Progressivism? Socialism? Communism?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Seascapes

I am on disability and do not pay taxes, except property taxes. My property taxes were very high for the last two years because our Republican Governor of Georgia gave a big tax break to a big business (KIA), and did not sign the document for the property owners to get a break like the Democrat Governor did before him. Even though I am on disability, I paid into it when I was working, and therefore I get the benefit of the income, the stock market does not have that benefit. I do give to help people in need, and I do give to my church. The Bible speaks about a rich young ruler that Jesus told him to sell what he has and give it to the poor, but he went away sorrowful.

For the 2% of the most wealthy people of America, which they said and it is documented, that they do not need a tax break, that is what our President was wanting to spread around to the people of America that need it. Do you remember the good hero "Robin Hood" ? He took from the rich and gave to the poor....well we thought it was good of Robin Hood, why can't we think it is good of our President to help the poor.

So...You don't pay any taxes yourself except for property taxes.
And... the one tax you have to pay you complain because it's too high.

And yet you are angry because someone else didn't have their taxes go up?

In a nutshell you are angry because something didn't happen to others that you already don't want to happen to you?

Anybody noticing a contradiction here?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

SS - which of these quotes are you disputing? These are well established quotes that you can find multiple sources for on the internet. None of these are disputed in any way.
I am just wondering what your thoughts are on them?
Especially on the one about his daughters being "punished" with a baby.

SS - still waiting for a response on this.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

So...You don't pay any taxes yourself except for property taxes.
And... the one tax you have to pay you complain because it's too high.

And yet you are angry because someone else didn't have their taxes go up?

In a nutshell you are angry because something didn't happen to others that you already don't want to happen to you?

Anybody noticing a contradiction here?

I notice it all the time.

And again.... I have yet to hear of a "poor" person giving someone a job.

[sandie]

Seascapes?

Are you out there?

[sandie]

bump for Seascapes

[sandie]

Originally Posted by sandie

bump for Seascapes

Since you're on line....

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by Seascapes

For the 2% of the most wealthy people of America, which they said and it is documented, that they do not need a tax break, that is what our President was wanting to spread around to the people of America that need it. Do you remember the good hero "Robin Hood" ? He took from the rich and gave to the poor....well we thought it was good of Robin Hood, why can't we think it is good of our President to help the poor.

Interesting.

First, the government is not 'giving' the wealthy anything that they have not already worked for and earned. That is like a thief saying, after taking a person's wallet, "I'm 'giving' you a buck for car fare so you can get home." The thief 'gave' the victim what?

The legend of Robin Hood is that he stole from those in privileged positions of power, who took by force of arms the wealth generated by others and used it for their own pleasure. President Obama is no Robin Hood, he more akin to the Sheriff of Nottingham. The prime difference between President Obama and the Sheriff of Nottingham is that Obama doesn't keep that much for himself, yet he still leads the privileged few who takes the wealth of others by force of arms, and gives it (redistribution) to those who have not earned it. [That is not part of God's scriptural economic plan.] Now, I am looking for our own King Richard to come and set things right!

[A.W. Bowman]

Is the body of Christ (the church) instructed to care for the poor and the hurting? Absolutely!

It is a personal, spiritual mandate and a moral responsibility. It was never meant to be included as part of the government's responsibility in a God directed society, except as part of the Temple tithing (flat tax) and field gleaning options (flexible tax, voluntary amount) systems.

Family, even an extended family, carried the primary responsibility to care for it own, even to it own widows (see the story of Ruth as an example of both gleaning and supporting). However, with the destruction of the family unit, we have the government taking over the role of national 'parent'. A role that no impersonal government can adequately fulfill.

[BeenThinkin]

Sam! Great post. Seascapes....pathetic! HaShaliach...great! Seascapes....pathetic! Sandie...excellent! Seascapes....pathetic! RandyWayne ! Seascapes .....pathetic! aegsm76 ! Seascapes...pathetic! Digging4Truth....right on! Seascapes....pathetic! Coadie Seascapes....pathetic!

Somewhere I read????...... Oh yes, it was in the Bible....2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. I don't guess that means what it says does it Seascapes! Just a misprint in the KJV. Probably written by some far right Republican that was following Jesus.

It's hard for me to understand how some "intelligent????" people can write things like Seascape and others, write on AFF!

Is Seascape and others that echo what Seascape is saying really blind to the ultimate results of what the Democrats are doing or do they just not care about America?

BeenThinkin

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Is the body of Christ (the church) instructed to care for the poor and the hurting? Absolutely!

It is a personal, spiritual mandate and a moral responsibility. It was never meant to be included as part of the government's responsibility in a God directed society, except as part of the Temple tithing (flat tax) and field gleaning options (flexible tax, voluntary amount) systems.

Family, even an extended family, carried the primary responsibility to care for it own, even to it own widows (see the story of Ruth as an example of both gleaning and supporting). However, with the destruction of the family unit, we have the government taking over the role of national 'parent'. A role that no impersonal government can adequately fulfill.

And that is the point. Completely and utterly the point.