Say what you will about Glenn Beck...

[GoldenRivet]

...but EVERY "peace and social justice" proponent needs to view this clip with an open mind.

you guys are supposedly an intelligent bunch, it isnt too much to ask to get you to watch this clip for 6 1/2 minutes



http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/18/shocker-oprah-doesnt-like-giving-to-irs/


enjoy

[Growler]

Oh, lord. There's so much wrong with this article that I don't know where to start, so I'll keep in simple. Before I go on, I didn't watch the video, but read the article connected to it.

Tithing = brainwashed supporting of "church causes" like the legal defense funds for pedopriests. I won't go into the total scam that is organized religion.

Celebrities griping about taxes. Poor freaking babies. Let me earn what you earn to blather about endlessly, Oprah, and feel a little of your pain. That'll learn me. No sympathy for any of them, at all. They make their choices; the taxes come with those choices. Que lastima!

Glenn Beck spouting off about tithing only calls into question even further the ties between religion and conservatism - a religion that, ostensibly, is not supposed to be involved in politics, but ultimately is the genesis of all politics.

Need to drink more coffee and extract the car from the block of ice it's in.

[Armistead]

Glen Beck is nothing more than a entertainer, loves shock value, because of the attention it gets him. Why he had views before, since he's gone to Fox he's become almost a nut case. I love when he cries those fake tears, so obvious.

Strange, most Christians support him, but believe mormonism to be a hellbound cult.

I heard another spill he gave on tithing, that all should tithe so the church could take care of all social issues. I wouldn't trust a church no more than the IRS. Sure, some do great things, but overall religion believes in using government and law to push their moral agenda. They want God in government, but only their beliefs. I"m sure they would love to combine religion and politics like past days.

Most religious groups follow the GOP. They don't want healthcare for children, any help social programs, but will sell their souls to corporate america to make a few percent rich.

I hate anything radical, left of right...Beck is an idiot. Sure, he tells some truths, but only spews one limited view, he should take up preaching.

[GoldenRivet]

I didn't watch the video

says it all, thanks for playing

Tithing = brainwashed supporting of "church causes" like the legal defense funds for pedopriests.

Or like the church i attend semi-annually sending a team of Doctors and Nurses to third world countries to provide first rate free medical care to people who have diseases that would easily kill someone in such a nation.

all i asked for was an open mind and six minutes... instead i got the door slammed in my face ;)

Its my fault though, i gave far too much credit.

Celebrities griping about taxes. Poor freaking babies.

I dont think Oprah was complaining about taxes, just pointing out how much she pays. (But you didnt watch the video to hear her direct audio did you?) the point of the video, is "Why is the united States government in the business of forced charity?" besides... high taxation is a burden on everyone. the more pet programs the government has, the more you are going to pay for them

Need to drink more coffee and extract the car from the block of ice it's in.

Amongst other things i suppose.

I heard another spill he gave on tithing, that all should tithe so the church could take care of all social issues.

that i wouldnt agree with, however, if i am forced to "tithe" to the IRS, should i not be allowed to choose the social issue to which my money is sent?

I wouldn't trust a church no more than the IRS.

Funny, lots of people say that exact thing... yet... for some reason they continue to open their check books to the IRS every single year do they not?

Sure, some do great things, but overall religion believes in using government and law to push their moral agenda. They want God in government, but only their beliefs. I"m sure they would love to combine religion and politics like past days.

combining God and government would be a disaster, i dont think i once heard anyone say the Church should be placed in charge of anything... what i DID HEAR was a man comparing "tithing" to paying the IRS.

in the case of tithin you see where your money goes and you see its direct impact on your community or a community a world away. an individual who "tithes" does so because they WANT TO, not because they have to.

In the case of Taxes for welfare and social justice programs, your hands are tied, if uncle sam says you have to "tithe" the the IRS... guess what, you have to.

Most religious groups follow the GOP. They don't want healthcare for children, any help social programs, but will sell their souls to corporate america to make a few percent rich.

Im not a big church goer, but that statement is so far out of line with the truth i dont even know what to say.

[Oberon]

Lol, Bullet train as violent rhetoric. :har:

I must admit, the first thing that surprised me here is the reasonable tone, normally when one sees Glenn Beck, he's calling the hellfire down upon the unbelievers...but given what I've just watched I'd wager that that is a good example of unbiased selective editing. :hmmm:

Now, the subject...the IRS...I wager that's Inland Revenue in the states I guess? and Taxes...well...no-one likes Taxes, do they? From the rich to the poor, everyone hates taxes, but arguably, if it was left to private companies, could they be completely trusted with public services? Look at our rail network in the UK, privatised in the late 1990s and is only just recovering, train fares through the roof and rail maintenance run by a different company to the trains, which one can argue has lead to several fatal accidents in the past decade, but I digress. Private companies are generally only in it for one thing and that is to generate revenue, it's pretty simple, and perhaps the guy at the top makes a hideous amount, but so does any guy at any top, it's a fact of life.
Now, one could argue that public companies have a greater focus on service than on profit...perhaps this is true, however at the end of the day they will still focus heavily on generating revenue to meet the targets issued to them by their government body. There's corruption in both public and private companies, perhaps it's easier to hide in a public body because, due to its nature, it haemorrages funds at an alarming rate...but nevertheless, it still occurs at varying rates depending upon the nature of the management and of the directing council.
"Your tax dollars at work." Well, yes, that's understandable, and I imagine is covered by the corruption I've mentioned, doubtless some mayor or senator thinks that a High speed rail line will benefit his area and so has put some lobbying behind it, and thus the project is born...it's happened over here too, and in fact around every nation on the planet, independent of governmental style, independent of political leaning, human greed is human greed, short of divide intervention that's not going to change.

I think the crux of the matter though is that big elephant in the middle, government, and the way it diverts funds from the people into public companies, and yes that will always be a matter for great debate, however it will be debated by the right when the left is in power and by the left when the right is in power, we'll have misappropriated government funds in a Democratic government, and a corporate corruption scandal in a Republican government. So, really, what Glenn Beck says is well...nothing much...really, unless being an islander I've missed the point he's trying to make. :hmmm:

Still, one of the more reasonable things I've seen from Beck...aside from the 'violent rhetoric' jibe which, while amusing, was a bit unnecessary in the topic...but there you go. I've seen worse. :yep:

[GoldenRivet]

aside from the 'violent rhetoric' jibe which, while amusing, was a bit unnecessary in the topic...but there you go. I've seen worse. :yep:

it was meant to be humorous, drawing attention to how everything that has anything to do with "bullet" is violent dribble.

you get beck humor, congratulations:haha:

[Rockstar]

Biblically tithing was for the Temple Priests when there was a Temple. These Priests have nothing to do with catholics or other self proclaimed shepards. But those of the desendants of Arron and Arron only.

You don't need to go to some 'church'. If you desire to give then give and give with a cheerful heart to those who truely need it. Political activists are the last ones I need to hear from about tithing, no matter what wing they're flapping.

[Takeda Shingen]

A peculair metaphor. Does this make the political class the priests of American society?

[Oberon]

it was meant to be humorous, drawing attention to how everything that has anything to do with "bullet" is violent dribble.

you get beck humor, congratulations:haha:

I'm a Brit, I get most sorts of humour :O: To be honest I was grabbing at straws there, I did get a chuckle out of it.

Come to think of it, there's a certain Steve McQueen film that could be under threat... :doh:

[GoldenRivet]

A peculair metaphor. Does this make the political class the priests of American society?

in any governed society, someone, somewhere is exerting influence and power over someone else.

In the middle ages it was the catholic priests and bishops and the pope

in today's time perhaps it is the representatives and the senators and the presidents.

the old saying "divide and conquer" comes to mind.

then ask "who is dividing us?"

whatever the answer to that question is... theres your enemy

[mookiemookie]

Biblically tithing was for the Temple Priests when there was a Temple. These Priests have nothing to do with catholics or other self proclaimed shepards. But those of the desendants of Arron and Arron only.

You don't need to go to some 'church'. If you desire to give then give and give with a cheerful heart to those who truely need it. Political activists are the last ones I need to hear from about tithing, no matter what wing they're flapping.

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full." Matthew 6:1-2

[Takeda Shingen]

in any governed society, someone, somewhere is exerting influence and power over someone else.

In the middle ages it was the catholic priests and bishops and the pope

in today's time perhaps it is the representatives and the senators and the presidents.

the old saying "divide and conquer" comes to mind.

then ask "who is dividing us?"

whatever the answer to that question is... theres your enemy

Ah. So 'social justice', to utilize the term that you prefer, is the very same as the crusades by both intent and effect. We are besieging the new Jerusalem?

[GoldenRivet]

Ah. So 'social justice', to utilize the term that you prefer, is the very same as the crusades by both intent and effect. We are besieging the new Jerusalem?

Dont misunderstand me. ;)

in a way, all good men seek social justice.

however, in our society, there are those who appear to believe that it is the place of our federal government to impose social justice on its people.

do i give to causes which could be considered "social justice causes"?

of course i do, i wont say to which, nor will i say how much, but i do when i can afford to.

I believe though, that it should be up to the individual to do so freely, with a proud and glad heart... not forced under duress.

thats all im saying, and i think what Glenn Beck is trying to say - or at least what i took away from the video... is that it might be a more enjoyable thing to pay taxes toward social justice type programs wherein the individual parting with their money is able to see the good that it does instead of just writing a check to a cold, bureaucratic organization parting with money that is never to be seen or heard from again and in all likelihood will go to some senator's pet project.

On another note: I'm not sure i understand the folks today who attack religion.

I used to do it, but the more i open my eyes to it i begin to see that your experience with religion depends exactly upon where you go to have your experience.

I have had good experiences, and i have had bad experiences, but one thing i have learned here in the past few years is that i should try harder not to lump people into one category based on their color, or religion or their political position.

thats not always easy, sometimes is damned hard. but i try still.

its very discouraging to see some of the very people who would say things like: "Dont hate the man because he is black." or "Be more fair to our immigrants legal or illegal" or "refrain from saying things that are antisemitic"

those same people would run you down the minute you say you're a Christian or even dare mention Christianity or God... because the moment you do they assume that you want to force your religion on them, force God into government, want to hoard guns and kill people.

there isnt a two way street in these kinds of discussions, and i gave some people here too much credit to start with.

Am i a Christian?

you bet your arse

Do i love Christ?

you bet your arse

Do i cuss and drink and look at girls when they walk by and skip church virtually every sunday?

again... you bet your arse

do i think God should be part of the government or that the church should be part of the government or that everyone should be Christian.

not no but hell no.

[Takeda Shingen]

Dont misunderstand me. ;)

in a way, all good men seek social justice.

however, in our society, there are those who appear to believe that it is the place of our federal government to impose social justice on its people.

do i give to causes which could be considered "social justice causes"?

of course i do, i wont say to which, nor will i say how much, but i do when i can afford to.

I believe though, that it should be up to the individual to do so freely, with a proud and glad heart... not forced under duress.

thats all im saying, and i think what Glenn Beck is trying to say - or at least what i took away from the video... is that it might be a more enjoyable thing to pay taxes toward social justice type programs wherein the individual parting with their money is able to see the good that it does instead of just writing a check to a cold, bureaucratic organization parting with money that is never to be seen or heard from again and in all likelihood will go to some senator's pet project.

On another note: I'm not sure i understand the folks today who attack religion.

I used to do it, but the more i open my eyes to it i begin to see that your experience with religion depends exactly upon where you go to have your experience.

I have had good experiences, and i have had bad experiences, but one thing i have learned here in the past few years is that i should try harder not to lump people into one category based on their color, or religion or their political position.

thats not always easy, sometimes is damned hard. but i try still.

its very discouraging to see some of the very people who would say things like: "Dont hate the man because he is black." or "Be more fair to our immigrants legal or illegal" or "refrain from saying things that are antisemitic"

those same people would run you down the minute you say you're a Christian or even dare mention Christianity or God... because the moment you do they assume that you want to force your religion on them, force God into government, want to hoard guns and kill people.

there isnt a two way street in these kinds of discussions, and i gave some people here too much credit to start with.

Am i a Christian?

you bet your arse

Do i love Christ?

you bet your arse

Do i cuss and drink and look at girls when they walk by and skip church virtually every sunday?

again... you bet your arse

do i think God should be part of the government or that the church should be part of the government or that everyone should be Christian.

not no but hell no.

What I am saying is that Glenn Beck is not a fool. I do not like him. I do not agree with him. Still, he is drawing an analogy between 'social justice' and the crusades. It is not one that has anything to do with faith, gods or dogma. Rather it is one that has to do with futility. The crusades were a futile endeavor; the arbitrary capture of a city from an imaginary enemy. The Islamic world was not a threat to western Christendom, and yet western Christians were forced into support of a supposed religious crusade with the true objective of (1) eliminating an eastern Christian rival and (2) capturing a city from an imagined enemy. Beck is clearly drawing the comparison between this fruitless, and utimately destructive event and the modern democratic movement.

He is saying that progressivism is beholden to a destructive quasi-crusade in the vein of the religious crusades of old. The message is not particularly subtle.

[Oberon]

Ataturk had the right idea with religion and government IMHO.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm not really a fan of Beck; conservative as I may be. His moral stance offends both my Libertarian and Christian sensibilities, even though I believe that there is a God and that he sent His only Son to die for our sins. I think Mark expressed it perfectly in his post. Matt 6:1 and 2 are a couple of my favorite verses in the Bible, and exemplary of the ideals of the Christian faith. Call me an idiot if you're one of the "enlightened" that is so arrogant as to presuppose that your knowledge of the world is so comprehensive as to be able to dismiss the existence of a benevolent God, or that your morality is so superior as to be above that of those who aspire to Christian ideals. I won't judge you, nor would I embrace a religion that did for simply being a person who was created with an innate curiosity for their place in the world.

But that's neither here nor there. The real issue being brought up here is Oprah Winfrey's reluctance to pay taxes. Progressive as she is, and having come from a poor background, one would think that she would be eager to give to the common good; and for the most part, she has done so. Oprah has donated millions of dollars to charities that she found to be worthy. But even she doesn't trust the government to do what is right with her money. She just wants the government to do what she thinks is desireable with your money. I hate to say it because it sounds so..well... Beckish, but the fact of the matter is that Oprah doesn't trust you with your own money. You don't know what is right for the nation, but she does.

If any of this sounds familiar it's because it has happened before. The elite have always taken it upon themselves to pass judgement on those they consider to be beneath them for the good of the nation and, coincidentally, their own good. It never fails to amaze me how often the Democratic electorate worships the wealthy princes they elect whilst ignoring their birth priviledges and and complete lack of personal regard for the common people. They are always quick to demand that people who actually produce things surrender their wealth, but they won't ever do it themselves. Foxtrot Uniform.

[gimpy117]

the idea of giving to the church instead of the government to help "social justice?" absurd.

The government pays for the roads, the cops, the fire department, national defense, schools, as well as its own "social justice programs". Or government gives oodles to the poor via aid every year. We help out in natural disasters etc.

The main problem about the church and ESPECIALLY the example of oprah trying to stand as an alternative to uncle sam helping the underprivileged in this nation is that not all of that money is spent in the US. Take oprah for example. Instead of building some school here in america...she goes to Africa and in a media frenzy builds this state of the art school in africa, while here in america schools in Detroit are literally falling apart. I remember some years ago a toilet fell through the floor in one.

Now imagine if oprah would have given that money to the DOE, or directly to schools in america?

This is just another one of these "libertarian magic dust" ideas that never work, under the impression that taxes are the devil and everything would work so much better if it was privatized and what not, thinking that responsible citizens will just freely give their money for the police etc. There was once something like that in america, fire depts were private. and if you couldn't afford the fee your house burned down.

Undersea also goes on to say that we all ought to have the government spend your money exactly the way yo want it. But we do. It's called the ballot box. If you think your money is being spent badly, elect somebody who will fight to get it spent that way. Democracy isn't some ale carte deal where you can pick and choose what parts you selfishly want for yourself.

[Tchocky]

High net worth individual dislikes paying taxes. Well blow me down.

[GoldenRivet]

so many people miss the point :doh:

nobody is saying the church should be in charge of social justice programs

im saying that if the government says "OK you owe $8,000 in taxes this year, and we are going to give 20 percent of that to social programs"

i think i should have the right to say

"Ok great, give all 20% to Aids research."

or

"Ok please give all 20% to programs that benefit homeless children"

as opposed to just signing a check - handing it to the tax man - and grumbling my way back home.

supposedly we can put a man on the moon, and create things like the space shuttle, or social networks as massive and sprawling as facebook and call ourselves "civilized"

BUT we cant pick the social programs our tax funds go to on an individual level???

[Tchocky]

I only want to fund the Army with this year's tax payments. I suspect witchcraft on the part of the "flying" services.

[gimpy117]

so many people miss the point :doh:

nobody is saying the church should be in charge of social justice programs

im saying that if the government says "OK you owe $8,000 in taxes this year, and we are going to give 20 percent of that to social programs"

i think i should have the right to say

"Ok great, give all 20% to Aids research."

or

"Ok please give all 20% to programs that benefit homeless children"

as opposed to just signing a check - handing it to the tax man - and grumbling my way back home.

supposedly we can put a man on the moon, and create things like the space shuttle, or social networks as massive and sprawling as facebook and call ourselves "civilized"

BUT we cant pick the social programs our tax funds go to on an individual level???

well then vote a senator to a person who will work for homeless children.

[GoldenRivet]

ugh


just forget it.:yeah:

[tater]

I see the point. Oprah has no problem giving millions to charity—she enjoys it. Paying TAXES, OTOH, makes her want a stiff drink.

She's an avowed left-Democrat, so why does she not enjoy paying her substantial tax bill? Why does she campaign and vote for candidates who want to raise taxes, then avail herself of tax cuts she supposedly disagrees with? Any principled Democrat should have paid extra taxes all these years to protest wrong-headed tax cuts, IMO.

If I felt that the small reduction in marginal rate offered by the Bush tax cuts was wrong, I'd elect to pay the pre-reduction rate. Failure to do so would make me a hypocrite.

The tithing thing is sort of the same. I'm not for that, I'm not religious. That said, people happily give that sort of % to something they LIKE, but would hate giving that same 10% instead to the government. Probably because they realize the government would waste that money.

[Harmsway!]

I'm a Christian.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm a Christian.

careful spewing that around here :haha:

[mookiemookie]

I think people may be missing the point. Her tax bill is most likely pretty low. People with any substantial wealth will structure their investments and income so as to minimize their tax liability. The companies she owns are also structured to minimize their taxes paid.

She has a brand to maintain. The brand of being an approachable woman who's just like the ones who watch her at home - the kind of friend you'd invite over for coffee. She shares the same everyday trials and tribulations you do! She hates traffic (nevermind that she take a limo everywhere), she has bad hair days (nevermind that she has a team of stylists), she hates to pay her taxes...get it?

You can beat her up and call her a hypocrite all you want. But you need to realize that you've been suckered into her marketing image as much as anyone else.

[gimpy117]

yeah again, the rich make so much more money than we do but they moan about taxes the most, and get away with it. It's because although it may seem like a lot, take 30% of millions, and its a lot easier to make a living on what left over than it is 20% of 30,000.

[tater]

I think people may be missing the point. Her tax bill is most likely pretty low. People with any substantial wealth will structure their investments and income so as to minimize their tax liability. The companies she owns are also structured to minimize their taxes paid.

She has a brand to maintain. The brand of being an approachable woman who's just like the ones who watch her at home - the kind of friend you'd invite over for coffee. She shares the same everyday trials and tribulations you do! She hates traffic (nevermind that she take a limo everywhere), she has bad hair days (nevermind that she has a team of stylists), she hates to pay her taxes...get it?

You can beat her up and call her a hypocrite all you want. But you need to realize that you've been suckered into her marketing image as much as anyone else.

I'm not suckered by anything. I said she campaigns for Democrats. Regardless of marketing, that is taking a public position on matters of policy (that's what an endorsement is, after all).

He tax bill, while it may have a very much lower effective rate is still no doubt huge. She's single, and a single share of last years budget, plus a single share of the entire national debt would only be 50-60 grand. How many shares will she pay this year?

How about all those on the left in here agree with me to push for the left to send everyone in the country a bill for their share of the national debt? As I recall it's like 45k per person, so 180 grand for a family of 4 to have their share paid in full. The IRS can work out a payment plan for those who can't just write a check for it. I'll pony up our 180 grand if everyone else will do likewise and be happy the problem is solved (as long as spending is then slashed so it never exceeds revenue except in the case of perhaps a declared war).

[TLAM Strike]

Or like the church i attend semi-annually sending a team of Doctors and Nurses to third world countries to provide first rate free medical care to people who have diseases that would easily kill someone in such a nation.

Too bad we don't have groups doing the same in the US, if you are a poor American good luck getting first rate medical care... :nope:

[Reece]

Christian morels give flavor to the world, without it this would be a bitter place to live!!:yep:

[tater]

Too bad we don't have groups doing the same in the US, if you are a poor American good luck getting first rate medical care... :nope:

The poor get excellent medical care in the US. Docs are forced to take medicaid patients to have privileges at hospitals. Docs treat them no differently than anyone else, heck, they often don't even know the insurance status. Even if they did, fear of being sued (the poor patients do like to sue, after all) means the incentive is also to treat them the same.

Standard of care is standard of care.

BTW, docs frequently pay money out of pocket for every medicaid patient they see. They cannot write off the in-kind contribution, or even the LOSS that seeing them entails (if the per-patient visit overhead is $34 and Medicaid pays $22, the doc loses $12 per patient—so the doc's time is worth negative $/hour).

[mookiemookie]

The poor get excellent medical care in the US. Docs are forced to take medicaid patients to have privileges at hospitals. Docs treat them no differently than anyone else, heck, they often don't even know the insurance status. Even if they did, fear of being sued (the poor patients do like to sue, after all) means the incentive is also to treat them the same.

Why then have multiple (http://www.inquiryjournalonline.org/doi/abs/10.5034/inquiryjrnl_47.01.62?journalCode=inqr) studies (http://ideas.repec.org/p/fal/wpaper/06001.html) found (http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/299.abstract) that poor people are treated by lower quality physicians? I think those findings make it hard to argue that the poor receive the same standard of care as everyone else.

[Takeda Shingen]

careful spewing that around here :haha:

I am a Christian too. I attend church every week, direct the choir and used to teach Sunday School. I have never felt threatened when stating that on SubSim. The only times I have felt threatened on this board were when I said something nice about Barack Obama or was critical of anything remotely main-stream conservative. There is an almost militant lean to the right on this forum which was not the case several years ago. GT has become a much less friendly place.

[mookiemookie]

There is an almost militant lean to the right on this forum which was not the case several years ago. GT has become a much less friendly place.

Maybe. I lurked GT long before I started posting in it. Remember the knock down drag out fights that Avon Lady used to be involved in? Those were some pretty heated times.

[Takeda Shingen]

Maybe. I lurked GT long before I started posting in it. Remember the knock down drag out fights that Avon Lady used to be involved in? Those were some pretty heated times.

You're right. Really, I was referencing the forum before 2004. That was the year that things really started to change. I'm just in a stupid nostalgic mood.

[Oberon]

Your right. Really, I was referencing the forum before 2004. That was the year that things really started to change. I'm just in a stupid nostalgic mood.

I would tend to agree. :yep:

[Growler]

[sigh]

My issue with religion is based on my participation in it, and observations of it. In my experience, I have found that those who trumpet loudest about what "good Christians" they are inevitably prove the opposite. I've watched "good Christians" lie, cheat, steal, while good people who didn't believe the same way were passed over for doing things correctly, honorably, and morally right. I watched a man who, as the deacon of the church where I grew up, ministered to the ill, the poor, the lonely, with care, compassion, and equity - and I watched him die bereft, divorced after 40 years, estranged from his kids by his ex-wife, destitute and alone in an apartment building that would make the gulag look like Monaco.

I cannot find ANY religious/faith/spiritual justification for any kind of supreme deity who, in his allegedly infinite wisdom and majesty, created mankind in his image - his most perfect creation - then abandoned it to murder, mayhem, and destruction of his most perfect creation. Many of you are parents - would you, as loving parents, allow your children to kill each other, "for the lesson it teaches them, for their own good" etc? There can be no explanation for the lack of interest demonstrated by a god in the face of the inequities levied by humans, on humans. I watched two of the most devout, spiritually-driven people I have ever known die in utter agony from illnesses well within divine power to counter. But I suppose excruciating pain in your most loyal followers is part of some divine plan, to show how much you love us.

Am I bitter? You better believe it. I have never been anything but betrayed and lied to on behalf of "god" and his followers. And now I see that same betrayal being perpetuated by commentators who want to foster the inclusion of that betrayal into governing law.

Golden Rivet, I was not attacking you in my response. I'm sorry you feel that I was - I specifically stated that my opinion was based on what I read, not on the video - there's no "Edited:" tag on my post there - you'll see that was my intention from the inception of the post. I'm sorry you felt that a justifiable reason to insult me as well as reason to out-of-hand dismiss what I posted.

[tater]

What metrics are they using?

Lesse:
Using education, training, experience, and board certification to measure physician quality, we find that uninsured and Medicaid patients are treated by lower-quality physicians both because of the hospitals these patients attend and because of sorting within hospitals. The effects are statistically significant, but small.

Board certification. Nice, but Residents are not board certified. They are also less educated (they are not yet done, after all). Training? Ditto. Experience? Ditto. The poor are often seen at teaching hospitals. There is still an attending someplace, but he's one per X residents. How about using OUTCOMES, instead? Who are these morons doing this study?

2d study (oddly, the exact same authors—neither of whom are physician, but are in fact economics people (LOL)): They make the identical claim above (likely it's the same paper based on the abstract). Interesting, because they say that medical papers blame patient factors. What do those docs know about medical outcomes compared to economists!

The 3d paper is actually by docs. It's a better study (because unlike the first 2 POS papers it actually looks at results—the only thing that matters). It shows that incentives increase performance. Unsurprising given the nature of medical practice in poor communities. It would be interesting to see where the communities were, and if location (rural poor vs urban poor) made a difference. They did, however, look at conditions that are very much affected by lifestyle (diet, exercise, etc). The question is not does more money result in better care, but how is the baseline care. See the difference? Throwing monetary incentives might make the baseline US system better, but better than itself, and the US system is already good.

Regardless, overall US stats (warts and all) for fatal conditions that are treatable (cancers, etc, that have decent cure rates) are better for the US than anywhere else, so any relative improvement in US care might still be taking it from a baseline that is already ABOVE places with different systems.

[mookiemookie]

Regardless, overall US stats (warts and all) for fatal conditions that are treatable (cancers, etc, that have decent cure rates) are better for the US than anywhere else, so any relative improvement in US care might still be taking it from a baseline that is already ABOVE places with different systems.

Not (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/89.full)

always (http://www.rwjf.org/qualityequality/product.jsp?id=47508).

[tater]

Mortality per 100,000 divided by incidence per 100,000.

Complex metrics like those studies are not measures of quality of care.

Breast cancer is fatal if untreated. Prostate cancer is fatal if untreated (albeit more slowly than the former). That makes the statistics easy. Morbidity would show similar results, but is clearly more complex to study (quality of life, etc). Still, Life is a better quality of life than death.

US incidence is grossly higher than Europe, and the death rate per 100,000 (population at large) is about the same or slightly better. That means we have many more sick per 100,000, yet only the same number die per 100k. That is entirely quality of medical care since no care = death.

All those studies using complex metrics ignore the simple metric that shows them to be wrong. The 2d study by "urban institute" doesn't look like an epidemiology journal, so I didn't bother looking in any detail. Probably written by medical experts like the 2 economists that wrote your first 2 papers shown above. The first paper is also not written by epidemiologists, but "policy" people.

The first used things like MI, stroke, and asthma. All of these are hopelessly confounded by lifestyle factors. How can you possibly measure quality of care when it is impossible to factor out weight, exercise, air quality, etc, ad nauseum/ You can't, since they are not only measuring quality of care. The US asthma rate is increasing towards NZ! It must be medical care (nevermind why it is better in the first place)? How about air quality, or less exercise?

Again, it is easy to look at quality of care. Pick disorders that are fatal if untreated, but are in fact treatable. Compare mortality and morbidity to incidence. All such data is routinely reported epidemiologically as cases per 100,000 population at large. There are some lifestyle-related issues in cancer incidence, but they do not make survival any better (if anything, worse). The US has more cases per 100,000 typically because we have a heterogeneous society compared to much of the world (certain ethnic groups are predisposed to some cancers).

Anyway, those studies are hopelessly confounded.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think people may be missing the point. Her tax bill is most likely pretty low. People with any substantial wealth will structure their investments and income so as to minimize their tax liability. The companies she owns are also structured to minimize their taxes paid.

She has a brand to maintain. The brand of being an approachable woman who's just like the ones who watch her at home - the kind of friend you'd invite over for coffee. She shares the same everyday trials and tribulations you do! She hates traffic (nevermind that she take a limo everywhere), she has bad hair days (nevermind that she has a team of stylists), she hates to pay her taxes...get it?

You can beat her up and call her a hypocrite all you want. But you need to realize that you've been suckered into her marketing image as much as anyone else.

And that somehow makes her hypocrisy more tolerarable? Oh, I get it, it's okay to espouse social ideals of equality and justice while not practicing them yourself. It'll be just like the Kennedy legacy; a bunch of rich *******s who did virtually nothing to help the people they professed care for.

If she's so keen on her image and marketing, why doesn't she just come out and say "You know what? The free market and my talents got me where I am today but wealth is more important to me than my ideals. Even so, I'd like for all of you to do what I say when it comes to caring and sharing and all that other BS because I am better than you and I know what's best for you."

I think I may well grant Oprah honorary tenure at FU.

[tater]

The biggest problem for the poor in the US is actually the RURAL poor. The problem is not quality of care, but quantity of care. The rural, "flyover" states have a marked shortage of healthcare providers. Both docs, and secondary providers (nurses, nurse practitioners, and PAs).

The only incentive possible is money, but who wants to move to BF noplace, even for a million a year if they have to be on call very day, or every other day? My wife gets headhunter stuff begging her to come to rural areas almost daily for outrageous sums per year. 500k, plus what you earn above that. This in places where a 500k house would be the biggest house in town by a wide margin, likely you'd have to build one, and it would be a mansion. But lifestyle sucks. Rural schools, and virtually constant call. They tend to get high turn over. Get a single dude who wants to zero his 200k in student loans ASAP, who will then bail for civilization as soon as the contract is up.

It's really the specialists that matter, primary care is typically overrated by health policy people as a panacea, and it simply is not. Most primary care "sick" visits are for self-limiting conditions. The vast, overwhelming majority. See the doc and get (unneeded) antibiotics as empirical care, or wait the 10 days you're on the antibiotics and get well anyway. When you need a specialist, that's when you need real healthcare.

[GoldenRivet]

My issue with religion is based on my participation in it, and observations of it. In my experience, I have found that those who trumpet loudest about what "good Christians" they are inevitably prove the opposite

I can agree with you there :yep:

I've watched "good Christians" lie, cheat, steal, while good people who didn't believe the same way were passed over for doing things correctly, honorably, and morally right.

As have I.

I watched a man who, as the deacon of the church where I grew up, ministered to the ill, the poor, the lonely, with care, compassion, and equity - and I watched him die bereft, divorced after 40 years, estranged from his kids by his ex-wife, destitute and alone in an apartment building that would make the gulag look like Monaco.

Did he die with his faith?

As for most of the remainder of your post there, I am probably the last person around here to try and change your mind about how you feel about Religion, and i am probably the last person around here to "sell" God to you, and I am probably the last person around here who can put some sort of spin on things to make life make sense to you from a religious perspective. ;)

Am I bitter? You better believe it. I have never been anything but betrayed and lied to on behalf of "god" and his followers. And now I see that same betrayal being perpetuated by commentators who want to foster the inclusion of that betrayal into governing law.

As long as those commentators are idiots as many say... what have you to worry about?

I think we all have some sort of cynical or bitter view of things to one extent or another.

Golden Rivet, I was not attacking you in my response. I'm sorry you feel that I was

I dont feel attacked, i feel unheard... i feel like my opinion is falling on deaf ears. I dont want any part of God in the government... all i am saying is that the video i posted begs an interesting question. and that is "Might people be more apt to freely give and give abundantly if they were able to select those charities, good will organizations, pet projects and social programs that their money would be donated to via the Federal Government as an intermediary?"

I specifically stated that my opinion was based on what I read, not on the video

The intention of my thread was to have you watch the video, not read what some underpaid intern or someone wrote beneath it.

I'm sorry you felt that a justifiable reason to insult me as well as reason to out-of-hand dismiss what I posted.

I dont know how i went about insulting you, and i never intended to insult anyone with any jab, i think nothing was said here in this thread that could be considered below the belt so to speak...

however i found it easy to dismiss your post because you failed to follow the simple request of the thread and even states so outright.

If the thread was "Watch this 6 minute independent film and provide your opinion" would you then skip the 6 minute clip and simply inject your opinion into the conversation based on something you read?






im sorry, but paying the faceless, cold, bureaucratic IRS doesnt give me a warm fuzzy.

BUT

giving to a charity that i care about, or donating to an organization through which i can see the impact of my dollar... THATS something :up:

the entire bolded font there is my whole point, and i have a hard time seeing how anyone would feel better mailing a check to the IRS and trusting uncle sam to do as he wishes as opposed to being able to CHOOSE where the money goes.

EDIT:

yes i still think we should pay taxes for roads and airports and cops and firemen etc. I just think that when your tax money is allocated to special welfare-like, social programs - you should be able to pick which one(s) it goes to.

thats a very simple concept and doesnt have a damned thing to do with religion

[Armistead]

Although I struggle with faith, I basically see religion two-fold, you have the larger organized religious groups, almost all denominations belong to one. Most are like big business, they believe they're right and will push their views. Many involve themselves in politics. Then you have those that really try to help others, but these are mostly working in the background not seeking attention. Beck's are attention seekers.

I was once very religious, at the time my faith was very sincere. I went on several mission trips to Africa, ect. However, why some help was given, the goal of course was to not only to bring tribes to Christ, but also define cultural morality on their terms, of course using threats of hell fire to do so. These tribes ran around naked, were polygamous, ect. This was a culture that had insured their survival. They were never taught the naked body was evil, so nakedness wasn't an issue, but in less than a year they were taught the naked body was evil and started wearing more clothes. I think before it was over, we had done much more harm, but christians from american had a hard time going to a church service and when kneeling to pray you may look up and see a naked butt.

That's the problem I have with the Beck's of the world. They see morality based on how they want it and would love to impose it on others through the media or politics. I don't think Sarah could become President, but that woman scares the hell out of me.

I honestly think if the fundy christian right could bring back the old form of religious government, they would do so, then we would be back to christians torturing people at will. We have to remember the only thing that really brought an end to christians torturing was secular law.

[TarJak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0

[August]

"Might people be more apt to freely give and give abundantly if they were able to select those charities, good will organizations, pet projects and social programs that their money would be donated to via the Federal Government as an intermediary?"

My answer would be no. I refuse to go through middlemen when it comes to giving charity. I'd rather go down the homeless shelter and hand out cash directly than let some "administrator" take 90 cents out of every dollar donated.

[clive bradbury]

I am absolutely with Goldenrivet and August on this - only thinking the same myself a few months back. With the UK government quite rightly attempting to cut spending, one way to remove an incredible volume of tax expense would be to remove all charitable contributions, including ALL overseas aid. Why can't the government turn round and say - 'we would like to help, but at the moment we simply cannot afford it'?

Any private citizens can still contribute to existing NGO charities, or on a direct personal level, as August prefers. Surely taxes should be the funding required to RUN the country, for the most part.

[Oberon]

Good idea in theory, but then imagine the law suits and the demands for compensation from every Tom, Dick and Harry with an axe to grind, instead of being financially bankrupt, the country would be pronounced morally bankrupt.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I believe you make a good point, but no government without a major set of balls or who doesn't care what the international community thinks of them would do such a thing. It's a step on the road down to international pariahdom, and would probably do some screwing with trade as countries don't want to be associated with the 'greedy' nation...and so on and so forth.

[Growler]

Fundamentally, you can't legislate charity.

THAT I agree with. People who are apt to give will give, and do so generously. Those who aren't won't. But don't say that taxes are going for good when the majority of them probably aren't, especially since we can't even agree on what "good" means. Some might think tax-supported community job banks a good thing, others might not.

When you must levy tax to replace what communities once did for one another, the problem isn't in the tax.

[Armistead]

We're going to face what many other nations are facing, do we spend socially or let the lower classes go into chaos. Simple premise that government has dealt with, build more jails or let crime go. As of now, we're letting many violent people back on the streets. As long as it doesn't effect the elite, then they don't worry about it.

Our governments policies have gotten us here. They all complain about deficits forgetting they made the deficits by basically creating an elite class. You can't deny the government is creating an elite class when 1% of people have 40% of all wealth, in 20 years 1% will hold 60% of all wealth.

People say leave healthcare alone, no regulations, let business do as it pleases, without thinking this is what has destroyed our nation. It is wrong when our government creates monopolies by lobbying, unfair trade laws or political might such as the now corporate controlled insurance industry. Basically we're seeing government created monopolies now running this nation as we turn into a corporate run state.

History has shown us when a nation creates a two class soceity, an elite class and a poor class, the nation will soon implode. Our government knows this, thus they create many social programs that can't be substained, just buys more time. It's selling lies and living in denial.

[nikimcbee]

My answer would be no. I refuse to go through middlemen when it comes to giving charity. I'd rather go down the homeless shelter and hand out cash directly than let some "administrator" take 90 cents out of every dollar donated.

+1. A good portion of the charity money goes to admin:nope:. If you want something done right, do it yourself.

Regarding the tithing stuff. Most of the churches do good charitable work. If you don't like it, don't pay it:up: or pick a different church.

For the donald duck video, I did find it ironic that donald reacts with violence, and shoots the radio. Now what was the author of the video implying? (not tarjak)

[Harmsway!]

I'm a Christian. I give generously. I go into the hospitals.

[GoldenRivet]

My answer would be no. I refuse to go through middlemen when it comes to giving charity. I'd rather go down the homeless shelter and hand out cash directly than let some "administrator" take 90 cents out of every dollar donated.

well essentially NOW the IRS is that "middle man"

they are taking your tax dollars and presenting it to the social programs they see most fit to give it to in their eyes.

[mookiemookie]

well essentially NOW the IRS is that "middle man"

they are taking your tax dollars and presenting it to the social programs they see most fit to give it to in their eyes.

The IRS is in charge of the budget?

More like the IRS collects tax revenues according to the tax laws passed by the Congress that THE PEOPLE voted for, signed into law by the President that THE PEOPLE voted for, and funds are allocated and spent according to a budget that is passed, again, by the Congress THE PEOPLE voted for and signed off on by the President that THE PEOPLE voted for.

[Penguin]

This is actually the first time that I listened to a Beck rant. I cannot say that I am impressed.
Liberals do like to pay taxes? Lol, I don't know about them, but there is a huge difference between charity/social spending and all the other stuff where tax money goes to. I gues you will find nobody who agrees with every budget where taxes go to.
"You tax dollars at work" - this is mildly amusing when you see such a sign for the first time, when driving on US roads for a while it gets old very soon.
He gives a tenth of his income to his church? Wow! So he can't complain about too many taxes if he still have this much to spend!
<- using the same polemics as Beck does
Seriously, there are millions of other, some richer than Beck, many poorer, who do give a lot to charity and make no big whuzz about.
I agree with mookie that Oprah is just a brand and she plays her role in it, same goes for Beck, I can't take both of them too seriously...

The idea to choose where the taxes which support social institutions go to? I don't know about how many percent we are speaking, but it is certainly only a fraction of the whole tax money. Well, I must admit, that sounds appealing. I'm always open to new ideas, especially when it gives more influence to Jane and Joe Sixpack .
There is one big but: If we use the highway example, then people in urban centers would have 40 lane highways made from marble with golden railings, while the rural areas would have only dirt roads.
In the case of charity institutions it would mean that the loudest ones would get the most. They would have to spend more money on advertising and PR, this equals less money for their actual work.
I'm not saying that the state is any wiser, so I have no golden sollution. It would definitely be an asset if the taxpayer could participate somehow in the decision where his money is spent for.


Some responses, sorry for the wall of quotes, but there are so many points you guys made:

That's the problem I have with the Beck's of the world. They see morality based on how they want it and would love to impose it on others through the media or politics.

Exactly! Theses people claim to have the moral high grounds and that their definition of ethics is the only one. It is the same like with Farewell's Moral Majority. Despite that this was one of the ugliest word creations of the English language, the MM did the same thing: claiming that their moral values are the only ones which count



yes i still think we should pay taxes for roads and airports and cops and firemen etc. I just think that when your tax money is allocated to special welfare-like, social programs - you should be able to pick which one(s) it goes to.

See, this is understandable and clear, by this people get tzhe point! One can express his views without diving in polemics and populism like Glenn Goldcoin does! ;)


For the donald duck video, I did find it ironic that donald reacts with violence, and shoots the radio. Now what was the author of the video implying? (not tarjak)

Hey, the radio was Donald's own property! He further used a shotgun = no wall penetration, no neighbours in danger! :D
The video was brilliant btw!


I am a Christian too. I attend church every week, direct the choir and used to teach Sunday School. I have never felt threatened when stating that on SubSim.

to each christian his lion! (sorry, couldn't resist to utter the first "threat" against christians here :D)



US incidence is grossly higher than Europe, and the death rate per 100,000 (population at large) is about the same or slightly better. That means we have many more sick per 100,000, yet only the same number die per 100k. That is entirely quality of medical care since no care = death.


This is some point I would like to adress later. I have researched the cancer topic a little when we were talking about (universal) health care a while ago, because I could not believe that there was such a huge difference between the old and new world. (I found out there is not too much - in this case)


well essentially NOW the IRS is that "middle man"
they are taking your tax dollars and presenting it to the social programs they see most fit to give it to in their eyes.

well, I guess there is still this little thing called parliament (or Congress), iirc they are the ones who decide where the bucks gets buried :know: Anything is better however than to let the &*#§$ tax authorities decide by themselves!

[mookiemookie]

It's this attitude of "Screw you, I got mine!" that's just disgusting.

Debtor's Prison? - Screw you, I got mine.

Destitute widows? - Screw you, I got mine.

Orphans? - Screw you, I got mine.

People dying in the street because they can't afford health care? - Screw you, I got mine.

Children starving? - Screw you, I got mine.

We have these social safety nets because the world is a very ugly place without them. Ensuring that there aren't corpses in the streets, emaciated children in the schools and rampant crime because of abject poverty is a fine price to pay.

I guess scenes like this, in countries without social safety nets, are just okey dokey by some people.

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/96188130.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F5200CFE2EFDBF75A3 BFDA1F8F39A2AD8E0AB88F3DDD04B188E30A760B0D811297

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/96473849.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F55A092F0E2C3B8C27 72AF8FD457695DF16C80217B5CEAE92FE30A760B0D811297

[August]

I guess scenes like this, in countries without social safety nets, are just okey dokey by some people.

Why do you assume that the Federal Government should provide social safety nets instead of state and local agencies? You seriously think they can do a better job of it?

[mookiemookie]

Why do you assume that the Federal Government should provide social safety nets instead of state and local agencies? You seriously think they can do a better job of it?

Where did I say that?

[August]

Where did I say that?

We're talking about safety nets provided by the Federal Government and you're disparaging those who oppose their social programs. Did I miss your point?

[GoldenRivet]

It's this attitude of "Screw you, I got mine!" that's just disgusting.


Yeah, i'm not seeing anywhere that anyone in this thread implied that :06:

[Penguin]

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/96473849.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F55A092F0E2C3B8C27 72AF8FD457695DF16C80217B5CEAE92FE30A760B0D811297

I agree that a society that wants to call itself civilized needs a safety net.

This picture however fails to raise any compassion in me, the opposite is true. Putting your half-naked child on the sidewalk to get more mercy when begging? **** her!
And no, this is not well-fed western arrogance that is talking, it is a matter of human decency! Most people living on the street treat their dogs better than this subject treats her child.

[tater]

Note when looking up epidemiology stats. There has been a recent trend to use age-standardized numbers. While this is useful in many cases, in comparing actual delivery, the crude data is required since the age-standardized creates effectively "made up" estimates of how many cases or deaths there should have been. Not sure how standardizing age deals with race, though, since race differences are huge (prostate cancer incidence is more than 1.5 times higher for blacks than whites, for example, and the incidence by age and race is also different). While this might be useful to compare first and 3d world data (where the populations have grossly different age distributions), it is especially unneeded to compare 1st world countries. The older-slewed US curve is one reason for higher incidence, clearly (50+ being the prime time for cancer diagnosis).

The last good raw data I found to post was from either the late 90s (96 or 98?), or 2002. I can't find the post I made where I linked to the journals (one was a UK urology journal (prostate cancer), the other was a US cancer journal. If I find the post I'll post the links again. Maybe I bookmarked it on my old machine... I know there was an excellent, long-term following study done in the US in the 90s, too, that looked at the picture in more detail (survival rates for X years out, etc).

I just checked, and the age-standardized figures (2008 that I found) have the US on par with other systems (better than many, worse than some).