Is Obama the second coming of Jesus Christ or is he merely Christ-like?

tokeprep said:

How can you possibly say "Jesus supported taxes...especially those that might go to feed the poor"?

Click to expand...

so you think jesus supports poll taxes but takes objection to food stamps?



you must be from the south.

tokeprep said:

I'm not arguing that paying taxes is giving to the poor.

Click to expand...

then how are social security checks funded? medicare? medicaid? section 8? food stamps? heating assistance? child care programs?

tokeprep said:

only a tiny portion of federal tax dollars goes toward supporting the poor

Click to expand...

wrong again.

tokeprep said:

I said work is necessary for humans to survive and thus not truly voluntary. Accordingly, taxation cannot possibly be construed as voluntary either, because people don't choose to be taxed--they have no choice, they need to work.

Click to expand...

if all that is true, then explain why there are so many righty morons complaining about "the 47%" who don't work or pay taxes, yet somehow remain alive and nourished?

tokeprep said:

I have to work (or become a welfare sponge...)

Click to expand...

sounds like you have a choice then. thanks for conceding my point, yet again.

UncleBuck said:

so you think jesus supports poll taxes but takes objection to food stamps?



you must be from the south.

Click to expand...

I think it's wrong to say Jesus supports taxes, based on that text. Jesus merely said it was lawful to pay taxes to state authorities. You don't see the gulf between "Yeah, that's lawful" and "Yeah, I support that!"? Evidently not.

then how are social security checks funded? medicare? medicaid? section 8? food stamps? heating assistance? child care programs?

Click to expand...

I didn't say taxpayer money wasn't ever spent on the poor. I said paying taxes isn't giving to the poor. I already explained why: it's not charity. Paying taxes is handing over your money involuntarily to the federal government because the law demands it under penalty of financial ruin or imprisonment. Since most of the money has nothing to do with the poor, it makes no sense to say paying taxes is "giving to the poor." In reality, paying taxes is primarily funding the military, paying interest on the debt, and paying Social Security and Medicare benefits to people who wouldn't be poor without them.

wrong again.

Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point graphically. As you can see, I'm not wrong. You are. You're assuming that all that Social Security and Medicare money is going to poor people. That's totally baseless and flat out wrong.

Edit: Here's your problem with SS specifically, Buck. Payments are based on lifetime earnings. The people with the highest lifetime earnings get the biggest benefits. People with the lowest lifetime earnings get the lowest benefits. I just ran a benefit calculator and found that making $15,000 per year I'd get a check for ~$5,500 a month at retirement (inflated future dollars, that's why it's so large). If I made $100,000 a year, my benefit check would more than triple. I get to draw this even though I was making $100,000 a year and presumably have socked away tons of cash. The pauper gets shit.

if all that is true, then explain why there are so many righty morons complaining about "the 47%" who don't work or pay taxes, yet somehow remain alive and nourished?

Click to expand...

Romney didn't say "the 47%" didn't work, only that they didn't pay federal income taxes. That's true. Most of those people don't owe any income tax because of child credits, education credits, the EITC, etc. The 47% are working people, not sponges. That's how they remain alive and nourished. If the "righty morons" disagree with that I couldn't possibly tell you why.

sounds like you have a choice then. thanks for conceding my point, yet again.

Click to expand...

As an individual I could be a welfare sponge. In aggregate, the millions in the labor force supposedly choosing to work and be taxed cannot be welfare sponges--again, as I've already explained, as you already read and ignored--because the welfare system couldn't possibly support them. That's where your argument dies. Since everyone cannot possibly choose to be on welfare, work must not be a choice.

tokeprep said:

In reality, paying taxes is primarily funding the military, paying interest on the debt, and paying Social Security and Medicare benefits to people who wouldn't be poor without them.

Click to expand...

military and interest on the debt is ~23%. that's not primarily.

and over half of seniors rely on social security as their primary (notice how i actually use that word properly) source of income.

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2012/Social-Security-Whos-Counting-on-It-fs-252-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf

add medicare to that and it gets even higher.

then consider medicaid. and welfare. and unemployment assistance. and food stamps. and heating assistance. and child care. and section 8. and so on and so forth.

you've already conceded that you choose to work and pay taxes rather than live on welfare, and thus it is a choice. now you are destroying what little remains of your failure of an argument by not bothering to get your numbers anywhere even close to right.

seriously, just give up.

UncleBuck said:

military and interest on the debt is ~23%. that's not primarily.

Click to expand...

You're right, the way you formulated it, that's not "primarily." But I included SS and Medicare payments to people who weren't poor in my statement. You didn't, so obviously you got a different number.

and over half of seniors rely on social security as their primary (notice how i actually use that word properly) source of income.

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2012/Social-Security-Whos-Counting-on-It-fs-252-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf

add medicare to that and it gets even higher.

Click to expand...

I'll paste my edit on SS above since I don't think you saw it: Here's your problem with SS specifically, Buck. Payments are based on lifetime earnings. The people with the highest lifetime earnings get the biggest benefits. People with the lowest lifetime earnings get the lowest benefits. I just ran a benefit calculator and found that making $15,000 per year I'd get a check for ~$5,500 a month at retirement (inflated future dollars, that's why it's so large). If I made $100,000 a year, my benefit check would more than triple. I get to draw this even though I was making $100,000 a year and presumably have socked away tons of cash. The pauper gets shit.

Everyone over a certain age gets Medicare, rich, poor, and in between. Again, crunch the numbers and you'll find that a lot of the money isn't going to poor people. Nowhere near the amount you want to believe.

then consider medicaid. and welfare. and unemployment assistance. and food stamps. and heating assistance. and child care. and section 8. and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that actually doesn't add up to very much when you count EVERYTHING ELSE that you're ignoring. I went down the budget agency by agency to formulate my argument, so you're not going to get me there. I already looked and added it up.

you've already conceded that you choose to work and pay taxes rather than live on welfare, and thus it is a choice. now you are destroying what little remains of your failure of an argument by not bothering to get your numbers anywhere even close to right.

seriously, just give up.

Click to expand...

Right, as an individual. We aren't talking about individuals. You said all work is voluntary, and you said that all people have a choice between work and welfare. This cannot possibly be true. I've explained why twice now: the welfare system could not possibly support these people. Thus welfare cannot be a choice for them, in aggregate, because it could not exist if everyone was on it. Thus there is no choice for the labor force in aggregate.

Why would I give up? I'm destroying you on this.

tokeprep said:

You're right, the way you formulated it, that's not "primarily." But I included SS and Medicare payments to people who weren't poor in my statement. You didn't, so obviously you got a different number.

Click to expand...

so we're at ~23%. SS is ~20%, and half of all people who collect rely on it as their primary source of income (in other words, without it they'd be dirt poor and destitute).

so now were at ~33% if i'm being generous. add another 6% or so (half of all medicare, again being generous) and we're still not at 40%.

40% is still not "primarily".

you fail, yet again. another good reason not to learn math in the south, or english for that matter.

tokeprep said:

Yeah, that actually doesn't add up to very much when you count EVERYTHING ELSE that you're ignoring.

Click to expand...

yeah, a full 16% of the entire budget is not "very much", but 40% is "primarily".

wanna know how i know you were "educated" in the south? (<---educated is to be understood in a very loose fashion there)

tokeprep said:

You said all work is voluntary, and you said that all people have a choice between work and welfare. This cannot possibly be true. I've explained why twice now: the welfare system could not possibly support these people. Thus welfare cannot be a choice for them, in aggregate, because it could not exist if everyone was on it.

Click to expand...

it's a good thing so many people CHOOSE to work then.

tokeprep said:

Why would I give up? I'm destroying you on this.

Click to expand...

if that were the case you would not need to try to convince yourself of it.

UncleBuck said:

so we're at ~23%. SS is ~20%, and half of all people who collect rely on it as their primary source of income (in other words, without it they'd be dirt poor and destitute).

so now were at ~33% if i'm being generous. add another 6% or so (half of all medicare, again being generous) and we're still not at 40%.

40% is still not "primarily".

you fail, yet again. another good reason not to learn math in the south, or english for that matter.






yeah, a full 16% of the entire budget is not "very much", but 40% is "primarily".

wanna know how i know you were "educated" in the south? (<---educated is to be understood in a very loose fashion there)



it's a good thing so many people CHOOSE to work then.



if that were the case you would not need to try to convince yourself of it.

Click to expand...

Even our homeless live like kings compared to 90%+ of the world's population. You're full of shit.

Unless you're batshit nuts, the rest are homeless by choice.

But please continue about your racism and feminist garbage.

Canna Sylvan said:

You're full of shit.

Click to expand...

convincing rejoinder, rabbit.

perhaps you'd like to dispute AARP's numbers or the basic figures of the united states budget.

UncleBuck said:

so we're at ~23%. SS is ~20%, and half of all people who collect rely on it as their primary source of income (in other words, without it they'd be dirt poor and destitute).

so now were at ~33% if i'm being generous. add another 6% or so (half of all medicare, again being generous) and we're still not at 40%.

40% is still not "primarily".

you fail, yet again. another good reason not to learn math in the south, or english for that matter.

yeah, a full 16% of the entire budget is not "very much", but 40% is "primarily".

Click to expand...

Surely you realize the flaw in your "primary source of income" number. The maximum monthly SS benefit a couple could obtain is presently more than $5,000. If they had $4,000 in other monthly income, SS would still be their primary source of income. According to you, this couple with $9,000 in monthly income would be poor if SS disappeared. Let's be more realistic and say a couple's monthly benefit is $3,000 combined and that they have $2,500 in other monthly income. Again, even without the benefit, this couple would not be poor, despite SS being their "primary source of income." You are vastly overestimating the number of seniors who would be "poor" without SS.

Edit: Another point about source of income: it ignores assets. I could have $2 million in the bank and SS could still be my primary source of income.

As for "primarily": maybe you didn't realize this, but your chart is an old budget. I used the latest ones in formulating my numbers. Again, since we used different numbers, obviously we got different results. Defense spending in 2014, for example, is 21% of the budget. Your chart put it at less than 19%. Likewise, interest on the debt was less than 5% in your chart; this year it's likely to exceed 7%. SS and Medicare, similarly, are much larger programs now than they are on your chart. Add it all up and you easily cross 50%.

wanna know how i know you were "educated" in the south? (<---educated is to be understood in a very loose fashion there)

Click to expand...

I wasn't educated in the south.

it's a good thing so many people CHOOSE to work then.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that your logical construction of that argument has failed you.

if that were the case you would not need to try to convince yourself of it.

Click to expand...

I don't need any convincing.

Canna Sylvan said:

Even our homeless live like kings compared to 90%+ of the world's population. You're full of shit.

Unless you're batshit nuts, the rest are homeless by choice.

But please continue about your racism and feminist garbage.

Click to expand...

Buck and I haven't even reached what constitutes "poor," which doesn't surprise me because it would further chip away at every point he's tried to make. Jesus' idea of "poor" was vastly different from what "poor" means in the United States today. Being poor in this country tends to mean you have plenty of food to eat, a roof over your head, utilities (electricity, water, internet, cable), appliances and consumer electronics, your own source of transportation, etc., etc., etc. Poor people, generally, have exceedingly high standards of living and vast amounts of material wealth relative to their ancient counterparts. In short, I doubt Jesus would consider the average American "poor" person to be poor at all.

Edit: To clarify, I think Jesus would be far more concerned with the poor who are sick and starving to death than with the American "poor" who have to settle for an iPhone 4 instead of an iPhone 5. This is another nail in the nonsensical "Taxation is giving to the poor" assertion.

Don't you know, Uncle Bucky knows everything about everything and everybody everywhere everytime all the time. He probably considers himself the second coming. What a douche.

all I want to say the Obama care sent my car insurance up and medical insurance up. next year im sighing up for mediecare free insurance for pore people , I had my own insurance for 16 years no longer can afford it because of the Obama care . so I have no choice but to get totally free insurance. this Obama care is killing us !

Well, diesel, this seems appropriate somehow.

What I've got you've got to give it to your mamma
What I've got you've got to give it to your pappa
What I've got you've got to give it to your daughter
You do a little dance and then you drink a little water

What I've got you've got to get it put it in you
What I've got you've got to get it put it in you
What I've got you've got to get it put it in you
Reeling with the feeling don't stop continue

Realize I don't want to be a miser
Confide w/sly you'll be the wiser
Young blood is the lovin' upriser
How come everybody wanna keep it like the kaiser

[Chorus]
Give it away give it away give it away give it away now
Give it away give it away give it away give it away now
Give it away give it away give it away give it away now
I can't tell if I'm a kingpin or a pauper

Greedy little people in a sea of distress
Keep your more to receive your less
Unimpressed by material excess
Love is free love me say hell yes

I'm a low brow but I rock a little know how
No time for the piggies or the hoosegow
Get smart get down with the pow wow
Never been a better time than right now

Bob Marley poet and a prophet
Bob Marley taught me how to off it
Bob Marley walkin' like he talk it
Goodness me can't you see I'm gonna cough it

[Chorus]

Lucky me swimmin' in my ability
Dancin' down on life with agility
Come and drink it up from my fertility
Blessed with a bucket of lucky mobility

My mom I love her 'cause she love me
Long gone are the times when she scrub me
Feelin' good my brother gonna hug me
Drink my juice young love chug-a-lug me

There's a river born to be a giver
Keep you warm won't let you shiver
His heart is never gonna wither
Come on everybody time to deliver

tokeprep said:

Buck and I haven't even reached what constitutes "poor," which doesn't surprise me because it would further chip away at every point he's tried to make. Jesus' idea of "poor" was vastly different from what "poor" means in the United States today. Being poor in this country tends to mean you have plenty of food to eat, a roof over your head, utilities (electricity, water, internet, cable), appliances and consumer electronics, your own source of transportation, etc., etc., etc. Poor people, generally, have exceedingly high standards of living and vast amounts of material wealth relative to their ancient counterparts. In short, I doubt Jesus would consider the average American "poor" person to be poor at all.

Edit: To clarify, I think Jesus would be far more concerned with the poor who are sick and starving to death than with the American "poor" who have to settle for an iPhone 4 instead of an iPhone 5. This is another nail in the nonsensical "Taxation is giving to the poor" assertion.

Click to expand...

kinda sounds to me like you're trying to repeat that old report from either cato or heritage that showed how sweet "poor" people have it because a full 96% of them have a fridge! and another 85% of them have a microwave!

how can you be poor if you can heat AND cool your own food!?!

these "poor" people just need to quit their complaining and start realizing that those tax breaks for the rich are gonna eventually trickle down to them.

kinddiesel said:

all I want to say the Obama care sent my car insurance up and medical insurance up. next year im sighing up for mediecare free insurance for pore people , I had my own insurance for 16 years no longer can afford it because of the Obama care . so I have no choice but to get totally free insurance. this Obama care is killing us !

Click to expand...

health care costs in this nation have been steady for the last 3-4 years, then your car insurance goes up, and you blame obama?

the republic is doomed.

UncleBuck said:

kinda sounds to me like you're trying to repeat that old report from either cato or heritage that showed how sweet "poor" people have it because a full 96% of them have a fridge! and another 85% of them have a microwave!

how can you be poor if you can heat AND cool your own food!?!

these "poor" people just need to quit their complaining and start realizing that those tax breaks for the rich are gonna eventually trickle down to them.

Click to expand...

I'll make this really simple for you: I'm not trying to say that at all. I don't care how many "poor" people have fridges or microwaves. What I do care about is the share of income spent on necessities like food and lodging now versus in the past. Poor people in the past had to spend a far larger share of their incomes on those necessities. Now they have substantially more money to devote to voluntary consumption. That's why quality of life has improved so much.

Relative to the American poor of the past, today's "poor" live in astonishing comfort, devoting substantial portions of their incomes to entertainment rather than survival, and, as I already said, have substantially more material wealth. This is indisputable.

tokeprep said:

I'll make this really simple for you: I'm not trying to say that at all. I don't care how many "poor" people have fridges or microwaves. What I do care about is the share of income spent on necessities like food and lodging now versus in the past. Poor people in the past had to spend a far larger share of their incomes on those necessities. Now they have substantially more money to devote to voluntary consumption. That's why quality of life has improved so much.

Relative to the American poor of the past, today's "poor" live in astonishing comfort, devoting substantial portions of their incomes to entertainment rather than survival, and, as I already said, have substantially more material wealth. This is indisputable.

Click to expand...

whatever you need to switch to in order to attempt a salvage at your primarily fucked argument, kiddo.

UncleBuck said:

whatever you need to switch to in order to attempt a salvage at your primarily fucked argument, kiddo.

Click to expand...

Pitiful evasion of substance there, kiddo. No one switched anything. You're the one who's steadily dropped point after point after point after being confronted with figures and logic. You're the one who's resorted to using old data and ignoring pieces of my sentences to pretend I said things that didn't make any sense. We see right through it.

tokeprep said:

Pitiful evasion of substance there, kiddo. No one switched anything. You're the one who's steadily dropped point after point after point after being confronted with figures and logic. You're the one who's resorted to using old data and ignoring pieces of my sentences to pretend I said things that didn't make any sense. We see right through it.

Click to expand...

let's see here.

you've already conceded that work/paying taxes is voluntary, that you could be a welfare sponge, that no one has a gun to your head forcing you to work.

you've already conceded that jesus had no problem with poll taxes, but you somehow delude yourself into thinking that he would have a problem with food stamp taxes. unfortunately for you, jesus is not a racist southerner like you.

then you tried to switch the argument to "taxes don't help the poor!". but a huge amount of taxation does go to helping the poor (or, as the AARP numbers demonstrate, keep people from being poor in the first place).

then you tried to massage the numbers and redefine what being poor is. because we all know you can't be poor if you have an $8 a month netflix account and a computer worth $100 to watch your movies on, right?

you've been steadily running away from the main point of this thread. jesus would have no problem with taxes that go to help the poor, and no one is forcing you to sign a W4.

go cry somewhere else about how that black kid took your spot at ITT tech and you had to settle for devryU.

UncleBuck said:

let's see here.

you've already conceded that work/paying taxes is voluntary, that you could be a welfare sponge, that no one has a gun to your head forcing you to work.

Click to expand...

Your argument wasn't about me. Your argument was that all work and all payment of taxes is voluntary. I conceded only the individual case, not the aggregate one, but your assertion was about the aggregate, not about me!

you've already conceded that jesus had no problem with poll taxes, but you somehow delude yourself into thinking that he would have a problem with food stamp taxes. unfortunately for you, jesus is not a racist southerner like you.

Click to expand...

I never conceded any such thing. I said Jesus saw no religious issue with payment of taxes to state authorities, meaning you can't raise "I'm a Jew" as a defense to your civil tax bill. Jesus, in the text, says nothing about the merits of the poll tax or any other tax.

then you tried to switch the argument to "taxes don't help the poor!". but a huge amount of taxation does go to helping the poor (or, as the AARP numbers demonstrate, keep people from being poor in the first place).

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's be clear about this. I said Jesus wanted the rich to help the poor voluntarily, not to do so because of government command. You responded by saying taxes were voluntary and thus satisfied Jesus' desire. That's why I raised the issue of most tax money having nothing to do with helping the poor. I never switched anything, I merely responded to your argument. Whether payment of taxes is voluntary or not--YOUR ARGUMENT--is irrelevant if the payments don't constitute charity anyway.

then you tried to massage the numbers and redefine what being poor is. because we all know you can't be poor if you have an $8 a month netflix account and a computer worth $100 to watch your movies on, right?

Click to expand...

Actually you're the one redefining what being poor is. The billions of other people who lived in the thousands of years before us would not recognize the people you're calling "poor" as poor. The modern "poor" are better off than a lot of well-to-do and wealthy people in the past. They are not poor.

You know who is poor, Buck? The millions of people alive in this world right now who haven't eaten in days because they can't afford food. I think Jesus would be far more concerned with helping those people than with ensuring that the American "poor" get cell phone service and beer money. Your pretending otherwise is rather perplexing.

you've been steadily running away from the main point of this thread. jesus would have no problem with taxes that go to help the poor, and no one is forcing you to sign a W4.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no textual support for your assertion that Jesus supported taxation for any purpose. In the text we've been discussing Jesus merely stated that there was no religious issue with paying taxes to civil authorities.

You've been displaying your ignorance about the context of the "render unto Caesar" passages throughout this entire discussion. Jewish tax resistance based on religious objection was a huge issue in Jesus' time. That is the subject discussed in the text, not the merits of taxation.

And yet again, signing a W4 is meaningless, having nothing to do with your obligation to pay taxes. You owe taxes whether you sign a W4 or not. You seriously think you get to skip out on taxes by not signing a W4?

what a pile of failure.

the poor aren't poor. signing a tax withholding agreement has nothing to do with having taxes withheld. jesus said to pay poll taxes but would disapprove of food stamp taxes. you have to work but you can choose to not work.

too much failure. failure overload failure.