Ryan 3.0: A perfect 10?

posted at 12:01 pm on March 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

It may sound strange, but budget season is almost upon us.  It sounds strange because thanks to Harry Reid and obstructionism in the Democrat-controlled Senate, every season has budget season for the last four years.  Americans have been forced to ride a roller coaster of artificial fiscal cliffs, tax-rate disasters, sequesters, and other artificial crises generating from Reid’s refusal to follow the law and follow normal-order budgeting for almost exactly four years.

Usually, both chambers have their budget resolutions passed by April 15th, although that does depend in part on the White House producing a timely budget request — and this year, Barack Obama seems to be going the full Reid and refusing to participate at all.  That hasn’t stopped House Budget Chair Paul Ryan from proceeding with his third formal budget proposal, which is still in the formative stages but will once again push for structural reforms in order to produce a balanced budget.

However, this time Ryan’s budget will put Medicare on a reform path that balances the budget in ten years rather than 25, after taking considerable flack from conservatives over the last two years for his previous efforts.  This time, Ryan had Republican moderates howling, according to The Hill:

Moderate Republicans fear the budget plan will violate the GOP’s pledge not to change Medicare for today’s seniors, which they continuously touted during the presidential campaign.

“A lot of people had made commitments at 55. In other words, in the campaign [Republican vulnerable members] said it wouldn’t affect your Medicare for retirees or near retirees for those 55 and up … and [if] this budget forces them to renege on that, that would be problematic for many,” a GOP lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Hill.

In addition to locking in the $1.2 trillion in sequestration cuts over the next decade, the Ryan 2014 budget would reduce growth in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as target other safety net programs like food stamps and school lunches. He plans to present his budget framework next week and put it to a vote before the House adjourns for Easter break.

Last night, however, Ryan’s team pushed back on the criticism.  Ryan preferred to save some extra money by aiming for a larger potential pool for reform, but the campaign pledge will likely survive:

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget is now expected to exempt seniors 55 years old and above from his Medicare overhaul — despite his personal preference to raise that age to 56 — according to several GOP sources familiar with his plans. …

Ryan has been toying this winter with the idea of bumping the age exemption from 55 to 56 – a move that would have been intended to help prepare Republicans for more drastic future measures to save the health insurance program for the elderly. But moderates within the GOP would’ve balked at that prospect, after having told voters for several years that they won’t touch the program for folks 55 and older.

Earlier in the week, I reached out to Ryan’s office and a source on Capitol Hill to find out what direction Ryan plans to take.  He’s serious about a move to balance the budget in ten years rather than 25, and the same concept drives this plan as his earlier two, I report in my column this week for The Fiscal Times:

His first budget overhauled the approach to Medicare and Medicaid, relying on market-based cost containment systems to create a fixed-contribution system.  He assumed that private insurers would stabilize costs, which opponents almost instantly derided as “vouchers” – even though it used the same kind of exchange system for seniors that Barack Obama and Democrats had imposed for everyone else in the Affordable Care Act the previous year. Democrats created TV ads showing a Ryan look-alike pushing a wheelchair with an elderly woman in it over a cliff, in one of the least subtle attack ads of recent memory.

In the next budget cycle, Ryan adjusted the plan to address some of the criticism and to expand its support beyond the GOP. For a while, Ryan partnered with Senator Ron Wyden, a liberal Oregon Democrat, on Medicare reform that once again centered on a fixed cost to the government through insurance exchanges, this time with an option for traditional government-run Medicare.

Moving Medicare from a defined-benefit to a defined-contribution plan is the only way for the government to stabilize its costs for health care, and has the added benefit of spreading risk to private insurers who would have to compete for business in the same way Medicare Advantage worked before ObamaCare. In fact, as I point out, it uses the mechanism — government-managed exchanges for private insurance — that ObamaCare uses for everyone else in the US. It’s also much easier to apply means testing in this environment through scaled contributions (as ObamaCare also does with its scaled subsidies) than it is in the traditional defined-benefit Medicare plan, and Ryan’s plan will include means testing as part of the reform.

When I asked Ryan’s office for comment on the criticisms over raising the exemption age on the reforms, they offered a statement that didn’t directly address the question.  Instead, the statement affirmed Ryan’s commitment to delivering a “responsible, balanced budget, ” and issued this challenge: “After nearly four years without a budget, will leading Senate Democrats remain complicit in the looming bankruptcy of Medicare?” My other source told me that the communication to House Republicans earlier was intended as part of an ongoing collaborative process — a trial balloon, really — and that they had intended to adjust their approach after receiving feedback.

Pushing reform into a ten-year window requires more aggressive reform, but not really all that much more aggressive:

A House GOP aide later told me that nothing had yet been carved into stone, describing the luncheon meeting as part of an ongoing collaborative effort. The shift from a 25-year time frame to 10 years for balancing the budget required an accelerated reform schedule, but he also stressed the package wouldn’t contain any dramatic cuts or policy changes from the previous Ryan reform package.

And as I point out, the 10-year window is a lot more secure in ensuring that the changes take place, too:

The context of American credit has to be kept in mind as well. The prolonged trajectory to budget balance in Ryan’s previous efforts would not have done much to bolster confidence in the dollar, or credit ratings for US debt. Entitlement reform requires changes to statutes rather than annual budgets, so the cost savings in that action are more reliable, but future Congresses could still undo those changes depending on the politics of the time – and 25 years creates a lot of opportunities.

A 10-year window provides a much shorter time frame for vigilance and a much better chance for successful completion of the reform. The faster these costs come under rational control, the more quickly investor confidence will return, and economic growth may even end up accelerating the end of budget deficits.

Without having a solid proposal on the table, it’s impossible to determine whether Ryan is on the right path or not.  However, Ryan is one of the few taking his leadership responsibilities seriously and attempting to budget for long-term reform and fiscal sanity, rather than attempting to drive off one short-term political cliff after another for momentary political gain.  That much is worth celebrating and supporting.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ryan = FAIL

MoreLiberty on March 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Ryan is one of the few taking his leadership responsibilities seriously and attempting to budget for long-term reform and fiscal sanity, rather than attempting to drive off one short-term political cliff after another for momentary political gain.

Barry and Harry have no interest in this concept of reform or any kind of fiscal sanity. Political gain, regardless of how it affects the people, always trumps sanity when it comes to the Left.

hawkeye54 on March 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

John McCain is up on our U.S. Senate floor trashing Rand Paul, and by that Ted Curz, and the other guys on the filabuster.

So, here are his phone numbers.

D.C. 202-224-2235

Phoenix Az 602-952-2410

Prescott Az 928-445-0833

Tucson Az 520-670-6334

He needs some fast feed back.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Great for showmanship. Then again, we had power in 2001 through 2006 and instead of cutting benefits for the baby boomer generation he spent his time voting to increase their portion of the pie. Now he is ensuring to LOCK in their gains on the backs of me and my children.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

He needs some fast feed back.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

McCain knows he is invulnerable, so it does not matter what we say to him.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Hes getting a budget together that balances things out in ten years. And yet conservatives whine and bash him. Save it for those Repubs that deserve it, please.

Jack_Burton on March 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

John McCain is up on our U.S. Senate floor trashing Rand Paul, and by that Ted Curz, and the other guys on the filabuster.

We have to deal with bho/team/d’s/bhopress/and those gosh horrible rino’s that are against us daily by slamming anyone who bucks them!

I hate those rino’s as much as bho/team/d’s/bhopress!
And mccain can go take a flying leap!
L

letget on March 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Who is Paul Ryan?

Hey…how ’bout that freaking awesome filibuster by Rand Paul yesterday. That was something.

LetsBfrank on March 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

And in the meantime Dear Liar can do no wrong. Go fluff your messiah.

VegasRick on March 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Hes getting a budget together that balances things out in ten years. And yet conservatives whine and bash him. Save it for those Repubs that deserve it, please.

Jack_Burton on March 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Indeed. He’s not perfect (who is!!) but he’s not McCain.

Bitter Clinger on March 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Just let the IPAB make all of the recommendations, as planned.

And … for those wee few who are able to survive [literally] the IPAB recommendations, the IPAB can just raise their “entitlement” age to 100 – and it’ll all be moot.

Voila! We have balance!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Barry and Harry have no interest in this concept of reform or any kind of fiscal sanity. Political gain, regardless of how it affects the people, always trumps sanity when it comes to the Left.

hawkeye54 on March 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Ryan needs to go full Nancy Pelosi and tell the rat-eared wonder and his minions in the Senate that they have to pass a budget to be able to see what is in it.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Seriously?

At least he is trying to get a budget that gets us back on a course that doesn’t lead to destruction.

Where is Barky and Reid and the Senate Dem’s Budgets? Criminals all!

D-fusit on March 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Every bit as stupid and unconstitutional as the crap that the libtards are pushing. People have the right to own a gun, they can’t be made to own one.

LukeinNE on March 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Mandatory gun ownership might be stupid, but it is constitutional (at least in regard to the US constitution): http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

DKCZ on March 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

The above is in the wrong thread, obviously.

DKCZ on March 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I just phone Sen. McCain’s office and got his voicemail, which sounded like this:

“Hello. Thank you for calling me, John ‘Maverick’ McCain. Feel free to leave a message, which gets deleted every morning without being listened to.
“If you want to send me an email, please feel free to email me at NigerianPrince@yahoo.com.
“Unless you’re a Sunday Morning Talk Show, I’m never going to listen to you, so go stick your head in the sand.
“Again, I appreciate your time in calling me.”

Nethicus on March 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

And in the meantime Dear Liar can do no wrong. Go fluff your messiah.

VegasRick on March 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

you better start paying attention. obama and ryun aren’t that far apart.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Ryan is the only one up there that is attempting to do his job. Like his work product or not, I give him kudos.

Watched McCain and Graham on the floor of Senate and wanted to vomit. The old guard needs to leave. Vote them out.

CoffeeLover on March 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

At least he is trying to get a budget that gets us back on a course that doesn’t lead to destruction.

Where is Barky and Reid and the Senate Dem’s Budgets? Criminals all!

D-fusit on March 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Please don’t feed the trolls.

BTW, as bad as the Dems are, I reserve my greatest scorn for “Republicans” like McCain who work tirelessly to undermine conservatives.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Usually, both chambers have their budget resolutions passed by April 15th, although that does depend in part on the White House producing a timely budget request — and this year, Barack Obama seems to be going the full Reid and refusing to participate at all

…when will someone do something about the Senate and JugEars not producing a budget?…WHEN?

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Hes getting a budget together that balances things out in ten years. And yet conservatives whine and bash him. Save it for those Repubs that deserve it, please.

Jack_Burton on March 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It is smoke an mirrors. He does more harm than good with this crap.

It will never pass.
It will be used to scare monger the voters.
Once we have a Republican Senate and a Republican President and can actually pass something like this, do you really think it would pass?
Of course not, why? Because the man writing does not believe in it.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

D-fusit on March 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

ryun is caught up in the unholy frenzy of bipartisanship. his plan always take about 10 years before we start to see a dent.

got a brige in brooklyn if you buy that one.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

BTW, as bad as the Dems are, I reserve my greatest scorn for “Republicans” like McCain who work tirelessly to undermine conservatives.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I keep my options open to include the pro gay supporters, the druggie enablers and others who are hell bent on undermining the eventual ability to get majority conservatives elected in the first place.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

The GOP needs to kick McCain’s ass out before nightfall. That dumb SOB is only thinking that if I trash Paul, I can get on all the Sunday morning shows. He and Schumer are peas-in-a-pod.

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

BTW, Ed, what is this “budget” thingy you speak of here in this post?

///

Bitter Clinger on March 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

ryun is caught up in the unholy frenzy of bipartisanship. his plan always take about 10 years before we start to see a dent.

got a brige in brooklyn if you buy that one.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I agree. He is close to a 10 in looks, but there is something off politically about him for me. I just have not been able to go all in on him.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I keep my options open to include the pro gay supporters, the druggie enablers and others who are hell bent on undermining the eventual ability to get majority conservatives elected in the first place.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Before you get too far out over your skiis, Our hero of last night is a libertarian on these issues.

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

He needs some fast feed back.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM
McCain knows he is invulnerable, so it does not matter what we say to him.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:10

PM

As long as Cindy is worth $20,000,000+, Maverick doesn’t care what we think…

Khun Joe on March 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

John McCain is up on our U.S. Senate floor trashing Rand Paul, and by that Ted Curz, and the other guys on the filabuster.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Why?

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Once you learn how to spell, I might take you seriously.

changer1701 on March 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Before you get too far out over your skiis, Our hero of last night is a libertarian on these issues.

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Actually Paul could be lying to get Kentucky votes but he is pretty in line with what I see.. States should vote on the issue and the traditional family is most important..

Speaking at an event sponsored by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that he didn’t think President Obama’s views on marriage “could get any gayer.”

The remarks, which were posted in a video to the website The Iowa Republican, drew laughs from the crowd. “Call me cynical,” he said, “but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

Though Paul’s comment elicited laughs from the crowd, not everyone thinks same-sex marriage is a joke. Most notably, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday that same-sex marriage isn’t “something to poke fun at other people about,” chastising Paul for his joke.

“I don’t think it’s a laughing matter,” he said. “We are talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate.”

In his speech, Paul drove home the idea of reinforcing a traditional family, saying that “the family is a really important thing” and it was necessary to defend it to “save the Republic.”

The remarks come at the end of a week in which same-sex marriage defined the conversation, after President Obama’s historic declaration on Tuesday that he supports same-sex marriage

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Before you get too far out over your skiis, Our hero of last night is a libertarian on these issues.

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

That is why I have yet to find him as awesome as most people. I did applaud him for his actions though.

I am actually for people to be allowed to have the liberty to pursue those activities while I have the liberty to judge them and while giving them charity attempt to give them life lessons and get them to become more virtuous. Unfortunately, I no longer am a free person. Actually, I was born into servitude. I serve the elderly, the disabled, the lazy, the degenerate, the slutty, the disgusting, the detestable, and so forth. None of these people have served me in any way at all. So, where self destructive behavior is already prohibited, I prefer it to remain as such. While I am bad off on this enslavement scheme, my children will be far worse off than I am. They start with 16.7 trillion of debt and far more degenerates to support.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I am actually for people to be allowed to have the liberty to pursue those activities while I have the liberty to judge them and while giving them charity attempt to give them life lessons and get them to become more virtuous. Unfortunately, I no longer am a free person. Actually, I was born into servitude. I serve the elderly, the “disabled”, the lazy, the degenerate, the slutty, the disgusting, the detestable, and so forth. None of these people have served me in any way at all. So, where self destructive behavior is already prohibited, I prefer it to remain as such. While I am bad off on this enslavement scheme, my children will be far worse off than I am. They start with 16.7 trillion of debt and far more degenerates to support.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

sorry…

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

However, this time Ryan’s budget will put Medicare on a reform path that balances the budget in ten years rather than 25

Does that include 10-20 million legalized immigrants who will overwhelmingly qualify for food stamps and Obamacare?

Wigglesworth on March 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM

The GOP is accused of wanting to “balance the budget on the backs of seniors…” because they want to reform Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security to ensure the survival of these programs for those seniors; while the Dems sit on their hands allowing these “vital” programs they champion to descend into bankruptcy, which threatens to overwhelm the priorities of the Federal Government, forcing out all discretionary spending and severely harm the ability of the country to defend itself.
That will surely be a “fundamental transformation of the country”, just not one that most people thought they were getting.
It’s the old Mine Scheme:
Sell ‘em the Gold, but give ‘em the shaft!

Another Drew on March 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM

John McCain is up on our U.S. Senate floor trashing Rand Paul, and by that Ted Curz, and the other guys on the filabuster.

So, here are his phone numbers….
He needs some fast feed back.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

You mean, like hacking one of the drones like Iran did and sending it to his geo location?

LoganSix on March 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM

The GOP is accused of wanting to “balance the budget on the backs of seniors…” because they want to reform Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security to ensure the survival of these programs for those seniors; while the Dems sit on their hands allowing these “vital” programs they champion to descend into bankruptcy, which threatens to overwhelm the priorities of the Federal Government, forcing out all discretionary spending and severely harm the ability of the country to defend itself.
That will surely be a “fundamental transformation of the country”, just not one that most people thought they were getting.
It’s the old Mine Scheme:
Sell ‘em the Gold, but give ‘em the shaft!

Another Drew on March 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Hence the problem I have with it.
I support the Democrats plan. Let them self destruct under their own weight. The likely end of it will be that we get a constitutional amendment ending any and such programs and preventing any future ones. As well as a lock on deficit spending.

The federal government should be limited to 9% of GDP for spending.
5% for the military, 3% for the rest, and 1% for a rainy day fund.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Republican moderates = RINOs = libs = compromise = economic ruin

RedInMD on March 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Republican moderates = RINOs = libs = compromise = economic ruin

RedInMD on March 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I have to laugh. Do you know why moderates are RINOS? Because DEMS DON’T COMPROMISE. They NEVER move to the right which leaves you moderates MOVING FORVER AND EVER MORE TO THE LEFT. This means that you end us as Democrats and no longer Republicans just to get things done. What used to be a Republican moderate is no more. You are at best a blue dog dem at worst a moderate Dem..

Look at the Presidential election for this. We ran two moderates and lost and we continue to what– that’s right run moderates. The Dems run two moderate lose and then run a socialist raving leftist and win..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.
renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM
And in the meantime Dear Liar can do no wrong. Go fluff your messiah.
VegasRick on March 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM
you better start paying attention. obama and ryun aren’t that far apart.
renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Oh, Dear Hot Air reader, renalin is a “nobody but Palin” person who rushes to trash any Rubio, Ryan, or other hot prospect of the day. Not named Sarah.

Marcus on March 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Paul Ryan has mastered the talk. He keeps struggling with the walk (No Child Left Behind, TARP, auto bailout, votes to hike debt ceiling limits, amnesty, Violence Against Women Act).

Ed loves Ryan because he is the perfect establishment Republican hack and some of the HA ladies love him because he’s hot.

bw222 on March 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

once ryun figures out how long it takes him to run a mile, i’ll take him seriously.

renalin on March 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

3:51.1

cptacek on March 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Look at the Presidential election for this. We ran two moderates and lost and we continue to what– that’s right run moderates. The Dems run two moderate lose and then run a socialist raving leftist and win..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Reason why you lost is because your so called moderates aren’t moderates to most Americans. They are only moderates to the fringe conservatives who are already out of touch with most Americans. You have a party who continously advocates for business owners and entreprenuers while telling employees to go F themselves. They forget there are more employees than business owners.

As i have mentioned numerous times on this blog, your party doesn’t get and as such will continue to lose presidential elections.

There are waaaaaaaay too many fringe conservatives out there. Fortunately for America, there aren’t that many of them to take over positions that really matter.

HotAirLib on March 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Reason why you lost is because your so called moderates aren’t moderates to most Americans. They are only moderates to the fringe conservatives who are already out of touch with most Americans. You have a party who continously advocates for business owners and entreprenuers while telling employees to go F themselves. They forget there are more employees than business owners.

As i have mentioned numerous times on this blog, your party doesn’t get and as such will continue to lose presidential elections.

There are waaaaaaaay too many fringe conservatives out there. Fortunately for America, there aren’t that many of them to take over positions that really matter.

HotAirLib on March 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Whatever lib.. We ran a fricking Gov. from Massachusetts who signed gay marriage into legalization and state run healthcare. Don’t give me that crap that Romney wasn’t moderate enough. Your candidate was just better at selling all the free stuff to the bimbos and scaring idiots that the “Jesus Nuts” were going to take away their tampons and birth control pills.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Reason why you lost is because your so called moderates aren’t moderates to most Americans. They are only moderates to the fringe conservatives who are already out of touch with most Americans. You have a party who continously advocates for business owners and entreprenuers while telling employees to go F themselves. They forget there are more employees than business owners.

As i have mentioned numerous times on this blog, your party doesn’t get and as such will continue to lose presidential elections.

There are waaaaaaaay too many fringe conservatives out there. Fortunately for America, there aren’t that many of them to take over positions that really matter.

HotAirLib on March 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM

BTW, please don’t give advice on how Republicans can win elections. WHen one of YOUR candidates can win an election WITHOUT THE media kissing the candidates a$$, then I will take advice on winning elections from a Dem. Until then, beware of greeks bearing gifts and all that.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Actually, I was born into servitude. I serve the elderly….None of these people have served me in any way at all.

So……….you were hatched out of an egg and fed yourself with worms and such?

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:43

my children will be far worse off than I am.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I hope they are far more giving to you than you are to your elders. You realize that you teach by what you do, more than by what you say.

Makes me value your opinions less.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Pals,

Paul Ryan is way overrated. He is not the fiscal genius many conservatives would like him to be. And as a politician he doesn’t have much appeal either. I never understood what was all the buzz about him. Boy, I understand why somebody like Rubio, Jindal, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Rand Paul or Sarah Palin might have appeal (I like some of them while I don’t others but I understand their appeal). But Paul Ryan? He might be a success with the ladies, and that I get that, but beyond that, his ideas are not brilliant and as a politician he is far from articulate or charismatic.

p_incorrect on March 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I hope they are far more giving to you than you are to your elders. You realize that you teach by what you do, more than by what you say.

Makes me value your opinions less.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I directly pay for my familial elders out of my pocket voluntarily on top of what the elderly of this nation voted to have stripped from my paycheck every day.

Let me see what the elder generation did… Granted themselves easy divorce, then abortion on demand, built the welfare state, spent/ continue to spend trillions they did not earn, locked massive amounts of land away from energy production, locked massive amounts of land away from building on, turned education into indoctrination of the kids so they will happily pay for the elder generations multiple decades long luxury retirements and medical spa treatments.

I dunno, I think I could care less how much YOU value my opinions.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:55 PM

bw222 on March 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

You sound as if you’re jealous,….. and are also seriously into mind reading.
Heh!

This female isn’t that shallow as you would like to think/suggest.

Sheesh!

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Sounds like you are talking about the generation AFTER the ones that are presently retired.

You do realize that using YOUR analogy, YOUR children will be holding you responsible for the accomplishments of Carter, Clinton and Obama? You were alive then….be prepared.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:55 PM

add to the list…. extreme environmentalists in all of their activities. From shutting down power generation, demonizing coal, Global warming, cap and trade, the RGGI, shutting down domestic energy production to save the view for rich people, and support of gay marriage.

^^^^^^All from your site, which you are against.

BUT using YOUR analogy, YOU will be held responsible by your children because you and your generation were alive during this time for all the above and begrudged any help you want/need/be eligible for at retirement age.

…just sayin’

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I will be teaching them that it is immoral and destructive to transfer wealth between citizens through the force of government.

The generations that voted for FDR are mostly dead. Just those who fought WWII with an average age of enlistment of 26 would be an average age of 94. Most of whom are dead now. 1945-26=1919, 2013-1919=94. The baby boomers, as the largest voting block are the primary cause of the failed government we now have.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Ryan’s brilliant math skills:

$400 Billion = $1.4 TRILLION

Stupid is as stupid does. This would not be such an issue had his actual voting record resembled anything conservative. Sadly, it does not. He voted for the deficits in the first place via various financial bills.

He is done. No more GOP hand picked candidates. This includes Rubio, aka Romney Lite.

riddick on March 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I will have evidence that I worked to protect them from these things. I doubt my children will find me as you imagine.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Paul Ryan is far more handsome than I ever was, but I did look much better than Ed when I was 48.

I did not say all HA women like Paul Ryan because he’s hot. And, your “handle” isn’t illinidiva or bluegill so my comment wasn’t aimed at you..

bw222 on March 7, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Paul Ryan is far more handsome than I ever was, but I did look much better than Ed when I was 48.

I did not say all HA women like Paul Ryan because he’s hot. And, your “handle” isn’t illinidiva or bluegill so my comment wasn’t aimed at you..

bw222 on March 7, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I am female, and as I said in a previous post, Ryan is a def. 10 when it comes to looks. Politically something is off about him for me. I just have never been able to jump on the bandwagon. I am not anti-Ryan. I just have never been an rah-rah cheerleader. I have seen his budgets, but not seen a lot come to fruition. Despite the stereotypes, I think liberal women tend to vote more on looks, conservative women not so much(at least I hope that is the case.)

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

My Grandmother voted on looks. Reagan and Clinton. Bleg

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

My Grandmother voted on looks. Reagan and Clinton. Bleg

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

LOL– I am going to have to question your grandma’s taste in politics and men. Reagan was before my time, but he wasn’t too bad to look at younger and awesome politics. Clinton, terrible politics although I would take him over Obama anyday. And I never saw the appeal of Clinton in the looks department at all. Although my husband saw him speak in Hawaii when we were based there in 95, and he hated him, but he said he was a mesmerizing speaker and had the ability to put you at ease and make you feel like you were the only one in the room. So there must have been something there; I just didn’t see it.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Well, that was her story, and she stuck to it.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Paul Ryan has mastered the talk. He keeps struggling with the walk (No Child Left Behind, TARP, auto bailout, votes to hike debt ceiling limits, amnesty, Violence Against Women Act).

Ed loves Ryan because he is the perfect establishment Republican hack and some of the HA ladies love him because he’s hot.

bw222 on March 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Bingo. His potential through his talk is pretty good. Yet like you say, his past performance is lousy. Let’s get your posting its own blog post please.

LaughterJones on March 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I will be teaching them that it is immoral and destructive to transfer wealth between citizens through the force of government.

The generations that voted for FDR are mostly dead. Just those who fought WWII with an average age of enlistment of 26 would be an average age of 94. Most of whom are dead now. 1945-26=1919, 2013-1919=94. The baby boomers, as the largest voting block are the primary cause of the failed government we now have.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

How arrogant of you.
So did the majority of BABY BOOMERS, astonerii, so did the majority of baby boomers. They elected Ronald Reagan. Twice. They have evidence as well that they worked against the things they/you are against. Ever hear of the Bircher Society? Wm F. Buckley? National Review, started by Buckley (which was revolutionary at the time? Unheard of.) Barry Goldwater? The Religious Right?
These were the soldiers in the trenches for conservatism before you were even a twinkle in your dad’s eye.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95dec/conbook/conbook.htm

I doubt my children will find me as you imagine.

LOL! Such smugness.
Did the above mentioned ever think that this many of present generation would think of them as you do???!!! He11 no! complete surprise at the selfishness of this present generation and hatred against them by some of this younger generation(s).

BTW, I didn’t mention anything any about accomplishments from the people that voted for FDR. But, a nice dodge.

YOu’re wrong on your figures…..many WWII vets enlisted much younger than age 26. You’re looking at an “average”, not the real numbers….some went into the war in their 30′s and 40′s, thus skewing the “averages”. I know several that were/are were below the age of 90, by far. One ate raw kittens he and his buddies (all the same age)caught crossing the yard in a German prison camp. He’s not even 90, yet, and still drawing SS, as are his buddies that are still alive.
I can see all you’re relying on are facts you gleaned from some site. In fact, every male relative that I had that served in WWII were MUCH younger than 26 when they were drafted or enlisted.

I suspect you are……..30-ish to 40-ish……educated in the present day dumbed down school system. Should I blame you for the present day catastrophe in the school systems……by now you’ve had ample time to turn it around.

I find your empathy level rather strange for someone who purports to be a Christian. Perhaps, like the Democrats you think the elderly should just die? In order to make your world more ……something.

Perhaps, you should study more and post less:
The Bible is quite clear on this point. Of course, we already know that we are called to honor our mother and father. (Exodus 20:12) As Scripture says, children and grandchildren “should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.” (1 Tim. 5:4) The Apostle Paul is quite adamant: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8)

Christians must not ignore the needs of our frail elders. Surely they are to be counted among the “least of these” to whom we owe a duty of care and concern. (Matthew 25:40) Paul declares, “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” (1 Tim. 5:1-2) While our first priority may be to our immediate family, we should treat all older men and women as fathers and mothers.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, give unto God that which is God’s.

Along those lines, do not give unto Caesar the responsibilities you owe to God as individuals or you vilify God’s word. You do charity not through coercive actions, but through your own virtue, by doing so you elevate God and his word.

Reagan was not elected to roll back the entitlements and welfare state, and he did no such thing.

By short circuiting family responsibility of caring for their parents, it destroys the bedrock of society. No longer tied to the need to either save extensively for retirement or have children well raised, educated and productive, many people chose to live off the labor of other people’s children. Thus, divorce, abortion, poor education and no desire to allow the children access to our national resources (environmentalism: which became their replacement deity and higher power)

For going to the bible for your arguments, you really do not understand the nature of the text which emanates from within it. Elders are required to follow the law of God and live in the way of Jesus. Jesus said to him, allow the dead to bury their dead. When they follow the ways of Jesus, you are right, they deserve to be treated with the respect they earned though sacrifice and duty.

That generation as a whole abdicated their duty and learned to live with no sacrifice other than to sacrifice their children to their luxuries of the day. Recession? Spend more money and make sure we do not suffer for a day longer than needed. War? Make it pretty so we do not feel bad about it! Abortion? They are not human! Educate our children? Let the government do that! Teach the bible to their children? Hell no, they can do that after they leave the home, besides, science is God now!

If you want to be treated with respect, that is something that is earned and requires personal sacrifice. Maybe you imagine you learned a better way than how Jesus and his disciples lived their lives?

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

When they follow the ways of Jesus, you are right, they deserve to be treated with the respect they earned though sacrifice and duty.

That generation as a whole abdicated their duty and learned to live with no sacrifice other than to sacrifice their children to their luxuries of the day.
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

First of all…….what “generation” are you talking about? You mentioned several above.

And, I can say the same about YOUR generation; therefore, by your analogy YOU deserve to be thrown out with the rest of the trash of this and the generation prior to you. You’ve failed, right along with the rest…your generation has.

Your analogy (and it is YOUR analogy…..you’ve enlarged completely upon scriptures, making them say what you want them to say)…. fails as there is none, never has been, never will be a whole generation following Christ. What folly! But, a nice excuse for you to remain selfish, self-involved, and full of hatred, using the title of Christian to hide behind.

Your analogy, remember?

Read this. Completely refutes your wrong analogy.
◄ Matthew 7 ►
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

http://bible.cc/matthew/7.htm

I’ll trade you verse by verse, if you’d like. I used to teach bible lessons. My first husband was a minister prior to his passing.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

More:

1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.3“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?4“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?5“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

6“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Elders are required to follow the law of God and live in the way of Jesus.
Elders? Define.

Do you mean poimen,which means shepherd, also translated as pastor?
Or, presbuteros is the most commonly used term for elder in the New Testament, stemming from presbus, elderly, or others acting in a specific role of authority in a local assembly of Christians. In the same manner of overseer’ and ‘shepherd’

Everyone is required to follow the law of God and live in the way of Jesus.
As I stated above: ◄ Matthew 7 ►
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Is this all about your anger at your parents, grandparents?

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Those are good ones, but in the same name they ask that when one of your brothers is unholy, you take him to task for it, if he does not repent, then you bring more brothers to confront him, if he still does not repent, you bring him in front of the entire church, and if he still shall not repent you no longer deal with him.

As for giving what is holy to the dogs, look at what we have given to the Government and see the results of that since 1930′s onward.

The Greatest Generation, they failed to raise their children properly that they would be good in nature. They Raised the PUKES called the Baby Boomers. The Baby boomers took the failures of their parents and magnified them. They begot a godless generation, my generation! Thanks guys! You are right though, my generation is a failure too. I am not a part of my generation, I never succumbed to peer pressure to conform to vileness in order to fit in.

The fact of the matter is that what the money changers and sin enablers of Jesus’ time have been morphed into the state empowering people who argue that giving trillions of dollars a year to the poor and elderly by confiscating it through force of law is a moral good!

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

GOP: Just do it!

Pretend you’re as brave as Rand Paul.

PattyJ on March 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Is this all about your anger at your parents, grandparents?

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

How cute, a psychobabble analytic. Not really angry at my parents, my parents did good by me in general. The teaching me at home as well as going to public schools. Did not abort me or any of my peers or potential siblings. Sent me to bible school and sat in the pew at Sunday and Wednesday mass. Made me work hard in the yard and garden as well as do labor for others to see the value of hard work. But thanks for asking, I am sure you really were concerned, and not just trying to attack me in a way to make me shut up, as seems all so frequently to be the case on these boards.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Talk about a DOA budget, unfortunately…

Having this administration adhere to a budget (which equates to accepting responsibility mind you which Obummer has avoided doing the past 5 years) is a no-go. Might as well be fartin’ in the wind.

Get back to me Ryan when this actually goes somewhere. Otherwise, LIB.

lucyvanpelt on March 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

You are so mangling what little you know of the bible.

Your first paragraph is about disfellowhip within the congregation, not outside of the church. The elders (who would initiate this movement) have no authority outside the congregation. None!

I am not a part of my generation, I never succumbed to peer pressure to conform to vileness in order to fit in.

Neither have many of the “generation” you’re talking about. But, you are busy throwing them out. So, I repeat: by your analogy, you deserve to be thrown out with them.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

How cute, a psychobabble analytic.

But thanks for asking, I am sure you really were concerned, and not just trying to attack me in a way to make me shut up, as seems all so frequently to be the case on these boards.

astonerii
on March 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Mindreading once again. I’m entitled. I have a degree to do psychobabble as you put it…….LCSW. Practiced for 20+ years. Look the degree up.

I can see that you are just lacking in bible knowledge as you’re seem to be going on the crumbs that someone else has taught you.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

You are so mangling what little you know of the bible.

Your first paragraph is about disfellowhip within the congregation, not outside of the church. The elders (who would initiate this movement) have no authority outside the congregation. None!

I am not a part of my generation, I never succumbed to peer pressure to conform to vileness in order to fit in.

Neither have many of the “generation” you’re talking about. But, you are busy throwing them out. So, I repeat: by your analogy, you deserve to be thrown out with them.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

You seem to be somewhat belligerent in your ignorance of what I stated.

I support my family on my own dime, outside government coercion, with my own labor and on my own virtue.

What you are supporting is the forced confiscation of my labor in order to hand that money out to old people who may or may not have children of their own. THAT IS NOT GODLY and will not get you anything from GOD. It in fact breaks the covenant between you and God, as you are sloughing the responsibility as not your own.

Kind of like saying, I sent my 10% to the church, now it is there responsibility to save my soul. Well, I got the government to force people to pay for the poor, so they are no longer my responsibility. Totally biblical in spirit!

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Mindreading once again. I’m entitled. I have a degree to do psychobabble as you put it…….LCSW. Practiced for 20+ years. Look the degree up.

I can see that you are just lacking in bible knowledge as you’re seem to be going on the crumbs that someone else has taught you.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Seems to be a running meme in your mind…

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You seem to be somewhat belligerent in your ignorance of what I stated.

I support my family on my own dime, outside government coercion, with my own labor and on my own virtue.

What you are supporting is the forced confiscation of my labor in order to hand that money out to old people who may or may not have children of their own. THAT IS NOT GODLY and will not get you anything from GOD. It in fact breaks the covenant between you and God, as you are sloughing the responsibility as not your own.

Kind of like saying, I sent my 10% to the church, now it is there responsibility to save my soul. Well, I got the government to force people to pay for the poor, so they are no longer my responsibility. Totally biblical in spirit!

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I see that you continue on with your hard-headedness(which is nothing new as I’ve seen before on this forum) and don’t respond to the facts presented:
1) you misuse the scriptures to make a false point.
2)you outright condemn several generations (for doing exactly as YOU have done)
3)Completely go against what the bible teaches in order to make your false point, aka below:

What you are supporting is the forced confiscation of my labor in order to hand that money out to old people who may or may not have children of their own. THAT IS NOT GODLY and will not get you anything from GOD.

*facepalm* I suggest you go back to whomever taught you your wrong ideas, or from whom you gained partial truths to base your delusions on. Or, change churches for teaching such blasphemy.

Yes, it is Godly:
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.”

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, “Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise.”

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

The message here is really very simple: help the needy. It’s not hard to understand; it’s just hard to do.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Seems to be a running meme in your mind…

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Just responding in kind to your insult. I’m more than entitled to say something like I did, than you are of the comment you did.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Yes, it is Godly:
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Notice the you shall freely open your hand to him aspect? Is that the same as voting to have the government confiscate that money from someone else?

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied./blockquote>
Further down, it says that you will do it with all your heart and all your soul. Freely again, not coerced through forced confiscation.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Then you get to the part where it says You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. Which I would argue forcing him to pay for your benevolence is oppression and robbery. It is YOUR duty to do these things. Not your duty to FORCE the LEVITE to do them for you.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Right above that it argues the king should not drink wine heavily and become perverted, then says to give strong wine to the poor so they can forget they are poor… Are you sure that is taken properly in context?

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Again, free action, not a command to have government do it for you.

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Individual again…

Luke 12:33. “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.”/blockquote>
Again, individuals duty.

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, “Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise.”

Individuals. I am looking for the argument to give extra taxes to Caesar such that Caesar can save you wholesale…

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Individuals, not as a government.

The message here is really very simple: help the needy. It’s not hard to understand; it’s just hard to do.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

You are right. It is not hard to understand… In fact, it is not hard to do. You go to church, give 10% to God and allow the church to help the needy they can access further away than your feet carry you generally. Then when you see an unfortunate, you offer them help, if they are hungry, you offer them food, and maybe a bit of Godly advice about how to avoid their current state.

But what you want to do is create more poor by subsidizing them through forced confiscation of the labors of of the virtuous who would donate and charitably give in order to have the government do it for us.

You are a MARXIST through and through.

You sure you were smart enough get through a university degree? I am having doubts about the veracity of your claim.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM

I really should have reviewed that first….

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM

After all of this…… something needs to be done reform Social Security to bring in its outrageous cost:
1.Raise the retirement age,
2.Means-Testing,
3.>>>>Raising the Payroll Tax Cap,
4.Privatizing the System, beginning now for those under age 50.

But, throwing out people that have been forced to pay into this system out into the streets, is not the answer, which is what I’ve seen more or less suggested in the past.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 5:48 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I can agree to a little of it. The 50 year age cutoff seems a bit low…
The paying INTO idea is not realistic, they were paying for older people at the time, always have been.

If we can set a lock out date and end the program once those 55 years old and older die off, I can be convinced to support something like that.

The problem with the programs are not their dollar cost on society, but the moral costs on society. Since those 55 and older are no longer going to be having children (mostly) and raising them immorally, I can be led to be willing to support their degenerate selves to a slow and expensive route to their mostly likely eventual home in hades.

The moral costs are a loss of stability in the family due to the less value associated with having your own children, since you can live off other people’s children. I think with an end to the programs promise to the younger people, they will be forced to slowly come to realize that if they want security in old age they better be planning on saving hugely or having a minimum of three children per couple. Since marriage will return to being about the children, there might be a push to reinstate the hard to get out of nature of it.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM

You are a MARXIST through and through.

You sure you were smart enough get through a university degree? I am having doubts about the veracity of your claim.

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Of course, you would. Now, you’re beginning to resort to insults and innuendo. You’re really twisted. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they are a MARXIST!!! Through and through.
The epitome of “just shut up and go away or I’ll call you bad names and call you a liar, too!!!

Astenerii, I’ve seen you misuse scripture……does that mean you’re a liar when you say you go to church?

I am looking for the argument to give extra taxes to Caesar such that Caesar can save you wholesale…

Extra? How much is “extra”? Would they have just refused to give the “extra” if they didn’t like it?

I’m assured,if they wanted to keep their heads intact, they would give WHATEVER Caesar said to give to be used in any way HE chose to use it…..even creating arenas in which Christians were slaughtered. (to self: Do I know of a scripture that’s an argument against that idea???? No, I don’t think I do. )

You’re changing the goalposts here.

Yes, I will bring in Matthew, as it pertained to what Christ was asked about……..taxes which could be spent in any manner that Caesar wished.
Matthew 22:15-22

English Standard Version (ESV)

Paying Taxes to Caesar

15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[a] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[b] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

BTW, as and aside: the New Testament doesn’t say to “tithe”…..that was for the Jews.
On top of that “tithe” they would give the first born of their flock in sacrifice,
..and Honor the LORD with your possessions, and with the firstfruits of all your increase Prov 3.9
and then,
Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you. Deu 16.17

NT says to “give as you’ve been prospered”…..
On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. 1 Cor 16.2

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

To answer your question: … “Are you sure that is taken properly in context?

Pro 31:4[It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

(why? my question)Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
(Reason to give wine: Pain and for depression. Timothy was told by Paul to drink wine for his “stomach’s sake.”)
Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy heart.
Pro 31:7Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
Pro 31:8Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Pro 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

In other words, don’t drink which will cloud your mind, give it for pain and for depression, but don’t drink so that you may “judge righteously, and pleade the cause of the poor and needy”.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 6:42 PM

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Marxism if I am not mistaken is FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED. ENFORCED BY GOVERNMENT GUNS.

Still waiting for you to show me where it is that it is Godly to use the force of government to pay for the charity he asks up to perform on our own.

avagreen on March 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

So, individuals perform the charity there? Or is there some governing official to whom they give their charity?

It pretty much comes down to who is the responsible party here? Does God demand that you reside in a society where his word is forced upon the people, or where the people love Jesus and choose freely to do those things that God has asked of them?

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM

astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM

There?

You’re not making any sense. No different, though……You usually don’t. I’ve given you scripture to beat every statement you’ve made and you still refuse to see it. That’s the definition of a fool.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 18:2

God doesn’t demand anyone to live in any society or have His Word “forced” on anyone. If someone has to have God’s word “forced” on them, they aren’t much of a Christian. You’re really reaching.

I’ve shown you where He has commanded to care for the poor and needy, to respect elders, to treat them as your father, mother, sister, and brother. I’ve shown where God has commanded governments to take care of the above.

You simply refuse to see it.
That’s the definition of a fool.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 18:2

I’ve proven my case. Proven it to you? No. I didn’t expect to. I was writing for anyone who is still reading this thread. It’s obvious you just as ignorant (untaught) as you been accused of being.

avagreen on March 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM

avagreen on March 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Your case is that social security, medicare and the welfare state are godly actions. You use as evidence instructions that God gave to individuals to do. No where in the Bible does God ask you to hand to government officials your productivity and have the government hand it out for you in order for him to see your generosity.

Thus far, all you have proven is that I was right in the beginning and all throughout. Am I a bit less than thrilled with the older people of this society who threw God to the wayside and instead chose to replace him with Government? NO, and because most of them threw God to the wayside I have no respect for them. For those who remained marginally attached to God, they chose to not teach the others how they were failing God and in fact were turning their backs on his demands of them.

You are a perfect example of a useful idiot. You look at a scripture that is specifically written towards the individual and come away with socialism and Marxism!

astonerii on March 8, 2013 at 9:54 AM

God doesn’t demand anyone to live in any society or have His Word “forced” on anyone. If someone has to have God’s word “forced” on them, they aren’t much of a Christian. You’re really reaching.

I’ve shown you where He has commanded to care for the poor and needy, to respect elders, to treat them as your father, mother, sister, and brother. I’ve shown where God has commanded governments to take care of the above.

Lets look at these two diametrically opposed statements.
First, you admit that God’s word is to be taken freely and not under duress or force.
Government is force. You do understand that, right? The use of force to make people care for the poor… That is not Godly.

You cannot serve two masters. You will hate one and love the other…

Either you serve the interests of God freely or you serve the interests of worldly government. Freely serving God is using your time and wealth to help others directly or forming into free association groups such as charities or churches and using those to reach more people, with personal interaction between the giver and recipient.

You can tell a tree by its fruits. Government welfare checks have destroyed so much of our society, including the ability of the church to reach those in need, yet you still believe that it is a tree of good fruits!

astonerii on March 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM