Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Our representatives report to us right now. I think what you are saying is that you want the states to have more authority. And, that means taking powers away from the federal government - which is just as much a change to the executive branch as to congress.

And, your tax redistribution idea still hurts states where income is lower. You're going to need congress to make the changes you want. AND, that congress is going to have to be one that is happy to hurt red states - as those are the states you plan to hurt.

Important tax breaks include those for education expenses, charitable contributions, job related moving expenses, etc., etc.

 

So, how do you go about explaining the failure of the states to even bother to HELP in the case of health care, for example?

There does need to be some reasonable expectation of what it means to live in America. Deciding it is fine to leave poor states behind is not some sort of solution to a solid America of equal opportunity.

We are better off as a nation when kids in Mississippi go to college (for example) - even if Mississippi can't afford it.

 

Do they? They report what surveys have told them a majority appears to support, worded in ways that allow some individual interpretation.
What I've been saying is that I want people to have more authority over their government(s) AND take more responsibility for their individual lives.
Of course.

What tax redistribution? The longer we wait, the greater the pain when corrective action inevitably HAS to occur.

We should never allow our government to live beyond our collective means, with the ONLY exception being a true National crisis such as war or an unpreventable act of nature.

 

What failure?

Freedom does NOT mean free of cost. Why are poor States poor? If you want opportunity, you need to put forth the effort required to acquire it.

We would be much better off as a Nation if the cost of living didn't increase so rapidly making it more difficult for each successive generation to begin their independent lives.

 

You tell us. That's a tough one.

 

I didn't say they were, that was WillReadmore who made that claim which resulted only in my asking the question "Why". Perhaps he will give us the/an answer?

 

You don''t have to say there are poor States. There are. Do you know why? Again, tough one. I imagine that varies by state, as industries leave, farming leaves, and then there is "brain drain"....

 

Then that should be an issue for State/local government to resolve.

 

Well, we could definitely discuss why poor states are poor.

But, the problem with what you are proposing is that it makes it HARDER on poor states to provide the same level of education, infrastructure, transportation, health care, etc. (depending on which features you want to cut in your budget cut desires), that are the features that promote economic growth.

 

Polling is a key way for representatives to learn what their constituents are thinking.

I agree that everyone wants the federal government to spend less.

The problem is that there is major disagreement on what should be cut.

In general, the right wing wants to stop caring about wage earners and lower income Americans.

I'm actually willing to pay more in taxes, but I absolutely hate the amount we spend so much on such stuff as military. And, I'd like to see us start paying less on health care - which is only going to happen if we stop with the crazy idea that sickness and need for medicine should be given to corporations that work to maximize profit.

 

I'd prefer resolving the tax issue instead.

What I'm proposing shouldn't make anything HARDER than it already is. If anything at all, it might make it EASIER for future generations by NOT imposing huge debts and costs of living upon them.

 

Yes, and the majority of polls show that a large number of person want more for less.

Who said that? Not me.

That's more easily resolved by making people more directly responsible for paying for what they don't want cut.

Yeah, them dirty rotten right wingers.

Military spending is the one area the Federal government should oversee totally, and I'm sure there is some waste and corruption that could be eliminated from that budget. Health care, like any government subsidized spending keeps the costs rising as government can always take on more debt to pay the bills.

 

Why? 'cause you say so?

So the same goes for poor counties? Poor cities? Poor neighborhoods?

 

There is a difference between having liberal views politically (like welfare), and having liberal views on Christianity itself. Many Christians are liberals politically, and until 1980s Evangelicals supported Democratic party. Then there was Roe vs Wade, which changed everything, and GOP was able to seize the support of Evangelicals based on views on abortion. As for liberal Christianity, there are variations of it like churches who wed same sex couples, to those who teach universal salvation and versions of the Bible where lot of Old Testament is omitted, existence of hell is denied etc. It is in contrast to Evangelical Christianity which teaches Bible is inerrant word of God, and OT and NT are both accepted "as is".

 

Why not? cause you say so?

Counties, cities, and neighborhoods are components of each State, and their residents as well as their State and local governments should be where individuals should seek and be provided assistance when needed. If a community, city, or State is not capable of providing for their inhabitants needs to produce adequate income for their support, some may have to move elsewhere.

 

Well, I'm talking about fair distribution of the tax load between the states. Surely that's a tax issue.

 

Every other industrialized nation in the world provides health care to ALL their citizens.

Yet, the overall expenditure on health care in every one of those nations is LESS than what we pay.

The right wing is absolutely and completely wrong on health care - to the detriment of every US citizen.

 

As an Australian who has benefited from a public health system all my life there are a few things I’d like to say to Americans about the experience.
1: Without the medical system we have I’d be dead long ago.
2: I do not begrudge a single cent I’ve payed in taxes that have financed this system.
3: Contrary to what an absurd number of Americans think, having and efficient public health system doesn’t unleash a form of communism. In fact the efficiency of the private sector is enhanced by fewer workers being either absent from work due to illness or unemployable due to severe cronic ill-health.
4: There’s one fly in the ointment though, the accelerating advances in medical science will open up a real dilema as to how long should we keep citizens alive at the expense of the general population when they are no more than a burden on the community?

 

But they don't have the money to provide the necessary assistance, because, as we know, they are poor States. Our economy and national security, howeer, recognize no borders. You are wrong, and we absolutely should support federal programs to help the poor.

 

#3 in your list is the concern in US and mostly irrational fear/propaganda. There are conservative arguments for single payer. For example, it would increase corporate profits, when the burden of healthcare was lifted off the backs of the employers. It is currently the second biggest expense running a business (salary is #1).

 

Allow me to interject here with one of the truths of economics. Large scale buying power can save you a fortune. Instance, the Australian (National) Gov’t subsidises the purchase of prescription medication and in the process of negotiating with pharmaceutical companies achieves price savings of billions. Tells us something about the actual manufacturing cost of most drugs and the often obscene retail markups ( new drugs and the amortisation of research costs is another issue) . Also the purchase of medical equipment on a large scale saves this country a fortune.
These facts are well documented here in Australia, a reality existing outside of black & white ideological assertions on either side.
As to the common claim made by the right in the US that such government intervention into the medical industry opens the flood gates to rampant communism that’s simply delusional and paranoid. Down here we call such notions ‘The fear of Reds under the bed’.

 

The 'tax load' of each State would be distributed relative to its Proportion of the total population. The 'tax load' upon individuals within each State would continue to be apportioned relative to their ability to pay.

 

So what? There is nothing preventing a State or local government from taxing and providing Health Care in any form acceptable to their tax base.

That's what happens when you cease to allow your means to govern your spending.

Yeah, it's those dirty rotten right wingers.

 

Think I’ve lost the plot here. What has all this to do with liberality or not of Christians?

 

Then those States need to make changes that would create the money needed. Federal aid is a poor substitute for income producing jobs.
I would have no problem, after making the changes I've proposed on taxation, to allowing the Federal government to provide assistance to States in the form of loans repayable over time with interest accrued at or slightly above the inflation rate each year. That, and that alone, would place the onus on State government and their citizens to take responsibility for their life style and living standards.