Video: Obama On Atheism

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Firstly, he is expounding on the importance of liberal progressives using religious terminology and publically referencing religion to help convince the public to go along with new, transformational policies (he uses comparison of Civil War era and MLK). Then he says progressives like Hillary Clinton shouldn't use religious terminology because then they'd be faking it. Clinton has not shown herself to be any less religious than other previous democratic candidates for presidents so that would apply broadly.

So then what is his point? He implies that the majority of democratic presidential candidates and politicians aren't religious enough and lack the ability to convince the public using religion to change their minds about policies and personal behavior.

Isn't it a contradiction and an accidental sabotage of his own party (and of non-religious people like me) to say that religious language and concepts should be used in support of progressive policies but that virtually all progressive leaders shouldn't do it? Can you think of many democrats who are publically and authentically religious, and much more so than Clinton or Edwards? That's a religious right attribute that he is legitmizing that will realistically never be a part of democratic progressive behavior, at least not any time soon.

And then there's his arguement that the president citing religious beliefs can help change Americans' minds about policies or personal behavior. Do you really support that?

When did he say Hillary and all progressive leaders shouldn't use religious language? He said people who aren't religious shouldn't fake it, if they are progressive and secular they should talk about morals and ethics from their secular point of view. He didn't say that all Democrats were secular, and he never even mentioned Hillary.

And yes, I think addressing problems from a religious, ethical, or spiritual point of view is helpful, as there are spiritual elements to many problems.

 

[Just thinking]

I defy you to cite one concrete example of Obama supporting a "socialist program". And fwiw, we cannot have a military, or interstates, or public education, etc. without taxes. If you believe Obama is supporting frivolous or onerous taxes, some examples would be welcomed.

Universal Healthcare

(And FWIW your silly comments strawmen examples are not what I said. I merely said heavy taxes --- not no taxes.)

From here

Obama told the newspaper the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama missed the class that teaches government doesn't create prosperity; people do.

During last week's debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on "the wealthy" and raising the tax on Social Security wages.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I defy you to cite one concrete example of Obama supporting a "socialist program". And fwiw, we cannot have a military, or interstates, or public education, etc. without taxes. If you believe Obama is supporting frivolous or onerous taxes, some examples would be welcomed.

A tax-payer funded army

 

[Piggy]

Universal Healthcare

No candidate is advocating socialized medicine, and the one who was proposing a single-payer system has dropped out. Setting up a system to allow for policies for those who do not have coverage through employers is not socialism.

(And FWIW your silly comments strawmen examples are not what I said. I merely said heavy taxes --- not no taxes.)

I know that's not what you said, and no, my statement was not a strawman. You deliberately omit my actual point. Here's what I said:

And fwiw, we cannot have a military, or interstates, or public education, etc. without taxes. If you believe Obama is supporting frivolous or onerous taxes, some examples would be welcomed.

In other words, given the fact that we need some sort of taxation, and the mere presence of taxes is not necessarily burdensome taxation, please provide examples of Obama's support of taxes which are either frivolous or unduly burdensome.

I'll wait.

 

[Piggy]

A tax-payer funded army

Well, yeah, I suppose we could support the military thru looting and pillaging. It's been done before. Shame we let the damn Iraqis get all the valuable stuff from the museum. We gotta do a better job.

You reckon we could pay 'em in salt? I've heard that works.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Well, yeah, I suppose we could support the military thru looting and pillaging. It's been done before. Shame we let the damn Iraqis get all the valuable stuff from the museum. We gotta do a better job.

You reckon we could pay 'em in salt? I've heard that works.

If the army can't support themselves they shouldn't be leeching off the teat of the American taxpayer!

I bet you support public education too...

 

[Piggy]

From here

I see. So the redistribution of the tax burden to reduce the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy is ok, but a correction in the other direction is socialism and unacceptably burdensome.

If that's how you want to see it, I don't reckon anything I say will change your mind.

Carry on.

 

[Just thinking]

No candidate is advocating socialized medicine, and the one who was proposing a single-payer system has dropped out. Setting up a system to allow for policies for those who do not have coverage through employers is not socialism.

It is a socialist program, none-the-less. Please note he claims it as mandatory.

I know that's not what you said, and no, my statement was not a strawman. You deliberately omit my actual point. Here's what I said: ...

In other words, given the fact that we need some sort of taxation, and the mere presence of taxes is not necessarily burdensome taxation, please provide examples of Obama's support of taxes which are either frivolous or unduly burdensome.

I'll wait.

Wait no longer ... it's amended in my previous post.

 

[Piggy]

If the army can't support themselves they shouldn't be leeching off the teat of the American taxpayer!

Right on! That's what I just said. Don't steal my moves, QC!

Although I had a girlfriend who was way into that, so to some people, the idea of the whole army... well, that's another story.

I bet you support public education too...

You mean "socialized" education, don't you, comrade?

 

[quixotecoyote]

You mean "socialized" education, don't you, comrade?

GODDAMMIT!!!

That's 2 now.

I used to be better at this

 

[Just thinking]

I see. So the redistribution of the tax burden to reduce the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy is ok, but a correction in the other direction is socialism and unacceptably burdensome.

If that's how you want to see it, I don't reckon anything I say will change your mind.

Carry on.

Only a change in Obama's policies will change my mind --- and I see that as highly unlikely.

 

[Piggy]

It is a socialist program, none-the-less. Please note he claims it as mandatory.

So, it's socialist despite not being socialist. I think I'm beginning to grasp your mindset.

And no, his program would not change my healthcare plan one bit, for example.

Wait no longer ... it's amended in my previous post.

Still waiting.

 

[Just thinking]

So, it's socialist despite not being socialist. I think I'm beginning to grasp your mindset.

And no, his program would not change my healthcare plan one bit, for example.

Never said it would ... Universal Coverage would become mandatory. In other words, if you have no coverage of your own, then the Government steps in. What it would change, though, is how much of your income would now be re-directed. If you don't mind having more and more of your income taken away in taxes, that's fine with me --- but there are many of us who don't care for such. And these Universal Healthcare programs are one of them.

Still waiting.

How long you wish to wait is entirely up to you. I gave you 2 examples, mandatory coverage and having the government deciding how wealth should be proportioned.

 

[Piggy]

I gave you 2 examples, mandatory coverage and having the government deciding how wealth should be proportioned.

1. Ensuring that no one is left totally without health care is not socialism, especially when the vast majority of citizens will be covered through a private system.

2. Correction -- having government deciding how taxes should be proportioned. Also not socialism.

Still no example of frivolous or burdensome taxation.

 

[Piggy]

I hate Illinois socialists.

 

[Just thinking]

Piggy, from post 42 I quoted ...

Obama told the newspaper the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Just exactly how does a government do that? How does it create prospertiy with greater equality? You need to read up on basic Marxism.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I want everyone to be prosperous, therefore I am a Marxist?

 

[Just thinking]

I want everyone to be prosperous, therefore I am a Marxist?

Depends on how you go about it. Do you impose it with restrictions (as to income/profits), or do you allow for prosperity through greater freedoms?

The first choice will likely have everyone on a tighter income spread whereas the latter will have vast differences among earners. The first one will likely stifle growth more than the latter as well. The first is also much more Marxist than the second.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Depends on how you go about it. Do you impose it with restrictions (as to income/profits), or do you allow for prosperity through greater freedoms?

I haven't heard Obama suggest capping profits and as much as you dislike him I doubt you'd try to twist taxation into a profit cap.

 

[Just thinking]

I haven't heard Obama suggest capping profits and as much as you dislike him I doubt you'd try to twist taxation into a profit cap.

First, I don't dislike him ... merely his policies.

Second, higher taxes means less $$$$ to spend on research, growth and salaries. Less $$$$ for salaries means fewer hirings. It also means less choices for companies to choose how they want to spend their profits, or at the very least it puts tighter limits on them. And restrictions are limits to further growth and further profit. So you see, it does in fact put a cap on how fast a company can expect to grow.

Oh wait ... they can send even more work over seas. Silly me ...