Obama Violating Separation of Church and State?

[East of Eden]

Obama recently attempted to get Pastors to use their pulpit to convince their congregations to go along with the his Health Care Program. He accused the opposition of violating the 9th commandment. He spoke of our obligation to be our brother's keeper.

Shouldn't those of you who oppose Christians trying to get their Biblical views enacted into law in regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc. be equally concerned about this?

It would be nice if Obama would be his own brother's keeper, who last time I checked was still living on $5 a month in Kenya. Perhaps while on vacation at that $20,000,000+ Martha's Vinyard retreat he'll have time to reflect on that.

[East of Eden]

So, during the 40's, when the highest income tax bracket flirted with 90% due to the enormous amount of money needed for the war effort, people were being stolen from? The money was being taken because it was needed for the government to properly do its job ensuring the safety and well-being of Americans. That is part of the social contract, that people sacrifice (in this case through taxes) in order to gain safety and prosperity.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 52% in 1945, it is 45% today. The 90%+ tax rate lasted until 1962.

I'm not saying that creating universal health care is as important as defeating Hitler,

I should hope not. There is no constitutional right to health care.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

So, during the 40's, when the highest income tax bracket flirted with 90% due to the enormous amount of money needed for the war effort, people were being stolen from? The money was being taken because it was needed for the government to properly do its job ensuring the safety and well-being of Americans. That is part of the social contract, that people sacrifice (in this case through taxes) in order to gain safety and prosperity.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 52% in 1945, it is 45% today. The 90%+ tax rate lasted until 1962.

I fail to see what your point is, or were you just correcting a factual error on my part?

I'm not saying that creating universal health care is as important as defeating Hitler,

I should hope not. There is no constitutional right to health care.

Is there a constitutional right to defeating Hitler?

[East of Eden]

I fail to see what your point is, or were you just correcting a factual error on my part?

I should have been more clear, my point was that the 90% tax rate wasn't just because of war spending as we spend almost as much now as a percentage of GDP, and that high tax rate lasted far longer than WWII.

Is there a constitutional right to defeating Hitler?

Yes, that would be under the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I should have been more clear, my point was that the 90% tax rate wasn't just because of war spending as we spend almost as much now as a percentage of GDP, and that high tax rate lasted far longer than WWII.

I took a look at the year by year tax rate for the 20th century and it seems you're partially right. In 1936, there was a 16% increase in how much the highest bracket was taxed (I assume because of the depression and the New Deal). In 1941, however, the lowest bracket 10%, and the highest 81%. The next year (the first full year we were involved in the war), the lowest bracket paid 19% and the highest paid 88%. This is a substantial increase that correlates directly to the start of the war. By 1945, rates were 23% and 94% respectively. So maybe the full 90% wasn't to win WWII, but a significant amount was based upon just how much taxes increased during the war. Taxes also dropped significantly after the war was over (it came back up later).

Yes, that would be under the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress:

Constitutional rights usually refer to the Bill of Rights, not the legislative roles given to Congress. in any case, it is perfectly within the confines of the constitution for Congress to both declare war and create and pass this health-care bill.

In any case, my point was that something doesn't have to be about constitutional rights (just like war with Nazi Germany is not a guaranteed right to Americans in the Constitution) in order to be an important piece of legislation.

[East of Eden]

I took a look at the year by year tax rate for the 20th century and it seems you're partially right. In 1936, there was a 16% increase in how much the highest bracket was taxed (I assume because of the depression and the New Deal).

The Depression was as severe as it was partially because of the huge tax increases.

Constitutional rights usually refer to the Bill of Rights, not the legislative roles given to Congress. in any case, it is perfectly within the confines of the constitution for Congress to both declare war and create and pass this health-care bill.

Thats where we disagree. Even some on the left are questioning whether the plan to fine those who don't buy health coverage is consitutional.

In any case, my point was that something doesn't have to be about constitutional rights (just like war with Nazi Germany is not a guaranteed right to Americans in the Constitution) in order to be an important piece of legislation.

Germany declared war on us, so our defense activities were covered by the phrase 'provide for the common defense'.

To get back to the OP, Obama's double standard is shown by these two previous statements:

"I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate." 2004

At CNN's "Compassion Forum," in 2008, Obama said those in the public square shouldn't claim a "direct line to God".

Now he wants to 'partner with God' to push his health plan?

[micatala]

I took a look at the year by year tax rate for the 20th century and it seems you're partially right. In 1936, there was a 16% increase in how much the highest bracket was taxed (I assume because of the depression and the New Deal).

The Depression was as severe as it was partially because of the huge tax increases.

You may be right, but I'll consider that a matter of opinion for now, and will not argue the point as it is not really relevant to the thread.

Constitutional rights usually refer to the Bill of Rights, not the legislative roles given to Congress. in any case, it is perfectly within the confines of the constitution for Congress to both declare war and create and pass this health-care bill.

Thats where we disagree. Even some on the left are questioning whether the plan to fine those who don't buy health coverage is consitutional.

I would agree there is no explicit right to health care in the constitution. However, as you alluded to above, the preamble to the constittution does say:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would certainly allow fighting Hitler can be covered under providing for the common defense, even though he wasn't invading or likely to invade us. Certainly the war with Japan was covered.

I would also say one could make a similar case that health care can be covered under promoting the general Welfare.

Of course, we must also admit the preamble does not have the same force of law as the Articles that follow, nor the Bill of RIghts and other amendments.

To get back to the OP, Obama's double standard is shown by these two previous statements:

"I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate." 2004

At CNN's "Compassion Forum," in 2008, Obama said those in the public square shouldn't claim a "direct line to God".

Now he wants to 'partner with God' to push his health plan?

Again, I am unclear on what exactly Obama said. I would agree with Obama's frist two statements. It is not that I don't believe politicians should allow their faith to inform their views. Ted Kennedy certainly did, even though he wasn't public about it. However, I do have concern about politicians using what I might call "religious demaguogery" to push their agenda. This would include trying to demonize opponents as evil or un-Godly as a tactic in pushing an agenda. Sarah Palin comes to mind.

Now, if Obama is engaging in these types of tactics, I would certainly object. I do not object to any politician using religious language in a civil and respectful way as part of them making their case, as long as they are also able to support the case with non-religious rationale that are sufficient to justify the action.

For example, many, including Martin Luther King Junior, used religious language as part of making the case for civil rights. However, religion and faith were not the sole rationale for this movement, and ultimately, not even the most important rationale.

I think the case for government involvement in health care, while less compelling, can be made in a similar manner. The values of compassion for the poor, respect for people and our bodies as God's creation, etc., can inform or motivate health care reform. However, I think that ultimately the case has to be made on the basis of what is good overall for the society. Can we get better health care on average for everyone at a lower cost? If government involvement can help reach this end without egregious abridgement of people's rights, then I am for it.

[McCulloch]

When Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar", did he indicate an upper limit?

He wasn't asked that question. I assume even you belive in an upper limit, rather than a 100% tax.

What I believe is not relevant. My point is that you as a believer in Jesus' teachings should admit that taxation was not opposed by your messiah. So how is it that you claim that taxation is wrong?

Please show how any American taxpayer is paying a rate approaching 50% of his income. Do not be confused with marginal tax rates.

I know there is a graduated scale, but the top Federal rate is 35% (scheduled to go up in 2011), CA has a 10% state income tax rate, a self-employed can pay 15% in FICA tax, and this is not even counting sales tax, gas tax, etc.

You missed the point. People in the top federal tax bracket do not pay 35% of their income. They pay 35% of any income beyond a certain point. Their income below that break point is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, those in that bracket, after deductions and taking into account the graduated scale, pay significantly less of their income as tax than the marginal tax rate. Not that I doubt you, but you have claimed that American taxpayers are paying close to 50% of their income as taxes. Please show your sources and your calculations.

Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). Taxation is not slavery. Even at over 30%.

It is a mild form of it. The Boston Tea Party was a revolt over a tax of less than 5%.

The revolution launched at Boston was not so much over the rate of tax but a fight between the enlightenment idea of no taxation without representation (analogous to slavery) and the Biblical idea of being subject to governing authorities. The winners of that struggle, went forward and created the world's first modern secular nation, with the principles of the enlightenment enshrined in their constitution with religion relegated, as it should be, as a private matter.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Thats where we disagree. Even some on the left are questioning whether the plan to fine those who don't buy health coverage is consitutional.

I haven't read the thousand page proposal so where in said proposal is anything about fining people who don't have healthcare?

You missed the point. People in the top federal tax bracket do not pay 35% of their income. They pay 35% of any income beyond a certain point. Their income below that break point is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, those in that bracket, after deductions and taking into account the graduated scale, pay significantly less of their income as tax than the marginal tax rate. Not that I doubt you, but you have claimed that American taxpayers are paying close to 50% of their income as taxes. Please show your sources and your calculations.

I decided to run the numbers on just the federal income tax to see how much a single person making $400,000 is taxed, as what you said here is correct (something I didn't realize, prior to reading this and doing some research). Such a person would have just under 30% of their income taken ($117,000). When you add in state taxes and other things, I think you're right in that it wouldn't reach 50%, but it would still be a very large amount being taxed.

[East of Eden]

What I believe is not relevant. My point is that you as a believer in Jesus' teachings should admit that taxation was not opposed by your messiah. So how is it that you claim that taxation is wrong?

Show me where I ever said 'taxation is wrong'.

You missed the point. People in the top federal tax bracket do not pay 35% of their income. They pay 35% of any income beyond a certain point. Their income below that break point is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, those in that bracket, after deductions and taking into account the graduated scale, pay significantly less of their income as tax than the marginal tax rate. Not that I doubt you, but you have claimed that American taxpayers are paying close to 50% of their income as taxes. Please show your sources and your calculations.

The link here has a slide show with computations. They do not include sales tax or gas tax, etc., or the many other hidden taxes. When you but a loaf of bread, there are passed-on taxes built in the price from the manufacturer.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/tax-rates ... ama/82191/

The revolution launched at Boston was not so much over the rate of tax but a fight between the enlightenment idea of no taxation without representation (analogous to slavery) and the Biblical idea of being subject to governing authorities. The winners of that struggle, went forward and created the world's first modern secular nation, with the principles of the enlightenment enshrined in their constitution with religion relegated, as it should be, as a private matter.

I think even in the UK with a state church, religion is still a private matter, as the Muslims there would tell you.

[East of Eden]

I haven't read the thousand page proposal so where in said proposal is anything about fining people who don't have healthcare?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -has-.html

I wonder if it ever occured to Obama that the reason some can't afford healthcare is because of all they're paying in taxes.