In the wake of the post-election mess in California, I'd like to introduce you to a different kind of group, a different kind of lobbying, and a nonviolent means of advancing your issue within society. We're going to be looking at a minority group, about 2-5% of the U.S. population depending on the survey/study, who feel strongly compelled by their own consciences to live a different lifestyle than the average American.
When their movement first surfaced in the 70's, it was definitively illegal in some states, while others simply rejected it on the grounds of having no law permitting it. They proceeded to live as they felt compelled anyways, quietly and industriously, seeking to carve out individual exemptions that would simply allow them to live their lives as they saw fit. Over time, an organization developed that allowed them to deal with the government and courts with proper legal representation, but they did not seek to change the laws through the judicial system. They were simply settling individual cases.
In time, through writing letters and visiting the legislature, they proved bit by bit by their behavior that their lifestyle was validly non-destructive. They began to build a reputation of respect, achievement, and cooperation. States began to pass laws properly through the legislature permitting their lifestyle, but often with burdensome regulations. They accepted what they had hard-won, showed themselves willing to compromise, and worked to show by example that they could function equally without the extra government oversight. They did not assume that they could simply declare a right, even a valid one, and bully their way into it. Instead, they sought to show themselves worthy of it, confident that reasonable people would slowly be swayed by a good example.
Rallies were orderly, calm, and clean. They did not key anybody's cars. They did not threaten business owners. They did not assault elderly women or members of other religions. They did not vandalize, did not scream, did not perform obscene acts in public. They simply sought to prove by behaving properly that they were a valid part of society. Even with their lifestyle now legal (but often with heavy regulations) in all 5o states, they were not considered equal with the 'masses'. Employers and colleges refused them, and they were not allowed to serve in the military. They often lost health benefits and government benefits allowed to others, for nothing but their lifestyle status. They never screamed "Unfair!" Instead, they wrote letters, dissertations, made calm and reasoned speeches, and sought to persuade through logic.
It has now been over 30 years, and life is considerably easier for these people than it was at the beginning. Though they are often still harassed by government officials, social workers, and police simply for their lifestyle, they are allowed into most colleges and the military now accepts them. More people than ever before know somebody who lives this lifestyle, and opinion has become more and more favorable. They are proving by statistics that they are healthy, hardworking people, involved in volunteer work and more than pulling their weight in society. Though they recently nearly suffered a huge blow in California, they remained calm, and through appeal and well-reasoned evidence were able to keep from losing legal status there. They are making a place for themselves without treading on the rights of others. There is no law against believing their practices to be obscene, no 'hate crime' laws to benefit them above the general population, and they are not trying to force educators to teach schoolchildren about them.
Internationally, though many countries allow these people to practice their lifestyle, others persecute them, jailing them and forcing their families to flee to other countries for safety. One such family is currently petitioning asylum from their home country to the U.S. and is likely to get it due to the persecution there.
Are they gays?
Nope.
They are homeschoolers.
Missouri - reported November 18th
School system attempts to force a homeschooling family to comply with regulations far above and beyond those set forth by law. When the family refuses, they falsely report the children truant although the family is homeschooling legally in that state. Criminal charges are filed in the courts.
Ohio - reported November 7th
A homeschooling family is roundly criticized at their own doorstep by, of all people, the dog warden, who has shown up with police escort insisting to enter their home in order to inspect their (healthy and licensed) dog without a warrant. With police present, the warden said "They homeschool, too," prompting a diatribe from the police officer, who told the woman at the door that she was being a poor example and questioning her teaching skills.
Florida - reported November 6th
A social worker forces her way into a homeschooling family's home with the backup of two police officers. Refusing to disclose any allegations against them, she proceeds to partially strip-search one of the children who later turned out to not even be named in the allegation (an anonymous tip made months ago), in front of the officers and family, embarrassing the girl greatly. After threatening the father with handcuffs and removal of his children if he did not stop asserting (verbally, without violence) his Fourth Amendment rights, she then fully strip-searches all the children, male and female. Despite finding no evidence of abuse, she then insists that the entire family undergo a psychological examination.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 3
Christian Conservatives fear an Obama presidency with good reason. His government-coercion principles of 'wealth distribution' rob us of our ability to manage our own resources and remain responsible for what God has seen fit to bestow upon us. However, we must realize that right now, a total ban of government-funded social programs would not be fitting for modern culture. As we must have a dog trained to Come before we let it off the leash, we must train ourselves and educate others before we can remove the restraints of government-forced 'charity'. In this post, I would like to give recommendations for each of three financial categories in preparing our country for an eventual return to fiscal conservatism.
2. The Poor
Your job is actually not much more difficult than that of the Rich. You may have never thought of it that way, especially if you have bought into the culture of entitlement, which tells you to hate them for having what you "deserve". You're going to have an uphill climb in divesting yourself of that class hatred. Remember that, as the Spiderman move put it so nicely, with great power comes great responsibility. The material wealth that God will hold you accountable for is not as great a burden as on the rich, and though you have incentive to save and request help within the current social system, the rich have to remember charity despite the government seeking to remove that responsibility from their shoulders.
Remember that the Bible tells you very firmly to not envy another man's goods. God intends each person to carry on with what he or she is given, take on your own burdens, and do not waste your days wishing for someone else's. Enjoy your own home, your own family, and measure your success by your own efforts to improve.
As someone in genuine need, you are going to end up having to ask for help. If you have truly been doing your best, not having fallen into poverty from laziness, there is no shame in needing aid. When you are a single mother with many children, a sick or injured person with limited mobility, an elderly person living alone, you generally simply aren't in a position where you can do it all for yourself. You, the Middle Class, and the Rich should all remember that none of us, from the poorest to the richest, can reach salvation alone. Set aside your pride, survey your situation, understand what you truly need, and seek it out.
In a post-socialist society, receiving what you need is going to entail something much more difficult and rewarding than simply sending filled-out applications to faceless bureaucrats. Rather than an impersonal government seeking to provide for you, you will be dealing with real people who are truly helping you. They will have families, hopes, and dreams, and so will you. In sharing their blessings, you will be forming bonds outside of your financial standing and likely out of your age and race groups as well. The prospect is more daunting, but the rewards are significantly more substantial.
Work if you can. Your goal is to benefit from their generosity and use it to pull yourself up as far as you are able. In a truly Christian society, following properly the advice in the book of Romans, they will not be judging you for your progress and you will not be taking advantage of their willingness to help you. Perhaps you will never be able to become financially independent. That matters less than that you contribute what you are able.
What you can contribute will depend on your situation. Don't ever think yourself utterly useless. If you can't work and you can't walk, you can probably knit sweaters for babies and blankets for people in foreign countries. If you can't even do that, you can probably sit and listen. You'd be amazed how many 'rich' people would love just to have someone sit and listen for a while. As I'm addressing Christian Conservatives here, you know you can always pray for them as well.
The socialist wing of the liberals have likely done their best to undermine your confidence in God. Remember that you are mentioned explicitly in the Bible, several times, as people cared for by God. He will provide, and He will judge others by how they treat you.
2. The Poor
Your job is actually not much more difficult than that of the Rich. You may have never thought of it that way, especially if you have bought into the culture of entitlement, which tells you to hate them for having what you "deserve". You're going to have an uphill climb in divesting yourself of that class hatred. Remember that, as the Spiderman move put it so nicely, with great power comes great responsibility. The material wealth that God will hold you accountable for is not as great a burden as on the rich, and though you have incentive to save and request help within the current social system, the rich have to remember charity despite the government seeking to remove that responsibility from their shoulders.
Remember that the Bible tells you very firmly to not envy another man's goods. God intends each person to carry on with what he or she is given, take on your own burdens, and do not waste your days wishing for someone else's. Enjoy your own home, your own family, and measure your success by your own efforts to improve.
As someone in genuine need, you are going to end up having to ask for help. If you have truly been doing your best, not having fallen into poverty from laziness, there is no shame in needing aid. When you are a single mother with many children, a sick or injured person with limited mobility, an elderly person living alone, you generally simply aren't in a position where you can do it all for yourself. You, the Middle Class, and the Rich should all remember that none of us, from the poorest to the richest, can reach salvation alone. Set aside your pride, survey your situation, understand what you truly need, and seek it out.
In a post-socialist society, receiving what you need is going to entail something much more difficult and rewarding than simply sending filled-out applications to faceless bureaucrats. Rather than an impersonal government seeking to provide for you, you will be dealing with real people who are truly helping you. They will have families, hopes, and dreams, and so will you. In sharing their blessings, you will be forming bonds outside of your financial standing and likely out of your age and race groups as well. The prospect is more daunting, but the rewards are significantly more substantial.
Work if you can. Your goal is to benefit from their generosity and use it to pull yourself up as far as you are able. In a truly Christian society, following properly the advice in the book of Romans, they will not be judging you for your progress and you will not be taking advantage of their willingness to help you. Perhaps you will never be able to become financially independent. That matters less than that you contribute what you are able.
What you can contribute will depend on your situation. Don't ever think yourself utterly useless. If you can't work and you can't walk, you can probably knit sweaters for babies and blankets for people in foreign countries. If you can't even do that, you can probably sit and listen. You'd be amazed how many 'rich' people would love just to have someone sit and listen for a while. As I'm addressing Christian Conservatives here, you know you can always pray for them as well.
The socialist wing of the liberals have likely done their best to undermine your confidence in God. Remember that you are mentioned explicitly in the Bible, several times, as people cared for by God. He will provide, and He will judge others by how they treat you.
Friday, November 14, 2008
A fly in Obama's ointment?
Obama will be president in January. At the same time, a number of congressmen's terms will 'roll over' and the Democrats will be in the majority. Whatever's going to happen this Christmas season is going to happen. So why is Nancy Pelosi already making her own bold statements about things she intends to do by January? Why risk getting your proposals stalled in a Congress that hasn't yet turned to your side, when a little patience will give you all you could wish for?
As a woman who graduated from a quite liberal college and saw my share of the current feminist movement as a silent observer on the inside, I conjecture this reasoning: she wants the credit.
Here is the irony of modern feminism. Obama's greatest challenge, more so than dealing with the economy, foreign leaders who wish to test him, and the disastrous results of his own plans, may simply be dealing with Nancy Pelosi. One of the greatest burdens to the Liberals may just be a monster (I am not referring to Pelosi directly as the monster - you'll understand in a moment) created by themselves.
Now, there are some on the hard-conservative right who believe that women should not run for office (or pastor a church, or become a manager in the workplace). I love these people dearly, but I do disagree with them. Biblical submission of women very clearly works within the household, as a matter of God-ordained organization. Even the most conservative Americans agree with me that man and woman are, though not the same, certainly equal in gumption, intellect, and ability to be capable in their work. However, I go a step further, and note that women in Ancient Israel, even wives, did own their own property, manage their own merchant businesses, judge court cases, and even build cities and bridges which they named after themselves, all within the framework of a proper Biblical society. (In other words, this happened before It All Went Bad.)
The majority of conservative women, far from believing like the Muslims that every woman submits to every man, realizes that we are to submit with grace and love to our husbands and work on equal footing with any other, as Executive Officer of their families. I conduct business with male attorneys, salesmen, and customer service representatives, and I drive a hard bargain, all within the calm knowledge that I am exactly where God intends me to be.
Have you ever wondered why liberal female politicians seem scarier than conservative female politicians? The root of the answer is simple: while conservative female politicians are comfortable in their roles as feminine community leaders, liberal females are still fighting that traditional submission role that still echoes in our Biblically-derived society. In short, liberal feminists are more than just non-submissive. After all, conservative women are not submissive to men who are not in God-ordained positions of leadership over them. No, liberal feminists are anti-submissive.
A liberal feminist wants more than to just avoid being submissive to her husband, if she happens to be married. No, she has to continually prove to herself and everyone else that she is submissive to NO MAN, in no circumstance. Once Woman grabs for power and prestige, she becomes a rather frightening creature, insecure in her femininity, willing to go further and fight fiercer than most male politicians, who tend to be quite secure in their own authority.
Remember the Democratic primary? What kept it so interesting? Long after the other runners-up had graciously stepped back to make way for this "new rising star", Hillary continued to fight tooth and nail. As long as she saw a chance at winning, the slightest chance of breaking even with Obama, she tore him to shreds with such efficiency that the Republican party spent most of their time merely repeating attacks she had already launched.
Now the question is this: will Nancy Pelosi put aside her own desire for power and her strong inclination to show that she submits to No Man in order to put Obama's plan, in Obama's wording, into law, and allow him the credit he will seek? Or are we going to see a power play based on little more than feminist self-righteousness? Or is he going to be the one to give way in the face of her sheer determination? I'll be watching in the next months.
As a woman who graduated from a quite liberal college and saw my share of the current feminist movement as a silent observer on the inside, I conjecture this reasoning: she wants the credit.
Here is the irony of modern feminism. Obama's greatest challenge, more so than dealing with the economy, foreign leaders who wish to test him, and the disastrous results of his own plans, may simply be dealing with Nancy Pelosi. One of the greatest burdens to the Liberals may just be a monster (I am not referring to Pelosi directly as the monster - you'll understand in a moment) created by themselves.
Now, there are some on the hard-conservative right who believe that women should not run for office (or pastor a church, or become a manager in the workplace). I love these people dearly, but I do disagree with them. Biblical submission of women very clearly works within the household, as a matter of God-ordained organization. Even the most conservative Americans agree with me that man and woman are, though not the same, certainly equal in gumption, intellect, and ability to be capable in their work. However, I go a step further, and note that women in Ancient Israel, even wives, did own their own property, manage their own merchant businesses, judge court cases, and even build cities and bridges which they named after themselves, all within the framework of a proper Biblical society. (In other words, this happened before It All Went Bad.)
The majority of conservative women, far from believing like the Muslims that every woman submits to every man, realizes that we are to submit with grace and love to our husbands and work on equal footing with any other, as Executive Officer of their families. I conduct business with male attorneys, salesmen, and customer service representatives, and I drive a hard bargain, all within the calm knowledge that I am exactly where God intends me to be.
Have you ever wondered why liberal female politicians seem scarier than conservative female politicians? The root of the answer is simple: while conservative female politicians are comfortable in their roles as feminine community leaders, liberal females are still fighting that traditional submission role that still echoes in our Biblically-derived society. In short, liberal feminists are more than just non-submissive. After all, conservative women are not submissive to men who are not in God-ordained positions of leadership over them. No, liberal feminists are anti-submissive.
A liberal feminist wants more than to just avoid being submissive to her husband, if she happens to be married. No, she has to continually prove to herself and everyone else that she is submissive to NO MAN, in no circumstance. Once Woman grabs for power and prestige, she becomes a rather frightening creature, insecure in her femininity, willing to go further and fight fiercer than most male politicians, who tend to be quite secure in their own authority.
Remember the Democratic primary? What kept it so interesting? Long after the other runners-up had graciously stepped back to make way for this "new rising star", Hillary continued to fight tooth and nail. As long as she saw a chance at winning, the slightest chance of breaking even with Obama, she tore him to shreds with such efficiency that the Republican party spent most of their time merely repeating attacks she had already launched.
Now the question is this: will Nancy Pelosi put aside her own desire for power and her strong inclination to show that she submits to No Man in order to put Obama's plan, in Obama's wording, into law, and allow him the credit he will seek? Or are we going to see a power play based on little more than feminist self-righteousness? Or is he going to be the one to give way in the face of her sheer determination? I'll be watching in the next months.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On a similar subject...
I've been explaining issues like taxation, social mores, and charity from the perspective of a Christian Conservative, which is a bit different than just the straight logical conservative view. As a Christian Conservative, I am quite free to use theology as well as logic in explaining my stances. However, let me set that aside for a moment, and offer the reader a chance to learn something from a purely logical-political point of view.
These videos explain the Laffer Curve and it's effects on taxation.
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence
The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring
These videos explain the Laffer Curve and it's effects on taxation.
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence
The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 2
Christian Conservatives fear an Obama presidency with good reason. His government-coercion principles of 'wealth distribution' rob us of our ability to manage our own resources and remain responsible for what God has seen fit to bestow upon us. However, we must realize that right now, a total ban of government-funded social programs would not be fitting for modern culture. As we must have a dog trained to Come before we let it off the leash, we must train ourselves and educate others before we can remove the restraints of government-forced 'charity'. In this post, I would like to give recommendations for each of three financial categories in preparing our country for an eventual return to fiscal conservatism.
1. The Rich
Under the current system, you earn roughly 30% of the nation's income and pay roughly 60% of the nation's taxes. I have heard many complain about the disproportionate burden you bear, simply for trying to succeed. In extreme cases, you've deliberately avoided further success for fear of lowering your after-tax income, not just the percentage, but the income itself. I can't blame you for losing your spirit. Why work harder when you will be not only rewarded less, but downright punished? Still, this despair, this abandonment of effort, is a key part in a strategy among those who promote class hatred to bring you down. Without your balance and generosity, a post-socialist system will not work.
First off, remember that it is good for the human being to work. The Rich are often prone to mental and physical health problems that are less apt to afflict the workers, simply because of their lives of leisure. Granted, they are also safeguarded from problems that afflict those who work too hard with no leisure, especially without proper food and warmth, but they are not necessarily any more at their peak than the overworked. There is an increasing belief in this society that the right way to find happiness is to get a lot of money and pursue worldly pleasures for as long as you please. You, being a Christian, know better. If by your income you are self-sufficient, consider volunteering.
Secondly, you of all people must continue to manage your money effectively. Right now the government takes a large portion of it for government-coerced charity. When that changes, the people they help will still be there, as will those who suffer as they fall 'between the cracks'. Now's the time to be aware of where you can help those in need. Investigate charities and how they work. Choose your methods of charity. Remember that you will be reporting to God how you used the money available to you and why. The more released from the government's clutches, the more you will be accountable for.
Thirdly, remember to prosper. That sounds like a strange thing to say, doesn't it? Note that prospering is not the same as living a luxury lifestyle. The badly-termed "prosperity gospel" does not actually involve true prospering at all. Prospering, thriving, booming, growing... all involve increasing the wealth at your disposal, not just having a fancy car or lots of vacations. God prospers all the more those who give willingly and out of a cheerful heart, in part because the more you have, the more you are able to give.
Giving willingly is another thing that human beings were made to do and thrive by doing. It has measurable health benefits and brings happiness to the giver and the receiver. Of course, as a Christian, you know that even if there were no benefits God still wishes you to become a generous person. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it, that the way He wants you to be is the healthiest way for you to live?
1. The Rich
Under the current system, you earn roughly 30% of the nation's income and pay roughly 60% of the nation's taxes. I have heard many complain about the disproportionate burden you bear, simply for trying to succeed. In extreme cases, you've deliberately avoided further success for fear of lowering your after-tax income, not just the percentage, but the income itself. I can't blame you for losing your spirit. Why work harder when you will be not only rewarded less, but downright punished? Still, this despair, this abandonment of effort, is a key part in a strategy among those who promote class hatred to bring you down. Without your balance and generosity, a post-socialist system will not work.
First off, remember that it is good for the human being to work. The Rich are often prone to mental and physical health problems that are less apt to afflict the workers, simply because of their lives of leisure. Granted, they are also safeguarded from problems that afflict those who work too hard with no leisure, especially without proper food and warmth, but they are not necessarily any more at their peak than the overworked. There is an increasing belief in this society that the right way to find happiness is to get a lot of money and pursue worldly pleasures for as long as you please. You, being a Christian, know better. If by your income you are self-sufficient, consider volunteering.
Secondly, you of all people must continue to manage your money effectively. Right now the government takes a large portion of it for government-coerced charity. When that changes, the people they help will still be there, as will those who suffer as they fall 'between the cracks'. Now's the time to be aware of where you can help those in need. Investigate charities and how they work. Choose your methods of charity. Remember that you will be reporting to God how you used the money available to you and why. The more released from the government's clutches, the more you will be accountable for.
Thirdly, remember to prosper. That sounds like a strange thing to say, doesn't it? Note that prospering is not the same as living a luxury lifestyle. The badly-termed "prosperity gospel" does not actually involve true prospering at all. Prospering, thriving, booming, growing... all involve increasing the wealth at your disposal, not just having a fancy car or lots of vacations. God prospers all the more those who give willingly and out of a cheerful heart, in part because the more you have, the more you are able to give.
Giving willingly is another thing that human beings were made to do and thrive by doing. It has measurable health benefits and brings happiness to the giver and the receiver. Of course, as a Christian, you know that even if there were no benefits God still wishes you to become a generous person. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it, that the way He wants you to be is the healthiest way for you to live?
Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 1
I have been listening to someone on another forum who appreciates fiscal conservatism, but would discard social conservatism. That would be a grave error. Liberalism is like a cell, locking us in a small room and telling us that within that small room we may do as we please. Conservatism is setting us free... but a free man must have constraints on his behavior, or it is an act of unkindness to give him his liberty. Social conservatism is made up of those restraints, while fiscal conservatism is our freedom.
Conservatives Christians have been instructed by God Himself to see that their society cares for the poor. While liberals, even liberal Christians, would seek government seizure and redistribution towards this end, Conservative Christians consider the myriads of Bible passages confirming the importance of owning your own property and being personally responsible for it's use. Even slaves in the Old Testament could own their own property, and even married women, under the guidelines of submission, were encouraged to own and profit from their personal holdings apart from their husbands.
This theme of voluntary generosity is carried into the New Testament, in which we find that the sin of Ananias and Sapphire was not merely greed, but lying to put on a false show of piety. The words I find telling in this passage, found at the end of Acts chapter 4 and the beginning of Acts chapter 5, is the following explanation: "Before you sold the land, was it not your own? And when you had sold it, was the money not in your control?" Peter was making it clear that the 'socialism' shown by the early Christians was entirely voluntary. I have mostly abandoned for now my effort to get all the way through the Koran, but as an interesting contrast, the beginning parts of the Koran insist that mandatory charity is one of the necessities to earn paradise.
Why is charity urged, but not detailed and coerced, in the Bible? Christianity is a bit more complicated than most world religions. Rather than being a simple to-do list, it is about transformation into a certain kind of person. Instead of constantly going to a 'well' to draw out virtues of the soul, we are to be a 'spring of water' out of which these virtues naturally bubble out and overflow. Telling us exactly what we must give and why would do us little good if we are ever to be mature Christians seeking Jesus of our own accord. That is why the kind of control shown by a socialistic government is absent from the Bible, leaving us only with the command to become a generous people, and the sense that if we do so, proper care of the poor will naturally follow.
Conservatives Christians have been instructed by God Himself to see that their society cares for the poor. While liberals, even liberal Christians, would seek government seizure and redistribution towards this end, Conservative Christians consider the myriads of Bible passages confirming the importance of owning your own property and being personally responsible for it's use. Even slaves in the Old Testament could own their own property, and even married women, under the guidelines of submission, were encouraged to own and profit from their personal holdings apart from their husbands.
This theme of voluntary generosity is carried into the New Testament, in which we find that the sin of Ananias and Sapphire was not merely greed, but lying to put on a false show of piety. The words I find telling in this passage, found at the end of Acts chapter 4 and the beginning of Acts chapter 5, is the following explanation: "Before you sold the land, was it not your own? And when you had sold it, was the money not in your control?" Peter was making it clear that the 'socialism' shown by the early Christians was entirely voluntary. I have mostly abandoned for now my effort to get all the way through the Koran, but as an interesting contrast, the beginning parts of the Koran insist that mandatory charity is one of the necessities to earn paradise.
Why is charity urged, but not detailed and coerced, in the Bible? Christianity is a bit more complicated than most world religions. Rather than being a simple to-do list, it is about transformation into a certain kind of person. Instead of constantly going to a 'well' to draw out virtues of the soul, we are to be a 'spring of water' out of which these virtues naturally bubble out and overflow. Telling us exactly what we must give and why would do us little good if we are ever to be mature Christians seeking Jesus of our own accord. That is why the kind of control shown by a socialistic government is absent from the Bible, leaving us only with the command to become a generous people, and the sense that if we do so, proper care of the poor will naturally follow.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Parable of the Jacuzzi
One day the king who ruled the land decided to go visit some of his peasants. He was rather surprised to see the sorry state of their house and asked if there was anything he could do for them.
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What should we do now?
As some of those who follow this blog might have guessed by some of my previous posts, I am not a hard-left liberal Democrat, which means my politics are not those of our president-elect. Though my politics lean towards Libertarian, my actual worldview is probably best described as Conservative Christian. Yesterday was not a very nice day for Conservative Christians.
I had my moment of despair, an entire hour early in the morning, and I pulled together. That's something that the Conservative Christian does better than many other worldviews. God is still in control, and we are not to worry unduly about the future, because it will take care of itself. God gives us the grace we need to deal with our current situation, and when I have to I can focus very small until I reach the point where I know what to do next. Sometimes in these troubled times that focus narrows down to "take the clothes out of the washing machine", which I do. I immediately begin to feel better.
Then I began hearing from other troubled friends, some conservative, some Christian, some moderate, some liberal. Some were telling me that everything would work out fine now because they had faith in their candidate's economic plan. As a conservative, I find his plan makes no realistic sense, so that was not much help. A fellow Conservative Christian reminded me that God is on His throne and hasn't stopped caring for us, and that is the word I began to spread, because that's how we think.
So for those who have wandered, like I did until my fellows reminded me, into the mire of worldly fears and frantic worries, what should we do now?
Live.
I might not know what to do if my taxes are raised, but I know that the laundry needs doing, and there's a package of sugar cookie dough that is going to go bad if it's not used, and my son needs his homeschooling lesson done. My mother's car is being repaired and I'm providing rides for her meanwhile. So I can't just sit paralyzed with fears that God did not mean for me to carry; I need to hand those fears over to Him along with my entire future, and go get ready for the present trial.
And as I do I realize that the present trial isn't really all that bad. Sugar cookies are fun to roll out and decorate with my son. My mother's a great conversationalist and we're good friends, so no car ride with her is ever dull or painful. The laundry is laundry, no worse than it's ever been, and there is such a good feeling when I know my clothing is clean and in it's drawers.
How will Conservative Christians live for the next few years, with liberal extremism in office? Sure, it can be done. I'll try to push myself to write the thoughts always swirling in my head and tell you more about how in the coming days. But for right now, I simply say this: Work, play, laugh, love, and learn. The presidential election did not take away your home or vanish your to-do list. Prepare for winter and save your money. God will take care of the future.
I had my moment of despair, an entire hour early in the morning, and I pulled together. That's something that the Conservative Christian does better than many other worldviews. God is still in control, and we are not to worry unduly about the future, because it will take care of itself. God gives us the grace we need to deal with our current situation, and when I have to I can focus very small until I reach the point where I know what to do next. Sometimes in these troubled times that focus narrows down to "take the clothes out of the washing machine", which I do. I immediately begin to feel better.
Then I began hearing from other troubled friends, some conservative, some Christian, some moderate, some liberal. Some were telling me that everything would work out fine now because they had faith in their candidate's economic plan. As a conservative, I find his plan makes no realistic sense, so that was not much help. A fellow Conservative Christian reminded me that God is on His throne and hasn't stopped caring for us, and that is the word I began to spread, because that's how we think.
So for those who have wandered, like I did until my fellows reminded me, into the mire of worldly fears and frantic worries, what should we do now?
Live.
I might not know what to do if my taxes are raised, but I know that the laundry needs doing, and there's a package of sugar cookie dough that is going to go bad if it's not used, and my son needs his homeschooling lesson done. My mother's car is being repaired and I'm providing rides for her meanwhile. So I can't just sit paralyzed with fears that God did not mean for me to carry; I need to hand those fears over to Him along with my entire future, and go get ready for the present trial.
And as I do I realize that the present trial isn't really all that bad. Sugar cookies are fun to roll out and decorate with my son. My mother's a great conversationalist and we're good friends, so no car ride with her is ever dull or painful. The laundry is laundry, no worse than it's ever been, and there is such a good feeling when I know my clothing is clean and in it's drawers.
How will Conservative Christians live for the next few years, with liberal extremism in office? Sure, it can be done. I'll try to push myself to write the thoughts always swirling in my head and tell you more about how in the coming days. But for right now, I simply say this: Work, play, laugh, love, and learn. The presidential election did not take away your home or vanish your to-do list. Prepare for winter and save your money. God will take care of the future.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Pushing Lifestyle Through Taxes
I have been watching this election season avidly, scrutinizing the candidates' plans, and discovered in dismay that one has managed to dupe us with promises of more and more money... unless you make over $250K/year. Or maybe it's $200K/year. It might be $150K/year. As of yesterday, it was $120K/year, which puts the "rich folk" label on a dual wage-earner household in which both members have middle-class jobs. But that's besides the point. The Democrats have been inciting class hatred for decades now.
What struck me about this new plan is the part that almost nobody is talking about. Obama's plan is touted as a tax cut, but it actually is not a tax cut at all. His plan involves tons of new tax credits. There are two important differences between the two. The first is that a tax cut reduces the amount of money that government takes from you, while a tax credit increases the amount that the government gives back. The second, and the focus of my post today, is that tax cuts apply according to income regardless of lifestyle, while you must qualify for a tax credit by meeting a special set of circumstances.
A lot of people have been offering me a website that supposedly asks you a few questions and calculates how much more money Obama plans to give you. I checked the site myself and found that my number is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" gave me more money than Obama is promising me, even as he desires to roll back those cuts. Basically, I will come out on the bad side if he is elected. Am I rich?
Obama's Families In Trouble on his half-hour infomercial made me laugh. One woman worries that she won't be able to stock as much snack food in her fridge. Another woman, sporting a $40/month acrylic nail job, mourns about the difficulty she has buying milk. Look, hon, I do nothing with my nails so I can afford milk.
My husband makes a decent wage, and I am a homemaker and homeschooling mother. That combination puts us in the same income level as "Working Class", and the only thing that would technically push us into "Lower Middle Class" is my husband's job type. We have a fixed-rate mortgage that we staunchly refused to convert to variable-rate when the interest levels for variable bounced to 1%, mostly because we already knew that they would rise above 10% at some point in the next thirty years. People don't seem to know how to plan further than the next five years anymore.
Our tax burden, federal, state, Social Security, and Medicaid all comes up to about 20% of our income. Our mortgage payment is over half of our net income. We pay next for electricity, auto insurance, and phone service (including internet). We own both our cars outright. We do not own a cell phone, not even an emergency plan. With all of that, the rest of our income is spent on food and gas, plus any emergencies, mostly auto repair, that demand a response. We have no entertainment budget.
Our food budget is 2/3rds of what a family our size would get on welfare, and it will be a little over half that when the baby is born. We actually took the unusual step of applying for energy assistance this year, and found that we were only $500/year over the mark. That puts us, by the way, just above 150% of the state poverty level. You would think Obama would be falling all over himself to help us, right? Why will his new plan benefit us almost nothing? Simple: we do not fit into his 'poor person lifestyle'. In plainer talk, we don't qualify for his tax credits, which include:
* Doubling the earned income tax credit if you pay child support
* $4K tax credit if you paid college tuition
* $7K tax credit if you bought a "clean car"
* $6K tax credit if you pay for daycare
So basically, since my husband has not abandoned his family, neither of us are in college, we can't afford to buy a car, and I choose to raise our children myself, we don't qualify for any of those Obama Tax Credits. There are more, of course, and we don't qualify for them either. Education tax credits do not apply to homeschoolers, etc.
So it doesn't matter to Obama that next spring we will have a food budget nearly half of that from a family on welfare, or that we are likely to put our winter oil tank fill on the credit card because we simply do not have it in the bank, even though we do not make any of the poor choices that land many other families in poverty. This is not class warfare anymore. We are "rich", not because we make a lot of money, but because we don't live the way he expects us to. Perhaps, and this is admittedly a conjecture, we do not live the way that contributes to the socialist society the Democrats wish to impose. And so we must be punished until we fall into line.
Already my husband knows of coworkers, even in his white-collar workplace, who choose not to marry their girlfriends for the simple reason that the state will provide for them better then their men can. One in particular, with full intention to be a good father to his girlfriend's baby, nevertheless waited until the child was born before marriage so that the state would provide her with the prenatal care she needed, the care that he could not provide himself, even as he was taxed at or near the same 20%-when-counting-federal/state/SS/etc. rate that my husband and I suffer under.
I say 'suffer', but we're holding our own. Even on such a small food budget, I still provide good meals for my family by resorting to beans, rice, potatoes, and other simple and unpackaged foods. The woman in Obama's infomercial with snacks in her refrigerator made me simply shake my head, because we simply cannot afford any snack foods in our budget. According to Obama, she needs more help than we do.
This is no longer just about Democratic class warfare. This is about the government rewarding some lifestyles over others. If you try to work hard, live frugally, and trouble no man, raising your children within the framework of a traditional family, the Democrats do not care about you.
What struck me about this new plan is the part that almost nobody is talking about. Obama's plan is touted as a tax cut, but it actually is not a tax cut at all. His plan involves tons of new tax credits. There are two important differences between the two. The first is that a tax cut reduces the amount of money that government takes from you, while a tax credit increases the amount that the government gives back. The second, and the focus of my post today, is that tax cuts apply according to income regardless of lifestyle, while you must qualify for a tax credit by meeting a special set of circumstances.
A lot of people have been offering me a website that supposedly asks you a few questions and calculates how much more money Obama plans to give you. I checked the site myself and found that my number is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" gave me more money than Obama is promising me, even as he desires to roll back those cuts. Basically, I will come out on the bad side if he is elected. Am I rich?
Obama's Families In Trouble on his half-hour infomercial made me laugh. One woman worries that she won't be able to stock as much snack food in her fridge. Another woman, sporting a $40/month acrylic nail job, mourns about the difficulty she has buying milk. Look, hon, I do nothing with my nails so I can afford milk.
My husband makes a decent wage, and I am a homemaker and homeschooling mother. That combination puts us in the same income level as "Working Class", and the only thing that would technically push us into "Lower Middle Class" is my husband's job type. We have a fixed-rate mortgage that we staunchly refused to convert to variable-rate when the interest levels for variable bounced to 1%, mostly because we already knew that they would rise above 10% at some point in the next thirty years. People don't seem to know how to plan further than the next five years anymore.
Our tax burden, federal, state, Social Security, and Medicaid all comes up to about 20% of our income. Our mortgage payment is over half of our net income. We pay next for electricity, auto insurance, and phone service (including internet). We own both our cars outright. We do not own a cell phone, not even an emergency plan. With all of that, the rest of our income is spent on food and gas, plus any emergencies, mostly auto repair, that demand a response. We have no entertainment budget.
Our food budget is 2/3rds of what a family our size would get on welfare, and it will be a little over half that when the baby is born. We actually took the unusual step of applying for energy assistance this year, and found that we were only $500/year over the mark. That puts us, by the way, just above 150% of the state poverty level. You would think Obama would be falling all over himself to help us, right? Why will his new plan benefit us almost nothing? Simple: we do not fit into his 'poor person lifestyle'. In plainer talk, we don't qualify for his tax credits, which include:
* Doubling the earned income tax credit if you pay child support
* $4K tax credit if you paid college tuition
* $7K tax credit if you bought a "clean car"
* $6K tax credit if you pay for daycare
So basically, since my husband has not abandoned his family, neither of us are in college, we can't afford to buy a car, and I choose to raise our children myself, we don't qualify for any of those Obama Tax Credits. There are more, of course, and we don't qualify for them either. Education tax credits do not apply to homeschoolers, etc.
So it doesn't matter to Obama that next spring we will have a food budget nearly half of that from a family on welfare, or that we are likely to put our winter oil tank fill on the credit card because we simply do not have it in the bank, even though we do not make any of the poor choices that land many other families in poverty. This is not class warfare anymore. We are "rich", not because we make a lot of money, but because we don't live the way he expects us to. Perhaps, and this is admittedly a conjecture, we do not live the way that contributes to the socialist society the Democrats wish to impose. And so we must be punished until we fall into line.
Already my husband knows of coworkers, even in his white-collar workplace, who choose not to marry their girlfriends for the simple reason that the state will provide for them better then their men can. One in particular, with full intention to be a good father to his girlfriend's baby, nevertheless waited until the child was born before marriage so that the state would provide her with the prenatal care she needed, the care that he could not provide himself, even as he was taxed at or near the same 20%-when-counting-federal/state/SS/etc. rate that my husband and I suffer under.
I say 'suffer', but we're holding our own. Even on such a small food budget, I still provide good meals for my family by resorting to beans, rice, potatoes, and other simple and unpackaged foods. The woman in Obama's infomercial with snacks in her refrigerator made me simply shake my head, because we simply cannot afford any snack foods in our budget. According to Obama, she needs more help than we do.
This is no longer just about Democratic class warfare. This is about the government rewarding some lifestyles over others. If you try to work hard, live frugally, and trouble no man, raising your children within the framework of a traditional family, the Democrats do not care about you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)