I have got to say that I honestly have no reasonable idea how someone can even begin to believe that they can maintain a Christian faith and align themselves with the Democrat party. I certainly do not believe that the Republican party is the party of Christianity, but I will say that the Democrat party is very clearly the party of the anti-christ. Almost all of the party's platform runs counter to that which is held dear in the faith.

There are the party loyalists who grew up a Dem from a very early age, but the Dem party of 2001 is nothing close to what the Dem party was of 1950. I am truly honest when I say that I can see no viable reason to believe that a person who consistently votes Dem party lines has a real faith in Jesus. Sorry but the fruit appears to be rotten.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Answers

Much of it is...rotten.

But the same is true of the GOP. The awful, damnable, demonic economic policies of Reagan, the racism of conservative southerners, the anti-union position of most repbulicans...all is also rotten.

I think Jeffords is right for being independent...I think Christians should maybe not be in any party.

BUT THANK GOD, anything which puts obstacles in front of BUSH is a good thing, because, regardless of party, he is a lame-brain, and a lame duck from day 1.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

CG...the problem is that your wallet outweighs the unborn. Maybe if you'd care more about morality than wage, you'd actually say something worthwhile.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

That was a cheap shot!

I could say that your guns and bullets outweigh your morality.

I am not for abortion. I supported Steve Forbes in his campaign when I lived in Iowa, (I pastored in the Indianola area for almost 5 years, Michael) even though I did not agree with his economics. I am simply trying to point out theincongruities. I could go on and on about abortion here, but it would be preaching to the choir, so I save that for my liberal friends.

I really think you are not giving me a fair hearing.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Mr. White,

Could you explain, "demonic economic policies of Reagan"? or how someone who holds to an "anti-union position" is rotten? I know men in Iowa who voted against Bush because Gore was backed by the union….imagine this being the determining factor in whom to vote for? Does it always have to come down to money? I have not had the opportunity to discuss this mindset with any of these guys, perhaps you could help me out.

Also, could you explain your dislike (hatred?) for President Bush? I admit that he has difficulty in putting his words together while in the media spot light but that does not justify "thanking God" for any obstacle to be put in his path. Was this a sentiment you shared with Clinton as well?

Not knowing anything about you except that you were a Pastor in Iowa for around 5 years - I was a Pastor in Clear Lake for 3 years, could you explain what you disagree with in his administration so far?

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001

Barry

I would be glad to tell you what I disagree with about Bush:

(1) He cares more about business than labor, but the success of business is always dependent on labor. I never understood why the farmers in Iowa hated the unions. The union truck driver who delivered the bread to Hy Vee baked with the farmers grain is more of an ally than an enemy to the farmer. It is the corporate investor who is raking in the dough but only giving minimal raises to the labor force who is an enemy of both. The stock market multiplied five times over in ten years but most laborers either only stayed up with inflation or they lost ground.

I can give you an example of what I mean about the Iowa thinking. I actually spent almost 11 years there, five in the Indianola area and six in New Providence, near Eldora. We had a member of our church in one place who owned a hardware store. He was installing a new dishwasher in the parsonage. While he worked he griped about the Maytag plant in Newton, IA. He griped because with beneifts and all, the laborers were costing Maytag $25/hr. A little later I asked him what he was charging the church for labor ti install he dishwasher. His answer "$25 an hour." There is this idea that some people ought to make good money and some should not. I find it hypocritical, and that is just one example of it.

Bush told the folks in my home state of West Virginia that he understood them and cared for them and then in a few hours after taking office he issued an order making it more difficult for minimg widows to even APPLY FOR black lung benefits.

(2) He is as dishonest as Clinton. He ran as a centrist but is attempting to govern as a conservative. Clinton ran as a centrist and governed as a liberal. He lied about his DUI to "protect his daughter"; Clinton lied about his Oval Office BJ to "protect his daughter". He pledged to be bi-partisan, but his idea of bi- partisanship is forcing the Dems to do it his way. In terms of honesty it is a wash.

(3) He is arrogant as the devil. He says, "the American people elected me to do a job..." but he lost the popular vote. He won on a judicial ruling, but the people as a whole did not elect him. Therefore he would be wise to oversee and let Congress do the agenda- setting.

As far as Reagan goes, I believe that "trickle-down" economics is evil because it does not consider laborers human, they are capital, and all the ones who espouse trickle-down want them ever to get is a trickle. Bush's tax plan takes less away from the rich than from anyone else when viewed in light of what they have left over. That chaps my hide!

The current tax rates are: 15%, 28%, 33%, 36%, 39.6%

I would drop the 15 to 10, the 28 to 25, thhe 33 and 36 to around 32, and raise the 39.6 to 45 or 48.

Here is what Reagan did: At one time the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Reagan dropped it to 50% and then to 28%. (I would have stopped at 50%.) The idea is not to "take" anything. The idea is to nudge the wealthy to investment because the invested money avoids taxation. Now there are better ways to do this--one way would be to end all corporate and business taxes because the customer ends up paying them anyway. But what happened when the top rates got slashed is actually that investment went down and consumption went up. Think about it. If I can avoid taxes by investing X dollars and putting them at risk, versus avoiding the taxes because a govt will not tax them no matter what I do and I can spend them and not take a risk, I will go buy a BMW! The 70% marginal rate was intended to be an incentive to giving and investment, because it meant more tax write- offs. What Reagan did was take away that incentive and in the end people consumed more and gave less.

In terms of relative wealth, these policies make the rich richer and thepoor poorer. And in a supply and demand economy relative wealth is more important than actual wealth. If we all had $1 dollar in the whole society, or all had $1 million, in terms of our economic power, it would be the same. The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because of the income gap. If I have an income of 10000 dollars and yours is 100000, and we each get a 10% increase, instead of beign $90000 behind you I am now $99000 behind. The crux of the whole thing is the income gap.

Yet the same people w ho oppose a higher minumum wage want taxes slashed for the rich. We ought to raise the minimum wage. Here is how it ought to be determined. Take what the poverty level of a family of four is and divide that by 2000--that ought to be the minimum. In 1997, the latest figures I have seen, it was $16,400. I would imagine you could make it $18,000 now. Divide that by 2000 to represent 50 weeks of work, 40 hours per week. That would be $9/ per hour. Regardless of the market, everybody who works ought to make that much, and that is something government could do. That would be a philosophical statement that no one who works should be in poverty.

Also, we need a maximum wage. By conservative logic, if increased minimum wages drive prices up, a maximum will push them down. Now, I have not figured out yet what that ought to be, but philosophically there ought to be one, to remind us that we are all humans and the market cannot make "royalty" out of us. Off the top of my head, I would say that NOBODY, regardless of what they do, ought to make more than $100 per hour. That would be $200K annually and no job is important enough to merit more than that, also there is no one anywhere that could not live more than comfortably on that.

In a nutshell, :) that is my beef.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001

CG wrote,

"BUT THANK GOD, anything which puts obstacles in front of BUSH is a good thing, because, regardless of party, he is a lame-brain, and a lame duck from day 1."

Something that bothered me on this forum back when Clinton was president is that some people are all too ready to insult their leaders.

Paul stood before the High Priest. He didn't know the man was the High Priest, probably because he had switched the office with a relative contrary to the Law of Moses. The High Priest may have been involved with persecuting Christians and other sinful activities. He wrongly ordered that Paul be struck. Paul rebuked him, calling him a whitewashed wall for ordering him to be struck contrary to the Law. The men standing around Paul rebuked him for reviling the High Priest. He apologized, saying he didn't know that the man was the High Priest, for it is written, do not speak evil of the ruler of this people.

I realize that we are not under the Law of Moses, and our Gentile governmental leaders are not the High Priest, but if we look in the New Testament we see that the early Christians were respectful to leaders.

When Paul appeared before governors, he used such titles as 'most noble _____' and other expressions of respect. Paul called governors ministers of God, and said to give honor to whom honor is due. Peter said to 'honor the king.'

Is calling the President a 'lame brain' honoring the minister of God that God has ordained to lead the US? CG, you focus a lot on the sermon on the mount. Jesus warned against calling your brother 'thou fool.' Is it in line with the principleks that Jesus taught to call someone a 'lamebrain.' I'm in Asia right now, but I saw enough of both Bush and Gore on TV to see that both were intelligent men, no matter what one thinks of their politics. Neither one of them is mentally retarted. Neither one of them is a 'lame brain.'

Clinton denied but eventually admitted to sexual activity with a young Whitehouse intern. I can understand the indignation and why people would be tempted to call him names when the subject came up. I'm not saying it's right, but I understand it.

What has Bush done? I don't know anything about this lying about his daughter's DUI issue. I haven't seen the news over here. But if the man has confessed a sin, you should be willing to forgive him. If you yourself have every lied under similar circumstances, it would be hypocritical for you to have a harsh attitude toward Bush over an issue like this? Also, saying he ran as a centrist but governs as a conservative is a very vague charge to make. You need specific examples of dihonesty if you are going to make a case.

Clinton was 'pro-choice'- the choice for a mother to murder her own baby in the womb. Bush isn't in favor of killing babies. It seems the real problem you have with Bush is that he wants to take less money away from the rich. No matter what Karl Marx says, nothing in the Bible teaches us that a government is obligated to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor. Nothing in the Bible teaches us that if someone wears the label 'pro-labor' he is good and that if he wears the lebel 'pro-business' he is bad.

The Bible does say a lot to us about _giving_ to the poor. It doesn't teach Christians to pressure the Gentile government to tax the rich to take more money away from the poor. In Rome, the representatives of the lower class that had tribunals representing them (not truly the lowest class in the empire by the time of Christ) voted in the daily dole- food paid for by the giovernment and given to people living in the city. I've really studied the book of Romans, and I don't see where Paul instructed Christians to put more pressure on teh tribunals to get them to persuade the Senate to tax the rich more to give away more food to the poor.

The book of Romans doesn't condemne Caesar or the senators who were not in favor of the daily dole. Some say that Nero was Caesar when Peter wrote I Peter. If I remember correctly, I've read that Cero had a homosexual 'wedding' which he consumated in front of people, and he played the part of the female! Nero persecuted Christians. Yet Peter says to honor the king.

When you compare Bush's character to that of Neros, if Peter said to honor Nero, how much more should you appreciate Bush?

Think about this, too. If Bush is a brother in Christ, what right have you to judge him as you have? Do you have any scripture to back up an accusation that he has sinned by anything he has done as a matter of economic policy?

I don't know about this black lung law that Bush signed. I do know that politicians sign away on issues like this because the bills they sign into law are very complicated. A politician can stick his pet cause into an unrelated law. Do you have any information about the reasons why Bush signed that bill? My intuition tells me that his purpose in signing the bill was not to make it hard on widows. There were probably some other benefits to the bill as well. If a president vetoed eveyr bill that had a problem in it, then there wouldn't be many laws passed.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

CG,

Wow, you are from WV! The two states I have ever pastored in other than my home state of Massachusetts was Iowa and WV! I stayed in Ida May for a little while and then lived in Fairmont for 4 years. We loved the people there and can say from experience that there are some very poor people living there. I have a feeling that your present outlook on politics has been greatly shaped by your home state, which I completely understand. I remember my very first impression of WV - I arrived from Boston via Greyhound and thought I had stepped back in time 30 years. The "bus terminal" was a little sign on a sidewalk storefront that said "Bus Stop". Not the picture I had in my mind of a city bus terminal - I actually experienced culture shock. My mind said I was in the United States but my eyes were telling me I was back in Mexico. My wife and I have many fond memories of WV.

I hope you don't mind my comments here, we really don't know each other but I don't think we will see completely eye to eye on this subject. Not that I understand politics all that well, I do understand that when ever I needed a job to support my family it was not a poor person who gave me opportunity to earn an income. When we create obstacles for business we shoot ourselves in the foot.

As for the "wealthy" in our country? How did they become wealthy? I understand that some have done it in a wrong manner, but I believe the majority have gone out and worked not only hard but smart. Many of the folks who have put such a priority on wealth have paid high prices to make those gains. I would never punish a person for working hard and earning any amount of money they are capable of earning. Some day I hope to earn enough to go back to full time ministry. Since returning to New England to pioneer inner city churches I have had to go to secular employment. It has been very difficult but the Lord has been very faithful.

Those "trickle down" economics you berate make sense to me, but then again I don't know all the in's and out's. If the people at the top succeed then everyone benefits because they are capable of continuing to supply me with a job. Hopefully, one day I will be able to create opportunities for others. However, this will not happen if those who supply me with opportunity to gain wealth are prohibited from doing so. To be honest with you I thought that Forbes had a good idea, a flat tax, everyone pays the same amount no matter who you are and you cannot get around it. If everyone paid 15% of their income - that at least would be fair - everyone pulls their own weight.

As I was typing I was reminded of something Jesus said, "we will always have the poor with us." No matter how nice it may sound to wipe out poverty, the truth is there will always be people who are poor and conversely, there will always be people who are rich. If someone goes about honestly earning wealth I believe it is actually wrong to punish them for being successful. A hard lesson my wife and I learned late last year when we took a homeless person into our home to help her out - she did not want to help herself. It took me a while to figure this out, as a result my family suffered a little bit in our attempt to help her. She did not want to go to a doctor, she did not want to get a job, she did not want to sort through what she had been carrying around with her to move on with her life. Some people will always be poor - even when you give them a hand out, they are not capable of benefiting from what you give them. They will consume it, abuse it, waste it, lose it or just dig a hole and bury it anything but invest it or gain from it.

As far as President Bush goes, I don't believe he lied about his DUI - he simply did not mention it, when it was brought to light, he did not deny it, but rather explained his reason for not disclosing it to begin with. I think he should have mentioned it from the beginning, but that is beside the point. I will say that I am very glad that Mr. Gore did not win this last election - our nation would have suffered terrible to have to continue on the same path it has been on for the past eight years. All of the negative impact that Mr. Clinton has contributed to our nation still has not yet been disclosed or felt, but the future will reveal how extremely poor he was as president. We are seeing the tip of the ice burg with the aggression China is now demonstrating - I would not be surprised if we do not enter another world war with China as the major threat in the next 10 - 15 years. Imagine a land invasion of 1 million Chinese on U.S. soil? America is so soft our common citizen would not last 24 hours. But I digress….

I guess the question is, if someone earns a paycheck, why is it anybodies business what they do with it?

Government is not here to ensure that the wealthy invest or don't invest. If someone is not happy with how much someone else makes, too bad. People should mind their own business and stop coveting - go work harder, or smarter - make more money for themselves and keep their hands out of their neighbors pocket. What one does with their own money is their own business.

I look forward to your following comments.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Give a man a man a fish ... and he will eat for a day.

Teach a man to fish ...

... and he will sit in a boat drinking all day.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001