Quote Of The Day
September 28th, 2007 | by Scott |What happened to you, Mr. President? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have your priorities stayed so far from those children, whom you once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get your attention again? You will be literally barraged by the religious community across the political spectrum this week, imploring you not to veto children’s health care. I would just ask you to take your mind back to a little meeting in a Baptist Sunday school classroom, not far away from where you grew up. Remember that day, what we all talked about, what was on your heart, and how much hope there was in the room. Mr. President, recall that day, take a breath, and say a prayer before you decide to turn away from the children who are so important to our nation’s soul and to yours.
God bless you,
Jim Wallis
I wish I had those 2 votes back.
31 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”
By Phil Wilson on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
I’m just curious. What is Bush’s rationale for vetoing this bill?
By Scott on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Taxes would be raised on Tobacco is what I hear. But I also hear that most of his objections have been refuted by Republican leaders.
By justin on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Isn’t this the plan to covers children of people making upwards of 100 K a year, and until the “child” is 25?
I haven’t been paying attention, and I just wish the government would quit creating more dependents. And quit using a gun to steal from people in order to provide to others. Seems a little immoral to me.
BTW, has JW been criticizing the democrats now that it looks like they aren’t gonna get out of iraq… or is his loyalty one to a party?
By Dan on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Is it not cause for concern that when religious people come to the President asking him to do something, that he might do it because he is “barraged?” Perhaps if enough people ask, we can get Creationism taught as science? Perhaps if enough fundamentalist muslims ask, we can make the burqa mandatory for women?
All for ending this war and helping children (poor or otherwise), but is this the precedent we want to set for getting it done?
By Jeff B. on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
I’m no Bush supporter, but rhetoric like this increasingly pisses me off. I don’t know much about the bill, but I do know that its both shallow and cheap for people on either side of the political isle to resort to foolish arguments like “If your policy is different than mine, you don’t care about something that all GOOD people care about.”
Neo-con republicans routinely do this by accusing those who don’t support the war with being unpatriotic among other things.
Dems and social liberals do this with, “If you don’t agree with social/fascist medicine you don’t care about the poor/children/minorities, etc.” among other things.
Come on, people. Can’t we be a little bit deeper and more sophisticated than that? There are political and social philosophies that create the different positions on these issues.
Why not have some substantive discussion about the underlying philosophy and the legitimate difficulties involved in striking a balance between two opposed, but equally legitimate philosophies?
Scott, I must say that I am disappointed when I see you spread cheap rhetoric like this. It cheapens the discussion and your mind is keen enough that you could really shed some valuable light on things. Note — its not your positions that I am disappointed in, its the cheapening of the conversation by spreading the rhetoric.
Having said that, I still love and appreciate your blog and pray that God will put you in a place where your gifts will most effectively glorify him.
Blessings.
By Scott on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Justin, the bill is primarily aimed at those who are unable to provide health care. People are able to apply for waivers at a higher income level but the government has to okay those waivers. Seems to me its better to provide health care for at risk and impoverished children than focus on the few who might try to exploit the system. And I’m no Jim Wallis apologist. I just found a quote that I liked.
Dan, I agree with you that putting this debate on primarily religious terms is a tenuous one. Wallis’ approach here was reminding Bush of the “compassionate conservative” mantle that he campaigned on. To me, however, this is not a religious issue. It is a values issue, however. And I believe that Bush is just plain wrong to veto it. Especially with the faulty reasoning that I have seen used.
By Scott on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, I appreciate your position and agree that cheap rhetoric is a bad political ploy. Be careful when using such words as “neo-con” “shallow and cheap” “social liberals” that you don’t fall into the same trap. It’s a touchy issue, for many, but I believe we need to listen to all voices.
I believe strongly that this bill needs to pass. Affordable, legitimate and quality health care for all people is something that is very important to me and I am a little saddened that we can continue to spend 15 billion dollars a month in Iraq and we can’t free up 7 billion a year to make sure that at-risk children receive quality care.
By Jonathan on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Ah, this is more like it…like the old days when there was a bit of firey debate on scottfreeman.info
substantive discussion? I thought we were talking about American politics.
BBC News:
A government program to provide healthcare to children who otherwise can’t afford private insurance is an example of using a gun to steal from people and creating dependents? Gov has created a dependent out of me. I depend on it for fire fighting services, the police, the bumpy roads I drive on, protecting my local environment from pollution, etc. all while stealing my money at gunpoint. A double whammy. I guess they believe that healthcare is another example of something that is important enough to be available to everyone in our society.
By Jeff B. on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
Neocon is a legitimate political movement that has been documented. It is neither a positive or negative designation, but one that distinguishes the Bush brand of conservativism from the more traditional/libertarian-style conservatives. Not rhetoric (at least as I used it), just a word with a meaning.
In the same way, social liberalism is a legitimate political philosophy. Only recently have its advocates started shying away from that label in favor of “progressives.” Pick which ever label you want for it. Its just a word used to describe a generalized approach to social politics. Once again, not rhetoric.
My use of the terms “cheap and shallow” may be rhetorical, but they are is a far cry from your post insinuating that Bush (or others who oppose this bill) must not care about children. I think there’s an obvious difference.
I would think that the fact that you care deeply about the issue should motivate you to avoid the types of arguments that only polarize and never convince because they demonize without providing reasons. Your care for the issue should make you give substantive reasons for your position, not these shallow arguments. If you acknowledge that some may have legitimate reasons to disagree with you based not on a hatred or lack of concern for children, but for a different opinion about the most effective way to love and/or care for kids, then your argument may convince some. Otherwise, those who are prone to agree will say Rah, Rah, and those who are prone to disagree will say Boo, Boo.
To draw a parallel to a different realm, I feel very strongly about the existence of God. I think it of urgent importance. However, I try to avoid statements like “If you don’t believe in God, you have no morals.” Why? Because that claim is shallow, inaccurate, and convinces no one. More convincing and loving would be an argument showing how a consistent moral ethic makes the most sense under theism. To demonize your opponents, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue, is to end the possibility of fruitful discussion.
For the record, I’d say the first step get rid of this awful war and give that money back to the people so that they are at least more capable of providing for themselves. Then, if they are still unable, the public policy regarding health care needs to be adjusted. In what way? I don’t know. But the first step is to stop taking people’s money under threat of law to support an undeclared war. If we’re choosing priorities, that’d be mine.
By Justin on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Try not paying your taxes, and you’ll see that you’re being stolen from. Its not all taxes that are evil, just taxes that are direct, such as the income tax, which is basically slavery. you are enslaved to the state, because for whatever percentage of the year coincides with the percentage of time you are working for the government. And you have no choice. With indirect taxes, you choose to buy an item… if we had just the indirect taxes that we currently have and got rid of the income tax, our budget would just have to be shrunk to 2000 levels.
Anyway, its a long discussion, and I don’t want to clog up the blog over it.
By Scott on Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, no debate from me. I just posted a quote.
By Jonathan on Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
Of course I can’t expect to not pay taxes while benefiting from so many things for which taxes pay. The slavery and gunpoint metaphors are over the top. There are plenty of other places in the world where I could freely move to avoid paying taxes to our government, but at a big trade-off with the loss of many of the services, safety, and freedom that our society provides.
I know a lot of people really hate paying taxes, but it doesn’t bother me much at all. Of course there plenty of ways that taxes are spent and wasted that I’d prefer to redirect, but in general I’m glad to pay for many of the services that the government provides for so many. The whole “it’s mine, how dare you take it from me!” attitude somehow seems a bit off target to me.
By Justin on Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
That’s not the argument at all. The argument is about force. I have a hard time saying something is moral when it involves stealing… when mob rule decides that they can spend the money of the wealthy better than those who earned it, something is wrong. It is one thing if one voluntarily gives what they have away… it is another thing entirely when they are forced to pay for services for others.
In my mind, when a christian advocates that view, its like if Jesus had tackled the rich young ruler and taken his money rather than letting him walk away sad.
By Jonathan on Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
Justin,
Though he didn’t tackle anyone, Jesus did say “Render unto Caesar…”
and my point was that if I choose to live in the U.S. and benefit from the many services that government provides me (protection, schools, infrastructure, parks, etc etc etc), I’m probably on pretty shaky ground if I get too bent out of shape about the services the government provides someone else or if I claim that the government is stealing from me by force if it expects me to pay taxes. Paying taxes is required by law and if I choose to live here I must obey the law and pay taxes. It’s not stealing. It’s me doing my duty as a citizen (or member of the mob). No one is forcing me. I can go live elsewhere, but I don’t want to. And to claim that taxes are somehow intrinsically immoral is a pretty big stretch in my opinion.
By Justin on Sep 30, 2007 | Reply
I’m not saying all taxes are intrinsically immoral… I’m saying direct taxes, that is, taxes that are unavoidable, are immoral. its slavery. I am speaking from a secular viewpoint here, so bear with me…
As a Christian, I’m going to pay my taxes, no matter how unjust I think they are. That being said, I think its best that, since we have some determination of who runs our country, we should vote for someone who wants to let people run things, not the government. If we only have indirect taxes, or taxes that are avoidable (taxes on things you buy, not your labor) then things are fine. I have no problem paying those taxes. I have a problem with Caesar telling me that they own me or my work. Labor is a barter system… its not the same as profits. The payment I receive, whether it be in dollars, or chickens, or what, is supposedly what I agreed to trade for my labor. When the government puts a tax on that… they are in essence taxing my life. They automatically own 20 percent (or 30-50% depending on your income bracket) of my labor.
That’s not to mention the illegality of the income tax system, (just think about the 5th amendment and filing a w-2… you don’t file, you go to jail, you file and self incriminate, you go to jail) not to mention the fact that the income tax doesn’t pay for the services we use in this country. They are almost entirely paid for by… tah dah indirect taxes on gas, cigarettes, property taxes, and on and on. If we were to get rid of the income tax all together, we would bring in enough money to run the country on the budget for the year 2000… surely that’s doable.
The big secret is, the income tax goes almost exclusively to pay interest on the national debt. The Federal Reserve (which isn’t a government owned deal) prints money out of nowhere, and secures loans for excess government spending. They loan fake money to banks, and get interest on it. They make a ton of money for in essence printing money.
I will stand by the income tax being immoral all day long. I have no problem with taxes, but I do have a problem with slavery and tyranny.
By Dan on Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
Justin wrote:
“if I choose to live in the U.S. and benefit from the many services that government provides me (protection, schools, infrastructure, parks, etc etc etc)”
What if I don’t go to parks? What if I’ve been the victim of a crime? I wasn’t “protected” at all. What if I have no kids? (I realize an argument can be made for the over-reaching effects of education on our society)
In addition, does your “me doing my duty as a citizen” value apply to the draft? It has been a law several times in our history - technically, it still is; how would you feel if it were instituted today? How does it apply to support (or not) of the Patriot Act?
By Dan on Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
Oops; misquote above; my bad. Be careful how you cut-and-paste…
By Jonathan on Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
Justin,
thanks for making such good points in Dan’s comments!
Dan,
My point isn’t to enumerate every service that the government provides and demonstrate that every citizen benefits from each one.
My point is that I voluntarily live in a society that pools its resources to accomplish certain goals via the government for the common good. Since I live here voluntarily, the metaphor of slavery does not seem to me to be the right to be the right one for describing this situation.
Of course, I wouldn’t be happy about a draft.
I’m not a big fan of the patriot act because I feel it overreaches, but I don’t see the relevance to this discussion.
By Justin on Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
Right, we choose to live here… but who determines that the US Government has what jurisdicition… because we killed indians with small pox? Because we fought two wars for it? Where does government get its power?
By Robin on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
Back to the health “care” issue. What we are really discussing is health insurance. No one in this country is denied health care. 72% of Americans recently polled are happy with their health coverage. So who does that leave? Folks who choose not to buy insurance, illegal immigrants, who? Question - who do you know personally that does not have medical insurance and why. I’m curious.
PS I believe we are taxed too much. Reform is necessary and long overdue.
By Scott on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
Robin, there are many people every day denied health care. I was denied when I lived in Michigan and went over 2 years without.
Wow, it seems that people clamor for the political on this blog. I will make it my mission to tweak the libertarians
By Jonathan on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
I think Robin probably means that if your situation, for example, is immediately life threatening a hospital would treat you and pass along the cost to it’s other patients. The poor using the emergency room as their general practitioner is obviously not the best option. I also believe that plenty of people are denied healthcare in less-than life threatening situations and also that significant portion of the 45 million uninsured are in that situation because they can’t afford it.
Robin’s “who do you know personally…” question convicts me. How many poor people do I know? Not many. Shame on me.
By Robin on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan - that’s part of my point. The truly poor are covered under medicare/medicaid. Even the “poor” who really aren’t “poor” but have made bad choices in life are covered by an array of government programs. There is the working class who choose not to pay premiums for coverage. I’m not talking about being denied coverage. That’s another issue. But who do we know in our lives who truly isn’t covered by some medical insurance?
By Jeff B. on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
This may be semantics, but I’m all about being precise with our language. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else in this country was denied health CARE. I think you are referring to health INSURANCE, which happens frequently. Forgive me if I’m wrong about that. Anyone can walk into any hospital or doctors office and pay to have any procedure done with or without insurance. The problem is that the COST of health care is prohibitive for many, many people. In the end, a denial of health insurance coverage may equate to a denial of health care because of the cost, but it is inaccurate to say that health CARE has been denied.
I think using accurate language to describe the problem helps identify where the problem actually lies, and that is with the prohibitive COST of health care, not with the AVAILABILITY of health care.
Solutions? I’ve got nothin’. But I can’t think of a single thing that the federal government does well, so I hesitate to put my health care in their hands.
By Scott on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
You are right, Jeff. There is nothing that the current administration does right. And yes, I took semantical liberties with your final statement
We won’t come to a consensus here and it’s not something I have time to really address here but, to me, that prohibitive cost of health care that you talk about is a denial of health care. Not everyone who is unable to handle the blow of a medical setback financially is poor due to their own choice, as Robin asserts. I have yet to hear one decent argument to deny and/or veto the schip program.
By Robin on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
Scott - that is not what I meant. The poor in this country are covered by medicare/medicaid so they don’t have to sustain a “blow” of a medical setback. I refer to the people, i.e. my nephew, who does not work, is addicted to prescription drugs, but is still covered by Medicare and gets all his prescriptions free thanks to the taxpayer. He has made bad choices, but he is still covered. So why should I work for my health insurance?
If you are talking about the veto today by President Bush - he vetoed it because it not only renewed the bill, but included an additional $30 BILLION in additional coverage. This included an additional 3 million children covered by the bill who already have health insurance. I don’t think “children” need to be covered by a government program until they reach the age of 25 either, which was one of the additions included in this bill. Check into the real reasons why President Bush vetoed this bill instead of solely relying on the rhetoric of the left only to get your information. Congress needs to come up with equitable solution or just renew the bill that has been in effect since 1993.
By Justin on Oct 3, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Robin.
I’d really like to know the situations of the 45 million people in this country who don’t have health care. I would imagine, and this is just from the “I’m in my early twenties and have irresponsible friends moving into adulthood” category, but I’d imagine a big portion of that number is people who choose not to pay for health insurance cause they feel like they are healthy and they’d rather go out to eat every night than pay for health insurance that they may not use.
I tell you, I’d be tempted. Since I got married and got my own insurance… I’ve used it no times. And my wife has used it no times. And we have to pay that freakin maternal rate. Damn babies.
Scott, the childrens health care thing is flawed. 25 year olds are not children. Its an attempt by the government to have some control over the lives of its citizens… they can’t do it all at once, so they do it gradually. That is not the governments job. It will go bankrupt. There are things to consider here besides “it feels good so we should do it”. What good is universal health care going to be when our government is so far in debt and the economy is in the hole, that we have no government or services left?
Ron Paul raised over 5 million in the last quarter. People are noticing. The r3V07ution is here.
By Scott on Oct 5, 2007 | Reply
Dude, Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected president as Phil Wilson does being an elder.
By Justin on Oct 5, 2007 | Reply
Tell that to the 5.3 million cash on hand he has. Anti war. Anti taxes. Anti government. Don’t count him out.
By Dan on Oct 7, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I’d say you tweaked the libertarians. Especially with the “poor due to their own choice” interpretation.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right (even though Paul is, by affiliation, an R) - a libertarian has virtually no chance of being sent to Washington in this country; generally, people seem to be sheep that listen to whomever has the best ability to get their message out, not the message itself.
Does that ever happen in ministry?
By Scott on Oct 8, 2007 | Reply
It’s not really hard to tweak libertarians. And I’m thankful that they don’t have much chance personally. I have major moral issues with the entire idea. But that’s another post.
And yes, it happens routinely in ministry.