Bush touts religion as a solution to drug addiction

[John Ho]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=534&e=1&cid=534&u=/ap/20030128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/religion_drug_treatment

Wasn't Bush all about lowering the amount of govt. spending? I can understand increased spending due to 9/11 issues but why should my tax money go to a bunch of religious organizations? Is this guy for lower spending or just lower spending on stuff he doesn't understand or has never been around. He guts environmental laws but is also a nature lover. Of course, the elite Bush has grown up around will always have unspoiled terrain to appreciate due to their wealth but common people may not have that luxury if things keep going this way. Does Bush realize this and not care or does he just not give a rat's ass?
Bush is one of the worst Presidents of all time. What does he stand for when he does crap like this? He is lucky he has so much political capital from 9/11. Let's face it, you could put a junior high kid as President and he/she would know to kick Afghanistan's ass after 9/11. I can't believe that last year I thought he was doing great. The more and more I see of him the more I'm sure the stereotype of him (dumb and elitist) is accurate.
BTW, I don't blame Bush for the economy. This is part of the natural economic cycle. You don't get a boom like we had in the 90s without a sharp cutback to compensate for all the excesses.

[Ray Zee]

1.isnt this similar to what the hard line muslims do to their people. use religon to keep them under control.
2.he doesnt give a rats ass. and he is not a nature lover. he loves oil comany people with their money and power.
3. i think maybe milard filmore will still be ranked lower than him.

[Chris Alger]

It makes more sense of you think of our political system as a marketplace for dollars instead of ideas. In fact, to an extent, the faith-based initiave is an old-fashioned kickback, like the way Republicans raise campaign funds by requesting a portion of the most recent tax cut be funnelled to those responsible.

Look at the components: The religious right solidly supports Bush. Governments control a huge and growing market for diversion and therapy programs for substance abuse, domestic violence and the like.

The "faith-based" initiative amounts to certifying conservative religious groups so they can receive a piece of the action, put their pastors on salary as "administrators" and "recovery guidance counselors" and so forth Of course, there also are ideological benefits: it furthers the campaign to confuse scripture and science, it's a sop to those offended by the primacy of secular therapy and if puts some of the the lumpenproletariat directly under the thumb of the religious right.

[John Ho]

And US Grant might be lower too. WH Harrison I believe only served 30 days. But at least he didn't f*!% everything up.
I think it's possible he may not realize that he is furthering the interests of only a few. He may just be too dumb to realize that he has been brainwashed by them as well.

After, this power structure is what allowed him to goof off and be a drunk until he was 40 and then become "independently" wealthy, governor, and President all in a relatively short time frame. He may be the guy who was born on 3rd and truly believes he hit a homer.

[John Cole]

Some wag might comment that religion is, indeed, already a form of drug addiction--but not me.

John

[HDPM]

It makes more sense of you think of our political system as a marketplace for
dollars instead of ideas. In fact, to an extent, the faith-based initiave is an
old-fashioned kickback, like the way Republicans raise campaign funds by
requesting a portion of the most recent tax cut be funnelled to those
responsible.


I think this is a valid point. In fact, it is the reason why I am very conservative economically. Anytime the government has the power to take money from one group and give it to others, problems arise. FWIW I totally oppose any tax dollars going to these church groups. I also oppose any tax dollars being spent to help dopers. Or help Africa to the tune of 15 billion. Or pay for prescription meds for old people. Or mentoring programs. Or most of the stuff Bush spoke about last night. Bush is very far left economically. I suppose because it sells. He is way too far right wing in terms of the religious kooks and his positions on things like cloning. Needless to say, I didn't like the speech last night. All I could do was think of how much worse Gore would be. And that is significantly worse. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[John Ho]

I'm all for the prescription drugs and Africa thing. There's nothing wrong with helping other people. And the AIDS epidemic in Africa is at ridiculous proportions. There are actually people there who believe the infection can be cured by having sex with a virgin. Thus you see stupid 40 year old men (who really don't know any better)having sex with their 6 month old nieces. It is tragic.

Cynics might say this is Bush's attempt to court African American voters. But whatever the reason, it's a good thing.

[HDPM]

There is nothing wrong with helping people. But the Constitution of the United States of America was not designed to set up a charitable foundation. Any taxation that is used for charity is totally wrong. It is immoral. Helping with the admitted horrors in Africa is charity. If I want my money going, I can give it. But the government takes my money by force and they have no right spending any on foreign (or domestic) charity. Period. No matter how sympathetic the recipients or how bad the problem is. I do think it is an appropriate expenditure for the government to spend money educating people about rationality, i.e. their religions are wrong and they are stupid to believe in myths. this is because these whackos pose a threat to our national security. However, maybe we should start at home on that front, although there are some minor first Amendment problems with that approach. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

"Anytime the government has the power to take money from one group and give it to others"

-Isn't that what government does? LBJ called politics the art of getting things done; how else do things get done except by giving money to people to do it?

[HDPM]

Sure, at some level. But there is a big difference between paying those who provide legitimate services like building roads, and gratuitous payments for things like being old or infirm. Sometimes the line is blurry I suppose, but the government has no business spending money on most of the things it wastes money on. Government spending has grown much faster than the economy and is simply too big. Entire chunks of it should be discontinued. Won't happen tho. I just hope to be able to retire and have no taxable income by the time things get really ridiculous. When the baby boomers retire the whole welfare state is going to have major problems. Of course, they may eliminate the ways to dodge taxes and find ways to take away all the money from those who have saved it to pay for the old people. Maybe taxes on savings of 30% per year or something until all the productive people find somewhere else to live.

[IrishHand]

lol

It's not charity - it's dealmaking. Our "aid" is always tied to something or another. "How about you forget about taxing all the resources we're going to be raping from your country, and in return, we'll dump $50 million dollars worth of medical supplies and food to your people?"

Very few things we do that involve "giving" money away are 1/2 as altruistic as they seem.

[Ray Zee]

yea there are strings attached but we rarely get them. the french still havent paid us from saving them in ww11.
its okay and right to help people but not to the extent we suffer. in the countries that dont spend so much on foreign aid and military, the countries infrastructure is in much better shape. like canada, aust. n. zealand, japan, etc. these countries are way behind us economically but far ahead in citizen services.

[John Ho]

I respect your viewpoint.

But you say the govt. takes your money by force. That's not accurate. We live in a democratic society and can choose as a society the obligations each individual has to the society as a whole (taxes, public service, the draft, etc.) You can't take your paycheck (or poker winnings) home and just say to hell with everything else.
I always think this - if in 500 years America is where Africa is today and vice versa will I want my descendents left to struggle alone and helpless or can I hope that others help them in thanks for a time when America was strong AND compassionate? There is some self interest in helping them you know. Look at how our rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII has benefited us today.
We are the richest and most powerful nation in the world and, I believe strongly, a certain responsibility for those less fortunate goes along with it.
That's just me though.

[HDPM]

I don't believe we live in a democratic society, but rather a constitutional republic that has democratic votes on various issues or to fill certain positions. The income tax is taken by force, unlike a sales tax. If you don't pay you go to prison. That is force. Now, the government sometimes has the right to use force on its citizens and sometimes it doesn't. I do not believe any citizen has a right to make me pay for charity. Of course, the courts will uphold the right or power of the government. I don't disagree with the reality and I do pay my taxes unlike the constitutionalist nuts. But I still think much of the current government is simply wrong. That's why I vote for "conservatives" even though most don't have a coherent political philosophy and are just tax and spend left-wingers with different views on some social things. In the end though, I think it is wrong that any government taxes any of its citizens to pay for charity. It's just not a legitimate function of government or an appropriate thing to do in a society that purports to support individual liberty.

[John Ho]

I don't see how an income tax is force. The Revolutionary War was fought under the banner of "No taxation without representation." You are represented by your House member and you have a vote for that member. It's as simple as that.

[IrishHand]

the french still havent paid us from saving them in ww11.
How exactly do the French owe us anything from WWII? We didn't do anything on their behalf - our entry into the war was caused by Germany's declaration of war against us shortly after Pearl Harbor. It might be argued that the British owe us, since they didn't exactly pay for all the stuff we gave them. It still amazes me that people think that the US entry into WWII was some kind gesture to help our European friends.

in the countries that dont spend so much on foreign aid and military, the countries infrastructure is in much better shape.
I agree 100%. It's interesting to note that the two countries who have blossomed the most economically since WWII are Germany and Japan - both due in no small measure to the fact that we chose to stick military bases in and around them, thereby relieving them of the huge expense of self-defense. The Japanese in particular have benefited from this enourmously.

[HDPM]

Of course its taken by force. As I said, governments can sometimes use force on their citizens. As a preliminary thing, notice that the income tax was not constitutional originally because of the apportionment problem. It took a constitutional amendment to get the income tax in the 20th century. Of course, I would have voted against it then, but there is no undoing it now. The income tax is taken by force because it is not optional. If you don't pay, the government comes to your door with armed men, puts you in chains, and hauls you to federal prison. That's why I pay - it sure isn't because I want to give a massive chunk of my money to the government. Now, just because it is taken by force does not mean it is either inherently illegal or immoral. As I said in my prior post, the government can use force on its citizens when they have commmitted a crime or in other situations. (The draft as one example) Anytime government force is used, some will speak out against that force if they believe the force is an improper or immoral use of force. Some speak out against goofy drug laws that allow government force to be used on people involved with drugs. Others spoke against the laws that protected the property interest slave owners immorally had in their slaves. Those laws are or were constitutional and passed via democratic process. I believe that taking away my money for many of the things the government does is wrong. I am a citizen and have the right to life liberty and property. My right to property is inextricably bound to my right to life. So when my property is taken it must only be for legitimate governmental functions. And my view of what the government of a free society ought to do is different from that of most others I admit. But I'm right no matter what they say. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[John Ho]

You can always try to get that constitutional amendment reversed.

You seem to neglect the fact that if you are a wage earner (have an employer), the minute income taxes are eliminated you will see your income either shrink 1)immediately or 2) over the years as employers factor in the fact you don't pay income taxes anymore. Furthermore, the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum will pay a greater % of their income for basics like food, shelter, and clothing. This will lead to even greater crime which will require resources to combat.

The income tax is a redistribution of wealth. I have no problem admitting that is fine with me. The very top of the economic ladder(and I actually hope to be there one day without becoming a bastard) have perpetuated the myth that wealth redistribution is wrong because it disincentivizes (is this a word?) people to work hard and climb the ladder. This, in turn, is bad for society.

Though there is some truth to this (and we don't want to tax away the reality of upward mobility), these are the same people who are bitching about the estate tax and want it repealed. If working hard to become rich is good enough for their employees, why isn't it good enough for their kids? The hypocrisy is exposed. Let's face it, many of the powerful are trying to brainwash us into working harder for them. Thank goodness people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett oppose the repeal of the estate tax and aren't going to ruin their kids by spoiling them rotten. Of course there are tax breaks for gifting, setting up trusts, and exceptions to the estate tax. Why doesn't somebody propose a tax break for pro athletes who support people in the ghetto they grew up in? I would vote for that. Better that than a tax break for a kid who went to Exeter and Yale and still needs his daddy's money.

This is a better proposal. When you and your spouse die, 100% of your estate is put up for sale to the highest bidder(since you earned it and now you're dead and don't need it who's to complain). This includes stocks, houses, and everything else. If the kids want some heirloom they can simply outbid others. The proceeds go to the government. This way society and the individual reap the benefits. While he is alive, he works hard and innovates so he can have the big houses, fancy meals, 23 year old girlfriend, etc. but when he dies he reduces the financial burden on his fellow citizens through the sale of his assets. No exceptions on any of this.

Think we can get bipartisan support for this?

[Zeno]

"Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world, and you will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men's dreams."

-David Hume


"Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing."

-Thomas Hobbes



"Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what Zeus shall send you."

-Aristophanes


Three wags in sardonic order.