Uncategorized patrickmead on 23 Oct 2008 03:56 pm
It's All About Love, right?
Let’s all join the Obama camp this Halloween! When kids come to your house for candy, take some of their candy to give to kids who didn’t have the drive and determination to get off their couches. Tell them that we have to "redistribute the wealth." If they protest, tell them Joe Biden says they are unpatriotic.
In fact, let’s go farther than that. Let’s go into the homes where we are pretty sure there are stockpiles of candy and take it by force of law. We could then take a large portion for ourselves, staff, mailing privileges, ads, mistresses, handouts to cronies, etc. and take what is left and give it to those without candy… as long as a camera was looking. Then, we could talk to that camera and say that this proves WE have a heart. Anyone who disagrees with us is cold, callous, unchristian, and probably hates puppies.
Since we have to play the part of the government, it is not enough to merely say we are taking the candy and redistributing it to those who vote for us… I mean, the less fortunate. We have to walk the streets with guns and tanks to make sure the people know who is in charge. Following Obama, we could declare that all who do not work for us, The Great Redistributors, may not be armed. If they try to resist, or if they even express that they aren’t crazy about this idea, we can pull the media out of Joe the Plumber’s driveway and send them to the resister’s house (it’s not like they’re busy over at William Ayres’ place). The media will do our work for us, pawing through kindergarten homework, divorce decrees, tax records and other documents we, ourselves, hold in our facilities and claim are top secret. Each will be leaked as necessary until the resister’s are driven out like pariahs or cowed into submission, handing over the candy along with extra Tootsie Rolls as a fine for the trouble they’ve caused us.
Again, following Obama, we could tell the resisters that it could have been a LOT worse. Because of us, we have far, far fewer children out there needing candy. We are killing 4000 a day and are really up to capacity in our death clinics. We’ve even been known to leave some — who were born accidentally — in closets and tables to die. See? The resisters should thank us. If it wasn’t for us, there would be a LOT more babies out there for us to redistribute candy to! You’re welcome, resisters.
Oh… and we’re going to give candy to 95% of you and then increase the candy another 1 trillion pieces! I’m sure the 5% have it stashed somewhere. Of course, we will have to charge all of you something to recover our costs in getting the candy, but you understand that, right?
And you, there, in the back! Hand over that Snickers!
patrickmead
on 23 Oct 2008 at 4:25 pm # Luke
Wow, look at that impressive sarcasm. I think it’s a much better idea to ONLY give candy to the kids whose bags are already overflowing, and hope they’re nice enough to give some to their friends who are out working just as hard as them. Give me a break. Also, why did you sneak in an abortion comment in such a rhetorically sarcastic post? I, and other liberals, care about life issues too. Most of us wish we could get past the sarcasm that you seem to embrace here. “Choosing life” is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand (yes, 30,000) children dying globally each day (yes, EVERY DAY) of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and “pro-choice” and “pro-life” mantras from either side. Three-fourths of women who have an abortion say a primary reason is that they cannot afford to raise a child, so reducing poverty and supporting low-income women is a good place for our candidates to start. Recent research affirms that social and economic support for women and vulnerable families are effective solutions to lowering the abortion rate, including greater access to health care, poverty reduction, adoption reform, and pre- and postnatal care.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=43291343280&ref=mf
And how’s that been working out for you? Since liberals or despots control most of the world’s governments…. let’s blame freedom and capitalism for everything that’s going wrong! And you know what would fix it? Less freedom and more money!
on 23 Oct 2008 at 5:33 pm # Wes Woodell
lol!
on 23 Oct 2008 at 6:18 pm # Janet
I was going to ask Patrick how he really felt about the issues. Then I read the first response by Luke. Every work and life experience screams “YOU ARE WRONG”, Luke. I worked welfare in downtown Indianapolis. Young teens and their young mothers were so proud because the young teen was pregnant and would now get her own check. Women were excited to have another child to raise their monthly checks. They would sit there and tell me they didn’t “believe” in birth control because nature didn’t have birth control with the animals. One day I pointed out that if they mother didn’t feed them the young died. No other animal came in to do it for them. Go forward a few years and I’m a young married unable to become pregnant, but longing and craving for a child. God did grant an adoption in a way so wonderful only He could do it, but not before agency after agency said no. One agency finally said there were no babies because of abortion. About that time I was also working OB and seeing teens, single, coming in to deliver their babies. Medical bills to be paid for by Medicaid and don’t forget WIC. Let not the teen or teen parents cramp their life style and have to actually spend their money paying off a hospital bill or buying food. (And yes, I know there are some truly needy people who have no other resources.) A few years on down the road I’m working in the school system. Teen girls are showing their sonograms at lunch and telling others, “You know how to get you one.” And now I’m teaching a wonderful abstinence only program.
My anger is about gone. But abortion costs much more than the life of the unborn child. It has cost us the ability to cherish and value life. Abortion isn’t about the poverty level of the mother. Society has picked up bills for way too many years without any improvement. Abortion rates climb even while the hand outs increase. But life is what is cheep. And way too often it is parents with the government money that don’t take the sick child to the doctor or the eye doctor or give the sick child the medicine they didn’t have to pay for. Sorry Luke, you hit a nerve and you’re wrong.
on 23 Oct 2008 at 6:33 pm # Jonathan
Patrick,
I think you could have made your point without characterizing the bottom 95 % or the less fortunate are lazy, lacking drive and determination.
I didn’t. Obama names the 95% and I referred to that. Nobody said the 95% don’t have drive or determination… but remember that 45% of Americans don’t pay taxes and, — see other comments — some enjoy being third and fourth generation recipients of government largesse. And they vote for those who promise more.
on 23 Oct 2008 at 7:16 pm # Mark Hudson
Patrick,
Excellent post!
on 23 Oct 2008 at 8:43 pm # karin
On numerous occasions I have come across the same mentality that Janet speaks about. Thanks Patrick for another excellent post. Always something deep to think about and a great discussion starter with others.
on 23 Oct 2008 at 9:05 pm # Luke
My goal wasn’t to hit your nerve, Janet. Our life experiences surely effect the way we think, and I am sympathetic to that. We also tend to view our life experiences through the lenses of what we already believe. No matter how you look at it, your points (which are valid) are still anecdotal. I stand behind what I stated, which is based on actual research: “Recent research affirms that social and economic support for women and vulnerable families are effective solutions to lowering the abortion rate, including greater access to health care, poverty reduction, adoption reform, and pre- and postnatal care.” I could try to dig up the actual research if you are interested. I was first introduced to the research by a professor at Rochester College, and have been keeping up with it’s updates ever since. I, however, do not deny that the mentality you speak of exists. I also do not deny the fact that many people take advatage of well-meaning programs.
on 23 Oct 2008 at 9:29 pm # Luke
You wouldn’t be so rude and sarcastic with me if you could see my heart, as my Savior does. I don’t blame freedom for anything, I just think “with great power comes great responsibility” should be used as a catch phrase in this country for more than just an excuse to go to war. If you want me to stop commenting on your blog, I will respect that, but can’t we be civil in our discussions?
You mistake conversation for attack, Luke, but that is common in the left. You call for us to end world hunger but you also decry war. There will be no ending of world hunger until evil is toppled by force. So which is it? You want us to stop the evil in Darfur (as do I!) but you don’t like war. We’ve already done the sanctions thing, the United Nations thing (ad nauseum), etc. So what next? Remember Ethiopia in the 80’s? Hundreds of thousands were starving to death… during a period of time when there was more rain and better weather than anytime since the beginning of the century. The reason for the starvation was that evil men were in charge and no one would do the hard, bloody work of taking them out. So, we sang songs, shipped food that rotted on the docks, and the kids died. Leftism doesn’t work even though it might make you feel better. And leftism is, by its own nature, the most violent of all forms of government for it forces others to do what they do not want to do at the point of a gun. I’ve written about that extensively. Chill, Luke. We can discuss things here without attacking and when we have fun it might sound like sarcasm and attack but it isn’t.
on 23 Oct 2008 at 10:14 pm # Greg England
Can’t say I disagree with you! I would say to Luke that one can find “research” to pretty much back up any position one wants to take on any issue. At the risk of being way off subject, Dr. Spock had his “research” to back up his philosophy on child rearing and came back in his later years to say he was wrong. But he had his “research!” I spent five years in graduate school … I learned how to do research and did research. The first thing one learns in “research” is to make sure your data supports your conclusions! Research has to be almost counter-intuitive to what we either already believe or want to believe.
Fact is, hardly no one is calling politician on anything … on either side!
on 23 Oct 2008 at 10:15 pm # Greg England
Oops … last sentence should be “politicians” and I have the research to back that up.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 1:25 am # Robert
Poor Luke with the good heart that no one can see. Surely he realizes that big government and decimated families go hand in hand. The more our families deteriorate the more we need big government and all their shallow solutions, and the tapeworm grows and grows. We as a nation have abandoned personal morality and responsibility and put band aids on cancerous issues that are destroying us. People need to be taught from youth that you can not reverse decisions and that all actions have life long consequences. Of course there is grace and forgiveness, but some scars never had to be there in the first place. Prolonging victimization while waiting for a savior from Washington always ends in disillusionment, and more of the same. The gospel is the only answer. Politicians will usually be politicians. (poly = many + tic = blood sucking parasite) Oh, Patrick, as for any candy thrown in my bag from whatever source, I consume immediately, and I take medication for my diabetes.
I mostly liked the cartoon that I am forwarding to all the democrats on my e-mail list – not really, I don’t have any democrat friends I know of!
on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:07 am # Mike
I thought the left was in favor of civil unrest, but you recoil at a few words of disagreement. Are you sure the Savior holds your position on the taking of innocent human life? You judge being “rude and sarcastic” as a major sin, while defending the killing unborn babies is a virtue. Book, capter and verse please.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:09 am # Marlene
I think you got your commentary “right On”, Patrick! Keep up the good work!!
on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:35 am # James
Thanks for the post, Patrick! And for so eloquently dealing with bleeding-heart liberal Luke!
P.S. Did you see Alan Hirsch’s (author of “Forgotten Ways” and “Shaping Of Things To Come”) recent posts about the election?
Obama or McCain? It’s a no brainer! Makes me sad …
on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:51 am # Ginger Thompson
I’m in the health care industry and have seen all kinds of people. Yes, there are those who take advantage, and there are those who are in sincere need of help. I disagree with the government being responsible for these people, though. Jesus holds US responsible for them (Matt. 25: 31-46).
Families and congregations need to be the ones to take care of these people. When government takes more and more of our taxes, we have less money to use for these purposes and our tax money is used by whoever has the loudest voice or the most influence in Washington.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:56 am # Donna
Wow! Now that is the scariest Halloween tale I have ever heard!
on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:31 am # Wes Woodell
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ” I need money.” Once in the restaurant my server worked very hard in serving me.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need– the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 10:01 am # Jim Shelton
Patrick, I offered to do the same thing with grades in the economics class I am teaching this semester in London. I called it a “grade security program” that would insure those making the lowest grades would at least have a grade high enough to survive by taxing the exam scores of the “most fortunate” and redistributing the points to the “academic victims and downtrodden.” Funny, but no one in the class seemed to want to operate under that system.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 10:50 am # Kyle Brice
Wes, I’m sure it was just a slip, but at the end of the story, you said the actual recipient “deserved” money more. Did they really “deserve” it more?
on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:19 am # Luke
Did the waiter make over $250,000? Just checking
on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:33 am # Luke
Your criticism may be of liberals in general, but not of me. I support wars that are just, and are done as a last resort. I am not a pacifist. The only thing I’ve said about war is that it’s a life issue, and that it’s rally slogans have been misguided at times. As far as me feeling attacked, maybe you’re right. Perhaps I’m just over-sensitive. I do, after all, hug trees, right? My friend, who is a Christian and a libertarian, felt like I overreacted to the original post but that you were rude in your response to me. Either way, while I enjoy the baptism stories, your political posts appear to bring out the worst in me, so I will respectfully bow out. I’ll still be keeping it in the family though, because Josh’s blog is currently helping me a lot in my personal journey with Jesus.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:39 am # Luke
I don’t defend the killing of unborn babies in the slightest bit, nor do any of the Sojourners writers.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:45 am # Jim Shelton
I tried a similar idea with my econ class I am teaching in London this fall. I called it a “grade security program.” I told them I would tax the scores of the “more advantaged” students and give points to the “academically needy.” However, I couldn’t get the class to go along with it.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 12:45 pm # Philip
Funny cartoon.
I also like the response cartoon where the kids are lined up outside a mansion patiently waiting with empty bags for the candy to trickle down.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 1:19 pm # RTR
Luke: We’re on the same page!
As for being told I’m unpatriotic, I’ve gotten that for 8 years by republicans because I don’t support the killing in Iraq.
Janet, why do you think you have to adopt an infant? There are plenty of children to be adopted.
I believe her context was abortion, therefore “infant.” My family has adopted people of all ages except infancy. Not everyone has the constitution for that kind of leap of faith!
on 24 Oct 2008 at 1:32 pm # Sara
Excellent post. I would like to say to Luke that it’s petty and childish to say that you’ll “keep it in the family” and read Josh’s blog. There is nothing wrong with reading his blog, but there is no need for that rudeness. Go ahead and take your dolly and go home.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 2:59 pm # Danny Gill
Did it occur to you that Janet wanted to adopt an infant? Is there something wrong with that desire?
on 24 Oct 2008 at 3:49 pm # Luke
WHOA! Sara, I say this with all sincerity: I’m sorry! I definitely did not mean that to come across rude at all. Seriously. Patrick, I was just “agreeing to disagree” and trying to bow out, and I meant it to be a good thing that I was complimenting Josh. I apologize.
No need to bow out, Luke. I know you have a good heart and I don’t mind the disagreement.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 5:26 pm # Wes Woodell
Depends on who you ask. The man likely to be elected our new President seems to think so.
on 24 Oct 2008 at 5:37 pm # Luke
I appreciate that, Patrick, I really do. I’m choosing not to comment on the political entries anymore for my own good though. I really do enjoy the baptism stories
on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:02 pm # Les Ferguson, Jr.
All the good stuff we might do in the name of big government is flawed if it is broken at the core. Abortion is a foundation that is corrupt–and it corrupts the system itself…
on 25 Oct 2008 at 1:00 am # Odgie
I agree that Christians, collectively and individually, should be taking the lead, even setting the standard, as far as charity goes. However, we continue to miss out on opportunities great and small. I know far too many Christians who own McMansions and summer homes, drive Mercedes and Cadillacs, and generally take the good life to the furthest extreme. Likewise, churches are spending their money on hiring more and more staff for every job that believers should be doing as part of their discipleship, and building bigger, more elaborate “worship centers,” gymnasiums, and hiring church growth consultants. So who is going to fill that gap? Who is going to compensate for our deriliction of Christian duty?
on 25 Oct 2008 at 8:43 am # David
Good story except for one thing, we say we are going to take the candy from the top 5% to redistribute to the other 95% when in fact we increase the candy burden on those who collect the median amount of candy and redistribute that to the lower candy gatherers.
We then plan to place a much larger candy burden on the median candy earners, then only demand a portion of the increase that we wanted to place on them and tell them that we reduced their candy tax! And half of the median candy earners ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you reduced our candy tax burden.
on 25 Oct 2008 at 9:17 am # Mommynator
(Mr. Burns style)
Eeeeeexcellent!
on 25 Oct 2008 at 3:18 pm # Keith Brenton
Ah, my pal Val has just the thing for this post!
on 25 Oct 2008 at 4:21 pm # Pat Fox
The question about Obama’s tax plan is how can our economy handle an increase in taxes when businesses in pretty much every sector are struggling to make profits? How does increasing the taxes for business owners/corporations translate to greater revenue for the government when the burden is already high to stay in business?
We’ve just written a check well over a trillion dollars of government bailouts (our money) between Banks, Insurance companies, brokerage firms & auto companies, etc. what happens when we strap businesses with even a greater hurdle?..It’s called disaster! first off he’s going to restate the tax cut Bush gave us so this automatically raises everybody’s taxes (who were eligible to pay). Second, businesses paying more taxes with declining revenues means more layoffs and more people collecting unemployment, this is the worst thing we can do in this fragile economy.
If we could just stop this class envy stuff and lower the capital gains tax (or get rid of it for a period of time) and allow investors an incentive to buy up a lot of these properties and invest in new businesses you would see our burden for the bailout lowered and our economy strengthen by private money coming into the market. But common sense never seems to play in Washington.
A constant law we must always recognise is; Governments are ALWAYS a cost of sale, they NEVER create revenue, they can only TAKE revenue from businesses & citizens. Now is not the time to increase the tax burden when revenues are in the decline.
on 26 Oct 2008 at 11:31 pm # Laurie
Hey Patrick: What are YOU gonna do? I already ate that snickers!!!!
on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:29 am # Jonathan
Maybe you didn’t explicitly intend to make that implication but that is what your analogy does…you’re criticizing the “Obama camp” using the Halloween analogy including “…take some of their candy to give to kids who didn’t have the drive and determination to get off their couches” or as the cartoon says “give it to kids who were too lazy to go trick or treating for themselves”. Those “kids” are the bottom 95 % in the Obama plan. I’m suggesting that it is preferable not to imply, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the bottom 45 % or 95 % or whatever can be fairly labeled as a group as lazy or unmotivated.
on 27 Oct 2008 at 1:30 pm # Brie
I’m in the first year of an M.A. program to get my grad school degree in Political Science and am taking a class on the relationship between non-profits and the government. It’s the first political science class I’ve taken (and I’ve had LOTS) where the professor doesn’t entertain arguments (even logical ones) that lead to a conclusion that she disagrees with. We were discussing provision of services by the government, and someone started talking about how supposedly in England a nanny comes to help you out when you get home from the hospital with your newborn and how wonderful it would be if our government “cared that much.”
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this actually happens or not, I piped up with “Maybe I’m a psycho-conservative chick, but I don’t think the government has a responsibility to send someone to take care of my baby, and I don’t think I’d let someone in the house if they did show up.” That led to a “discussion” about what role the government has. And I found out that I’m much more of a little-l libertarian than I thought I was, at least in reference to where the rest of my class (except for a few people) were. It’s been interesting, to say the least.
It’s worth noting that in that class, in the political arena, in the media, anywhere, just calling someone else a name doesn’t do much good. I don’t think that everyone to the left of me is a crazy, marshmallow soft liberal. Some are, but some aren’t. I don’t agree with their political philosophies or ideas about the appropriate role of government vs. the individual most of the time, but I don’t want to make fun of them either. I know how much it ticks me off when I say “Well, I’m interested in Candidate X’s policies, but it’s not going to make a difference in my vote, because I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate.” and people in my class look at me and snicker. It’s much easier to have an honest debate- a real one, not a stump speech interrupted with questions from a moderator from time to time- if I’m not getting my metaphorical skivvies in a wad about the fact that you are more conservative/liberal/seriously voting for Nader? when I’m not.
Stepping off the soapbox now.
on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:03 am # Chad Bircher
I don’t like that the cartoon picks out democrats. I think the Medicare expansion, no child left behind program, and farm bill all fall into this category and are not necessarily democrat bills. I think politicians in general think they have to take from someone and give to someone else, otherwise what would they do with their time?
Chad, you have a valid point. Thanks for making it.
on 28 Oct 2008 at 11:23 am # Wes Woodell
Agreed.
on 29 Oct 2008 at 9:49 am # Kyle Brice
Did the restrauant’s owner who may have to fire the waiter because he has to cut the budget to make way for the increased payroll taxes make over $250,000?