.

You simply can't get any notion that they were under command to do this.

No. But I do get the notion that their deaths are supposed to be some kind of example. "This way to salvation - and deviation means death!"

Wow. You read, but you prove 1 Cor. 2:14 in your understanding.

7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor 9:7 ESV)

Why would Paul say God loves a cheerful giver if it's compulsory to give it all--or die?

Furthermore, even if it was the case (and no commentator I've ever read would agree that it is), there would still be one problem: it would not be the government, but the church mandating it. So, your principle would still be wrong, even if your flawed premise were somehow proven true.

The church is a form of government. Even the most presbyterian churches have some 'governance' to them.

Sure, but mate, here in the States, we don't have mandatory giving to a church.

Your uncharitable sneer could have been left alone, but I chose to correct you. Your choice as to whether you absorb it.

You've read a translation of the Torah that puts the books in the right order and that was supposed to establish your authority? I wasn't sneering. I'm just not blown away by that. I know men who have translated the Bible from the original language into languages like Urdu. So, reading a translation put in a different order, sorry, is not that impressive. The Hebrew Bible I read from does not have the books in the "Christian" order. I actually don't care for the order in our Bibles, but it is not a matter of inspiration, any more than the verse or chapter divisions are. I don't doubt you've read the Bible. Reading the Bible is good, but it doesn't mean you've grasped its message.

Well, well, well, I guess there's a complex soteriological argument at the heart of all sectarian divisions in the Christian tradition. I looked up 'Calvinism' in Wikipedia, and then 'Hyper-Calvinism'. As well as being a general description used against hard-core Calvinists, there's a whole heap of division over a word (reminds me of the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy over "and the Son")

Here's a better source on the web: theopedia:

The prefix “hyper” may be used generically to refer to anything that is considered “extreme” or which goes beyond the accepted norm. There is therefore a sense in which one may refer to Calvinistic views regarded as going beyond normal Calvinism as “hyper.” This non-technical use, usually as a pejorative term, has been applied to a variety of theological positions which fall outside mainstream Calvinism:

that God is the source of sin and of evil
that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
that it is wrong to evangelize
that God does not command everyone to repent
that there is no common grace, i.e. God only cares for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect.
that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord over it, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
that only Calvinists are Christians

In a nutshell, what is called "hyper-Calvinism" by some these days is just the sovereignty of God in salvation. There are a group of dogged Arminians, bordering on full-blown Pelagians, who view this as an affront to God. They are welcome to their beliefs. However, when one examines the texts they use to support their arguments, one is left with much heat and no flame. There is little support for their arguments within the Bible itself, so they frequently go ad hominem.

Skirting around the pages on the various debates on Calvinist doctrine, I kept finding references to a guy called Dr John MacArthur, promoter of expository preaching and supporter of the 'Lordship Salvation' theory. He was removed from the Bible Broadcasting Network for 'Hyper-Calvinism'.

Hmm, news to me. I'd never heard of BBN before this. I'm not surprised that they would caricature teaching "election" as "hyper-Calvinism." As they cannot tell you the difference between Calvinism, Arminianism and Pelagianism, I am nonplussed.

I think I can see why people may be sensitive to the use of it in particular circumstances. So please, accept my apology and change it to "hard-core Calvinism".

I've no interest in that label either. And, it certainly has no place in a forum about budgets.

This may shock you: I deserve hell.

No, you don't. No-one does. I would not wish Hell on my worst enemy, and I don't believe that a loving God would create such an estate.

You are free to believe as you wish. You may construct a god or no god of your own choosing. However, the God of the Bible is loving . . . and just, and holy, and He hates sin and will judge it one day. We can pretend there is no hell, but Jesus didn't. Paul didn't. Peter didn't.

Now, back to the budget.

Here's a budget question: since every American will be affected by the negotiations and since we've seen the "beauty" of last-minute legislation concocted in backroom negotiations, why can't we have a proposal from the President, the Republicans, and the Democrats regarding all of the debt extension talks? Don't we deserve to know what their positions are?

The Democrats want to raise taxes, and they are hoping to emerge from secret negotiations over the debt limit with Republican consent to a tax increase. The Democrats couldn't raise taxes when they controlled both the House and the Senate, and everyone knows that no tax increase will pass today's House. So why would Republicans agree to any tax increases in the context of raising the debt limit? Conducting negotiations in the open would not only expose the Democrats for the would-be tax hikers they are, but would also keep the pressure on Republicans to stick to the principles on which they were elected.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to sell their usual demagogic bill of goods. While it would have virtually no impact on the budget deficit, the Dems are promoting a special tax increase that would be limited to the five largest American oil companies. The increase would take the form of eliminating the manufacturing rate reduction that is received by all manufacturers. It would have the perverse result that the far larger foreign oil companies headquartered in Russia, Brazil, etc. would pay lower taxes on their American operations than the U.S.-based companies do.

As usual, the Democrats have nothing to offer but demagoguery. Let's let their proposals see the light of day.

I think we have a right to know. Why won't the President allow this?

Can't wait to read the President's proposal! In the meantime, how about more analysis:

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicare’s chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that “more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.”) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he “can’t imagine” working. “I don’t have faith in it all.” Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.

But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.

Elections have results. So do bad policies. Obama’s choices on taxing and spending and regulating, sorry to say, seem to have made things worse.

Not really sure how the President thinks he has standing to lecture anyone given his dismal record . . .

Krauthammer explains Obama's sudden and faux interest in deficit reduction:

Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

• Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

• Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the word “debt” until 35 minutes in.

• Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.

• Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

President Obama assailed the lesser mortals who inhabit Congress for not having seriously dealt with a problem he had not dealt with at all, then scolded Congress for being even less responsible than his own children. They apparently get their homework done on time.

My compliments. But the Republican House did do its homework. It’s called a budget. It passed the House on April 15. The Democratic Senate has produced no budget. Not just this year, but for two years running. As for the schoolmaster in chief, he produced two 2012 budget facsimiles: The first (February) was a farce and the second (April) was empty, dismissed by the CBO as nothing but words untethered to real numbers.

Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1.5 trillion while insisting for months on a “clean” debt-ceiling increase, i.e., with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.

The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012.

A clever strategy it is: Do nothing (see above); invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do — voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform — demagogue them to death.

And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So: First you get the GOP to seize the left’s third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right’s third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full-spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

And what have been Obama’s own debt-reduction ideas? In last week’s news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Seriously, will someone defend the President's credibility here? Is there a fig leaf for him to hide behind?

Democrats don't want to touch entitlements. Fine. But, they expect the Republicans to raise taxes, raise the debt ceiling and just keep "business as usual."

Anyone see the presser today? The President said, in essence, he wants a long-term deal SO THAT he can start another stimulus plan or two or three.

Spend, spend, spend, spend--that's all he knows how to do.