Would Jesus be a fiscal conservative?

[McCulloch]

There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

Are the principles of market economy, (fiscal conservatism, supply side economics, reduction of Government spending, reduction of all taxes, reduction of Government regulation and trusting the economic forces of the free market to address any and all human problems except the spiritual ones) an expression of Christian ideals?
Are they consistent with being a disciple of Jesus?

[forumwarrior]

youre a bible expert, man. what part in politics did christ take? did jesus come to tell us how to vote in the next election? what do you think? did he say "what you do for the least among you, you do for me. so strive to live as socialists and make sure you vote democrat."

i dont think thats what he said. i think he made a distinction between himself and the government when he instructed people to render unto caesar what is caesars.

[Adurumus]

youre a bible expert, man. what part in politics did christ take? did jesus come to tell us how to vote in the next election? what do you think? did he say "what you do for the least among you, you do for me. so strive to live as socialists and make sure you vote democrat."

i dont think thats what he said. i think he made a distinction between himself and the government when he instructed people to render unto caesar what is caesars.

I agree, and I believe McCulloch does too. There are those who believe their perspective on government is shared by Jesus' teachings, however, and this would be their chance to assert/defend that idea.

[riverslivnwtr]

youre a bible expert, man. what part in politics did christ take? did jesus come to tell us how to vote in the next election? what do you think? did he say "what you do for the least among you, you do for me. so strive to live as socialists and make sure you vote democrat."

i dont think thats what he said. i think he made a distinction between himself and the government when he instructed people to render unto caesar what is caesars.

I agree, and I believe McCulloch does too. There are those who believe their perspective on government is shared by Jesus' teachings, however, and this would be their chance to assert/defend that idea.

If we are caesar...and we are in this nation. soo....
cause we tell the gobment what to do...

however if you're gonna live beyond your means then you're gonna have to have some miracles....

and most Christians in America are unqualified for that ...because it requires




faith...and instead of persuing after faith we are persuing after morals..

[Adurumus]

I'm... not certain I understand your post. My best assumption is that you're saying we are the government, as opposed to Caesar (who was an absoluteish ruler) making decisions? It's true that an individual can influence government on their own personal level, their decision of what to do on a macroeconomics scale doesn't have to interfere with their own microeconomics. I can decide that the GM needs a big bail out while still giving away some of my belongings to charity, or volunteer even if I believe that healthcare should be privatized. Your personal goodliness does not need to reflect on your vote, unless it's an extremely obvious case of helping people VS not... which it rarely is, as even seemingly obvious issues have dangers.

[riverslivnwtr]

I'm... not certain I understand your post. My best assumption is that you're saying we are the government, as opposed to Caesar (who was an absoluteish ruler) making decisions? It's true that an individual can influence government on their own personal level, their decision of what to do on a macroeconomics scale doesn't have to interfere with their own microeconomics. I can decide that the GM needs a big bail out while still giving away some of my belongings to charity, or volunteer even if I believe that healthcare should be privatized. Your personal goodliness does not need to reflect on your vote, unless it's an extremely obvious case of helping people VS not... which it rarely is, as even seemingly obvious issues have dangers.

well yes you got the whole idea....we can engage in the government as much as we want of not. the more you engage in it though, the more responsible you become in it's operations....
I do however resist the idea that our religious values should be expressed through the government unto others....in other words I don't want the government doing my job..

[chris_brown207]

I wanted to post a side note on this thread. I have noticed that most Republicans consider theirs to be the party of fiscal conservatives.

The irony in this statement, is that if you look at every president since WWII - no Republican president has reduced the deficit, and no Republican president has reduced the federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP since 1973. How can they still claim to be the "fiscally conservative" party when every Republican President in the last 70 years has increased our nations debt, and in the last 40 years has increased our debt as a function of our income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Is "fiscal conservative" slang for "wracking up debt because it makes us feel more prosperous"?

[WinePusher]

I wanted to post a side note on this thread. I have noticed that most Republicans consider theirs to be the party of fiscal conservatives.

The irony in this statement, is that if you look at every president since WWII - no Republican president has reduced the deficit, and no Republican president has reduced the federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP since 1973. How can they still claim to be the "fiscally conservative" party when every Republican President in the last 70 years has increased our nations debt, and in the last 40 years has increased our debt as a function of our income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Is "fiscal conservative" slang for "wracking up debt because it makes us feel more prosperous"?

It's not ironic, it's fallacious. The only influence a President has when it comes to spending is proposing budgets and vetoing budgets. That's it. All spending bills originate within the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it is the members of Congress as a collective whole who ultimately determine the nations fiscal policy. All legislation concerning absolutely anything is created by the Legislature, and while the President is able to exert some influence over the process this influence is extremely minor.

[chris_brown207]

The only influence a President has when it comes to spending is proposing budgets and vetoing budgets. That's it.

This is technically true - however, this statement has to hold true of all presidents or none of them. I hear too often in conservative circles that the current president is responsible for the increase in debt. If the buck stops at the top today, then it should also for every president prior to.

Especially when of the last two Republican presidents who served two full terms - they enjoyed a combined 10 years of support from the Senate and 6 years of support from the House. Yet both administrations oversaw increased overall debt by a combined $7.8 Trillion, and increased the nation's debt as a percentage of the GDP a total of almost 40%. The last Republican president oversaw 8 years leading to the largest recession since the Great Depression.

[WinePusher]

The only influence a President has when it comes to spending is proposing budgets and vetoing budgets. That's it.

This is technically true - however, this statement has to hold true of all presidents or none of them. I hear too often in conservative circles that the current president is responsible for the increase in debt. If the buck stops at the top today, then it should also for every president prior to.

Especially when of the last two Republican presidents who served two full terms - they enjoyed a combined 10 years of support from the Senate and 6 years of support from the House. Yet both administrations oversaw increased overall debt by a combined $7.8 Trillion, and increased the nation's debt as a percentage of the GDP a total of almost 40%. The last Republican president oversaw 8 years leading to the largest recession since the Great Depression.

Fine, that's a valid point. And yes, not all Republican Presidents have governed as a traditional fiscal conservative would. But even if that premise is true, what does it prove? It says nothing about the effectiveness of fiscal conservatism nor does it say anything about the current recession. The fallacy here is that Presidents somehow cause recessions. They don't, they merely oversee recessions and because society likes to scapegoat their problems the President gets blamed. I certainly am not blaming Obama for the recession. I am blaming him for long term problems such as the debt along with Bush. But it is a fallacy to blame the recessions on them.