|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| DUDE-HERE |
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.
The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.
Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.
One way of building a stronger economy, she said, is "more savings, starting with the so-called baby bonds idea where every person born in this country would be given that kind of account because we want to make an investment in America's young people."
She argued that wealthy people "get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can't afford to do that."
The proposal was met with enthusiastic applause at an event aimed to encourage young people to excel and engage in politics.
"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their 18?"
Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the senator's campaign, said a baby bonds program "is not a firm policy proposal but an idea under consideration."
Britain launched a similar program in January 2005, handing out vouchers worth hundreds of dollars each to parents with children born after Sept. 1, 2002.
Earlier this month, Time magazine proposed a $5,000 baby bond program.
(This version CORRECTS ADDS further Clinton comment on baby bonds, campaign saying it is not a policy proposal; corrects name of lawmaker, to 'Tubbs Jones')
i see the point but to say every child is rediculous also who would get the money, the parents ? i hope not and wealthy people babies get it too.
is she trying to lose on purpose |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| so come to the united states have your baby and we give you 5 grand ..did you hear that mexico , I SAID " WE'LL GIVE YOU 5 GRAND IF YOU HAVE YOUR BAMBINO HERE " |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Just when you think the Democrat candidates for President aren't proposing enough measures that would kill the robust economy we enjoy....they roll out more.
These people are deranged. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Yeah that kinda takes pandering to a new level. Wow. Talk about a sense of entitlement."Hey I was born, so pay me".
Actually though, other than the initial money, it isn't as harmful as a lot of social programs.
Milton Freedman was the one who came up with the "negative income tax" idea. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Just when you think the Democrat candidates for President aren't proposing enough measures that would kill the robust economy we enjoy....they roll out more.
These people are deranged. |
but you are for such things as tax incentives no? If you use the 5k bond to buy a 400k house that would be bad for the economy? god damn your knees must hurt from jerking so much |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
Yeah that kinda takes pandering to a new level. Wow. Talk about a sense of entitlement."Hey I was born, so pay me".
Actually though, other than the initial money, it isn't as harmful as a lot of social programs.
Milton Freedman was the one who came up with the "negative income tax" idea. |
i am interested to hear how she would fund that, but in the long run it doesnt sound like a horrible plan. 18, had to graduate from high school (i would make that a high school diploma, ged wouldnt count), and i would add that you could not have been convicted of a crime. those arnt bad requirements and 5k allowed to compound interest over 18 years could give the kiddo a solid bit of cash. the funding part i will need lots more info on. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
but you are for such things as tax incentives no? If you use the 5k bond to buy a 400k house that would be bad for the economy? god damn your knees must hurt from jerking so much |
Clinton isn't talking about a tax incentive - she is proposing a giveaway.
I must be the demented one to think that a couple should wait until they are in a stable financial position to have a child and to establish a savings account for said child.
Well, that's what my parents taught me.
But I guess we can toss personal responsibility (as parents) right out the window.
Do you embrace this concept of being dependent on the government? |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
| It's a great idea. |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
We need to put her words into context. Hillary is just trying to endear herself to the leftwing primary voters by promising all sorts of government handouts. You wont hear any more about this if she makes it to the general election. She wouldn't dream of trying to introduce such legislation as president.
Middle of the road voters could do a lot worse than Hillary as the next POTUS. |
|
|
| zimmie |
I'm not totally against it. But lets give it to those who are
a US citizen
21 years old
no arrest record
have graduated from high school
is not an unwed parent
five simple requirements for those who are on a path to contributing back to society. |
|
|
| sfgirl |
| Yes. And WE get to pick up the tab for the rest of our lives. God she's a stupid bitch. |
|
|
| Rike |
| This is the most homophobic proposal I've ever heard! |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Just when you think the Democrat candidates for President aren't proposing enough measures that would kill the robust economy we enjoy....they roll out more.
These people are deranged. |
Robust economy. BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! more delusional bullshit from the king poo flinger. |
|
|
| ICE CUBAN |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
is not an unwed parent
five simple requirements for those who are on a path to contributing back to society. |
What the fuck does marriage have to do with contributing to society? That may be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said on here and that bar is Everest high.
If stupid were people you'd be China.
Somebody please tell me this motherfucker is not serious. Please dear god and baby jesus tell me this isn't real. Tell me this human waste of flesh is not living on the same planet the rest of us are. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| I hate her so much. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by ICE CUBAN
What the fuck does marriage have to do with contributing to society? That may be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said on here and that bar is Everest high.
If stupid were people you'd be China.
Somebody please tell me this motherfucker is not serious. Please dear god and baby jesus tell me this isn't real. Tell me this human waste of flesh is not living on the same planet the rest of us are. |
maybe turning 21 with children out of wedlock indicates a likelihood of success to you Gomez, but from where I stand, it's a recipe for failure....do some research and get back to me..... |
|
|
| Fizzbin |
| This is clearly a empty campaign promise that will never get anyplace. In the unlikely event she wins the White house you will never hear about this again. Its like her national health care Idea that she knows will never be adopted , but makes for useful rhetoric . She would promise free rim jobs if her polling showed it would get votes. |
|
|
| Oz |
Look - after you assholes gobbled up Bush's $300 tax refunds of course she's gonna have to say 5k.
btw VTW - I'm going to encourage you to read a book on critical thinking - you need to think about things a little differently once in awhile - you look kinda ridiculous when you don't think things through which is a lot of the time - sorry dude :( |
|
|
| sjollypbj |
here are my 5 conditions;
1. You can't be religious
2. You must be a homo sapien
3. You must agree to not invade a sovereign nation
4. You cannot kidnap and murder leaders of foreign countries
5. You can't be a Republican, because you obviously don't need the help |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
Look - after you assholes gobbled up Bush's $300 tax refunds of course she's gonna have to say 5k.
btw VTW - I'm going to encourage you to read a book on critical thinking - you need to think about things a little differently once in awhile - you look kinda ridiculous when you don't think things through which is a lot of the time - sorry dude :( |
the obvious difference is that a TAX REFUND IS RETURNING YOUR MONEY TO YOU........ giving someone other people's money is inherently different.....put your critical thinking beanie on next time before you say something else stupid...... |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
the obvious difference is that a TAX REFUND IS RETURNING YOUR MONEY TO YOU........ giving someone other people's money is inherently different.....put your critical thinking beanie on next time before you say something else stupid...... |
:lol: god damn you morons need things explained to you - the reference was to buying votes not the origination point of the funds - follow along dopey fat fuck |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
:lol: god damn you morons need things explained to you - the reference was to buying votes not the origination point of the funds - follow along dopey fat fuck |
So republicans buy votes by stealing less money and democrats buy votes by stealing more money and then redistributing it those they deem worthy. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
So republicans buy votes by stealing less money and democrats buy votes by stealing more money and then redistributing it those they deem worthy. |
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj:
poor Oz, he gets left behind in every discussion |
|
|
| artie84 |
i think saving money for a child's future should be left up to the parents
and ...also i think this would never happen in reality...clinton is full of shit |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
but you are for such things as tax incentives no? If you use the 5k bond to buy a 400k house that would be bad for the economy? god damn your knees must hurt from jerking so much |
so you are for this
come on ...stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing
i know you are not for this |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| It truly scares me how people are so willing to take these "programs" from the gov. and never think where the money comes from. As it looks now the great "entitlement" of Soc. Sec. is eventually going to be unable to supplement peoples retirements in the coming decades. Why? because your gov has been taking money from this fund to pay for other earmarks. If you think giving more of your money to the politicians is the answer go oversees and see what it truly gets you. Hillary is a fucking joke! Now excuse me I have to go to work my Uncle Sam needs his 50% cut. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
So republicans buy votes by stealing less money and democrats buy votes by stealing more money and then redistributing it those they deem worthy. |
you think the tax cuts spurred anything in the economy then you failed your econ 101 course
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj:
poor Oz, he gets left behind in every discussion |
oh the evaluation of a retarded little boy who claims he walks in and out of gov't buildings all day? - please - I'm doing fine w/o your two cents
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
so you are for this
come on ...stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing
i know you are not for this |
nope not for it at all - but let's be realistic in the discussion and look at everything |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
you think the tax cuts spurred anything in the economy then you failed your econ 101 course
oh the evaluation of a retarded little boy who claims he walks in and out of gov't buildings all day? - please - I'm doing fine w/o your two cents
nope not for it at all - but let's be realistic in the discussion and look at everything |
yes lets change the subject and instead discuss how the republicans are bad. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
yes lets change the subject and instead discuss how the republicans are bad. |
wait a minute...let him get his talking points notebook from under his beddie |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
wait a minute...let him get his talking points notebook from under his beddie |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
yes lets change the subject and instead discuss how the republicans are bad. |
Why are you two fuck heads only upset when a Dem proposes fucking away are money, not one word over the 500 billion corporate welfare Chimp and chief ALREADY fucked away...oh thats right he produced 1 million jobs at 500 thousand a job......LOL...................> idiots |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
you think the tax cuts spurred anything in the economy then you failed your econ 101 course
oh the evaluation of a retarded little boy who claims he walks in and out of gov't buildings all day? - please - I'm doing fine w/o your two cents
nope not for it at all - but let's be realistic in the discussion and look at everything |
according to JFK ..tax cuts help an economy. it was actually one of JFK's platforms |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
according to JFK ..tax cuts help an economy. it was actually one of JFK's platforms |
good for him - we're not in a period of growth -
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
wait a minute...let him get his talking points notebook from under his beddie |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
yes lets change the subject and instead discuss how the republicans are bad. |
you guys are a riot - go to your user profiles and take a look at all the garbage you post - and point two why don't you try to think critically once in awhile or does picking up trash not afford you that mental exercise? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Hillary's idea is a wonderful thing... to ensure that blacks vote for her.
No one really believes she means it, right?
:) |
|
|
| artie84 |
| what does this have to do with blacks?... |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by artie84
what does this have to do with blacks?... |
When Hillary brought this up where was she?
At a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.
This was aimed at them and will impress them, I'm sure. I wonder while saying it if she broke out in her 'black voice' impersonation? Like Gore used to do when addressing a black audience...
"Me thinks a five thousan dolla fer each a da kids is a good eyedeeahh."
:) |
|
|
| ICE CUBAN |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
maybe turning 21 with children out of wedlock indicates a likelihood of success to you Gomez, but from where I stand, it's a recipe for failure....do some research and get back to me..... |
So if a person has a child but still has good grades and the want for a better life that person should be denied the tools for this just because they aren't married. That will work. Not only will you disenfranchise the parent but you will help stack the odds in favor of the child now growing up less privileged and with less opportunity.
Do some fucking thinking then get back to me and softly gobble my throbbing veiny uncircumcised spic cock you fucking knobby kneed black socks with yellow shorts wearing cracker fuck. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by Clit Eastwood.
:ban:Racist |
I guess you didn't see the post that made ICE CUBAN post what he did. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fizzbin
This is clearly a empty campaign promise that will never get anyplace. In the unlikely event she wins the White house you will never hear about this again. Its like her national health care Idea that she knows will never be adopted , but makes for useful rhetoric . She would promise free rim jobs if her polling showed it would get votes. |
Well, I'm not going to argue against the assertion that Hillary Clinton is pandering to every interest group that will listen.
But even if she is just throwing ideas out - consider who is in charge of Congress: far-left Liberals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Look at what they are trying to do with the S-chip program....provide healthcare to children in households whose income is triple the national poverty level.
First it's socialized medicine. Then it's handouts to every child born (that comes out to about 20 billion/year). Why stop at birth? How about free baby food and diapers? Kids have to eat and shit and piss, right?
Bottom line - this is Creeping Socialism, and if Clinton is elected she will adopt income redistribution and other means to turning this great country into a European nanny state. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
When Hillary brought this up where was she?
At a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.
This was aimed at them and will impress them, I'm sure. I wonder while saying it if she broke out in her 'black voice' impersonation? Like Gore used to do when addressing a black audience...
"Me thinks a five thousan dolla fer each a da kids is a good eyedeeahh."
:) |
thats one way of bribing voters
vote for me and i will give you 5 grand when you get knocked up again |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
| HAHAHAAHAHA like the gop doesn't bribe the radical religious right. :p |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
HAHAHAAHAHA like the gop doesn't bribe the radical religious right. :p |
no they don't. they don't promise cash payments |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
no they don't. they don't promise cash payments |
Pssssssst Douchebag-Here.......you're wrong....( again )
Quote: Americans United Criticizes Bush Push For 'Faith-Based' Funding
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Church-State Watchdog Group Charges That President Is Undercutting Civil Rights And Civil Liberties
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today blasted the Bush administration for its relentless effort to steer federal funds to religious organizations, charging that the “faith-based” initiative undermines civil rights and civil liberties.
President George W. Bush renewed his push for the initiative today in a speech in Washington, D.C. A new administration report claims that $2.15 billion in tax aid was directed to faith-based groups for social services during the last fiscal year.
James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, asserts that Bush is breaking down barriers that prevented religious groups from accessing government funds.
“The president seems to have little or no regard for the separation of church and state,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative clearly rolls back constitutional safeguards and civil rights protections that people count on.
“Bush is slashing social service spending across the board and using the faith-based initiative to divert attention from the cuts,” said Lynn. “This initiative is a scam, and I hope America’s religious leaders and the American people don’t fall for it.”
Lynn added, “Bush persists in claiming that religious charities have a better success rate than governmental and private secular programs. However, there is no proof that this assertion is true.
“It is particularly deplorable that Bush boasts about rolling back civil rights protections for government employment,” Lynn continued. “This initiative lets religious groups run publicly funded programs that openly discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. That’s an outrage.”
Under executive orders issued by the president, tax dollars can go to religious groups to operate social services even if they discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. Thus, taxpayers are being required to pay for programs where they would not be allowed to work or even volunteer.
Lynn charged that far from trying to create a level playing field for faith-based groups, Bush wants to tilt the process toward favored religious groups and leaders.
“I don’t think it’s coincidental that TV preacher Pat Robertson, a prominent Bush backer, received $1.5 million in faith-based funding,” said Lynn.
The initiative, Lynn said, has clearly been used for partisan purposes. He noted that in February, Towey spoke at a conference on the initiative for religious leaders in Pennsylvania, where U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who is locked in a tight re-election bid, appeared via video. |
|
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote:
Every cloud has a silver lining. Hurricane Katrina has devastated New Orleans, leaving thousands dead and hundreds of thousands homeless, and plunging the entire city into chaos. In the hurricane's wake, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its director, Michael Brown, forced out of his former job at the International Arabian Horse Association, with no credentials in disaster relief, have become targets of withering criticism. Yet FEMA's relief efforts have brought considerable assistance to at least one man who stands to benefit from Hurricane Katrina perhaps more than any other individual: Pat Robertson.
With the Bush Administration's approval, Robertson's $66 million relief organization, Operation Blessing, has been prominently featured on FEMA's list of charitable groups accepting donations for hurricane relief. Dozens of media outlets, including the New York Times, CNN and the Associated Press, duly reprinted FEMA's list, unwittingly acting as agents soliciting cash for Robertson. "How in the heck did that happen?" Richard Walden, president of the disaster-relief group Operation USA, asked of Operation Blessing's inclusion on FEMA's list. "That gives Pat Robertson millions of extra dollars."
Though Operation USA has conducted disaster relief for more than twenty-five years on five continents, like scores of other secular relief groups currently helping victims of Hurricane Katrina, it was omitted from FEMA's list. In fact, only two non-"faith-based" organizations were included. (One of them, the American Red Cross, is being blocked from entering New Orleans by FEMA's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.) FEMA, meanwhile, has reportedly turned away Wal-Mart trucks carrying food and water to the stricken city, teams of firemen from Maryland and Texas, volunteer morticians and a convoy of 1,000 boat owners offering to help rescue stranded flood victims. While relief efforts falter in the face of colossal bureaucratic incompetence, the Bush Administration's promotion of Operation Blessing has ensured that the floodwaters swallowing New Orleans will be a rising tide lifting Robertson's boat.
CONTINUED BELOW
Robertson recently ignited a media firestorm when he called for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez during a broadcast of The 700 Club. He has also blamed the 9/11 attacks on America's tolerance of abortion and homosexuality and declared the Supreme Court a greater threat to the United States than Al Qaeda. Robertson assiduously cultivates his celebrity with remarks like these, casting himself as a divisive bigot to his foes and a righteous prophet to his allies in Christian right circles. But there is much more to Robertson than the headline-grabbing hothead he plays on TV.
Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
After a lengthy investigation, Virginia's Office of Consumer Affairs determined that Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications." Yet when the office called for legal action against Robertson in 1999, Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, a Republican, intervened with his own report, agreeing that Robertson had made deceptive appeals but overruling the recommendation for his prosecution. Two years earlier, while Virginia's investigation was gathering steam, Robertson donated $35,000 to Earley's campaign--Earley's largest contribution. With Earley's report came a sense of vindication. "From the very beginning," Robertson claimed, "we were trying to provide help and assistance to those who were facing disease and death in the war-torn, chaotic nation of Zaire."
(Earley is now president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, an evangelical social-work organization founded by born-again, former Nixon dirty-trickster Charles Colson. PFM has accepted White House faith-based-initiative money and is currently engaged in hurricane relief efforts in Louisiana. Earley remains a close ally of Robertson.)
Absolved of his sins, Robertson dug his heels back in African soil. In 1999 he signed an $8 million agreement with Liberian tyrant Charles Taylor that guaranteed Robertson's Freedom Gold Ltd.--an offshore company registered to the same address as his Christian Broadcasting Network--mining rights in Liberia, and gave Taylor a 10 percent stake in the company. When the United States intervened in Liberia in 2003, forcing Taylor and the Al Qaeda operatives he was harboring to flee, Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country."
Robertson's scheming hasn't abated one bit. He is accused of violating his ministry's tax-exempt, nonprofit status by using it to market a diet shake he licensed this August to the health chain General Nutrition Corp. (Robertson continues to advertise the shake on his personal website.) He has withstood criticism from fellow evangelicals for investing $520,000 in a racehorse named Mr. Pat, violating biblical admonitions against gambling. He was even accused of "Jim Crow-style racial discrimination" by black employees who successfully sued his Christian Coalition in 2001 for forcing them enter its offices through a back door and eat in a segregated area (Robertson has since resigned).
The Bush Administration has studiously overlooked Robertson's misdeeds. In October 2002, just months after he denounced the White House's faith-based initiative as "a real Pandora's box"--and one month before midterm elections--Robertson pocketed $500,000 in government grants to Operation Blessing. Since then, with the sole exception of his criticism of the US intervention in Liberia, Robertson has served as a willing surrogate for the Administration. His Regent University gave John Ashcroft a cushy professorship to cool his heels after his contentious tenure as US Attorney General. And Robertson's legal foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, is spearheading the effort to rally right-wing Christian support for Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Now, as fallout from the President's handling of Hurricane Katrina threatens to derail the GOP's long-term agenda, Robertson is back at the plate for Bush, echoing the White House's line that state and local authorities--and even the disaster victims themselves--are to blame for the tragedy engulfing New Orleans.
The September 5 edition of The 700 Club included a report by Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent Gary Lane from outside the ruined New Orleans Convention Center, which had housed mostly impoverished black disaster victims throughout the weekend. "A number of possessions left behind suggest the mindset of some of the evacuees," Lane said. "They include this voodoo cup with the saying, 'May the curse be with you.' " A shot of a plastic souvenir cup from one of New Orleans's countless trinket shops appeared on the screen. "Also music CDs with the titles Guerrilla Warfare and Thugs 'R' Us," Lane stated, pointing out a pile of rap CDs strewn on the ground.
The 700 Club's featured guest was Wellington Boone, a black minister invited by Robertson to provide a counterpoint to the ubiquitous Rev. Jesse Jackson. Boone is a member of the Coalition on Revival, a Christian Reconstructionist organization that advocates replacing the US Constitution with biblical law. Throughout his career, he has distinguished himself from his black clerical colleagues with such remarks as "I believe that slavery, and the understanding of it when you see it God's way, was redemptive" and "The black community must stop criticizing Uncle Tom. He is a role model."
Though Boone's appearance on The 700 Club consisted mostly of benign appeals for "laser-beam prayer," CBN featured a separate interview with Boone on its website in which he declared, "We need to consider the culture of those people still stranded in New Orleans. The looting of property, the trashing of property, et cetera, speaks to the basic character of the people." He added, "These people who have gone through slavery, segregation and the Voting Rights Act are doing this to themselves."
Boone's appearance on The 700 Club had been preceded by an interview with Operation Blessing President Bill Horan. Horan discussed his group's activities in Biloxi, Mississippi, where it plans to set up a mobile kitchen, and in Houston, Dallas and Beaumont, Texas, where it is disbursing cash grants to numerous, mostly unspecified mega-churches, purportedly to support their work with evacuated hurricane victims.
As for the people still stranded in New Orleans who "are doing this to themselves," as Boone said, Operation Blessing has a special plan: avoid them like the plague.
"I've actually heard reports that they [the people of Mississippi] were in worse trouble" than those in New Orleans, claimed Gordon Robertson, the son of Pat Robertson and vice president of The 700 Club. "They were actually harder hit."
"Oh, absolutely," agreed Horan. |
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/blumenthal |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
So how do you republicans like it prepared ? |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
More crow ? gladly
Quote: Phila. Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
'Faith-Based' Initiative Seems To Have Political Slant, Says AU's Lynn
A Philadelphia church appears to be reaping a windfall of government funds following its pastor's endorsement of presidential candidate George W. Bush, said Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
During the Republican Party's 2000 national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, heartily endorsed Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Since that time, Lusk has repeatedly advocated for Bush's "faith-based" initiative that seeks to fund church-run social service programs.
Today as the president was preparing to speak at Lusk's Greater Exodus Baptist Church on combating AIDS at home and abroad, the Associated Press reported that the church's charitable operation, People For People, has been awarded a nearly $1-million "faith-based" grant. The article also noted that Lusk hopes President Bush's "faith-based" agenda will help garner more black votes for the president's re-election bid. Lusk told the AP that Bush "is worthy of the African-American vote."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called the grant of money "a clear and sad example of how government grants can lure supposedly nonpartisan churches into partisan politics."
"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."
Lynn noted that Americans United filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Lusk's church in 2000, noting that religious and other tax-exempt charitable organizations are forbidden from endorsing political candidates.
Lynn noted that Lusk's "faith-based" grant was not the first one to appear with a political taint.
In 2002, The Washington Post reported that Jim Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had made repeated public appearances with Republican candidates in hotly contested races for Congress and other offices to discuss or award grants. In a recent interview with the evangelical magazine World, Towey warned that if Democrat John Kerry were elected, he probably would "stick the faith-based initiative in the Smithsonian."
In addition, televangelist Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, was converted from being a harsh critic of the faith-based initiative to being a supporter by a well-timed government grant. In early 2001, Robertson warned his "700 Club" viewers that the initiative "could be a real Pandora's box" because religious monitories might wind up receiving faith-based grants.
In fall 2002, Robertson's Operation Blessing received a half-million-dollar faith-based grant from the Department of Health and Human Resources. Since then, the TV preacher has not criticized the initiative. |
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=N...ws_iv_ctrl=1355 |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: BUSH PLAN TO USE PUBLIC MONEY FOR CHURCH CONSTRUCTION
Is the building and preservation of so-called "sacred places" the next step in Bush's federal faith-based initiative?
Web Posted: January 29, 003
For the first time in U.S. history, public money would help build churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship as long as part of those facilities are also used for social programs according to new policy being implemented by the Bush administration.
The plan is part of an expansive White House initiative which would direct billions of federal dollars into the coffers of religious groups seeking to operate faith-based social outreaches. While Congress has yet to approve any legislation authorizing the program, President Bush has used his power of issuing Executive Orders to have key federal agencies rewrite their internal regulations, and make churches and other houses of worship eligible for a wide range of grants and government assistance.
So far, the Bush plan has proposed subsidizing faith-based social programs with administrative funding, training seminars and other forms of aid. The new policy shift, announced in a proposed rule change for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, significantly expands the scope of government entitlement, though, and makes money available for construction or rehabilitation of church facilities. Last year, HUD disbursed $7.7 billion for various housing and community development grants. Current regulations generally prohibit religious groups from receiving this form of assistance, though, since it clearly violates the separation of church and state.
Supporters of the faith-based initiatives criticize that constraint, and say that the new HUD regulations would simply end discrimination against religious groups, and put churches "on a level playing field" with secular counterparts when seeking public money.
"We see no reason to exclude religious organizations from participation in these programs if there can be a reasonable mechanism to ensure that a program has no particular religious connotation one way or another," declared Richard Hauser, general counsel to HUD. He told the New York Times, "There's no reason you can't have a cathedral upstairs and something that would look like any other room in the basement for counseling."
But critics are attacking the proposal, charging that it places the government -- and taxpayers -- in the role of constructing churches, mosques, temples or other houses of worship in clear violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
monthly special In a media statement released Sunday, American Atheists President Ellen Johnson warned: "For the first time since the American Revolution, taxpayers will be picking up the tab for building churches and other facilities used for sectarian worship as part of a scheme just to further the faith-based initiative."
"It's pretty clear that this new rule is also part of a plan to use government money to pay for the rehabilitation of dilapidated houses of worship, and divert money away from secular social services," Johnson added.
Christopher Anders, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union told reporters that the new Bush plan "is probably the most clearly unconstitutional aspect of the White House's faith-based initiative that we've seen up to this point."
Other critics like Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank said that the new HUD rules would require government officials to determine which part of a building was to be used for worship and which sections were reserved for social services.
"You run into the nightmarish problem of having the government monitor what goes on inside churches and sanctuaries," said Frank. "Are we going to start sending in the inspector general to charge people with committing a bar mitzvah?"
PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR ORGANIZED RELIGION:
THE LEGACY OF TILTON
While the Founders of the American Republic opposed the use of any public money to subsidize "established" or tax-dependent churches, government policy has to varying degrees ignored that prohibition. Taxes have been used to purchase school books and other supplies for religious schools; grant land to religious institutions (a common practice after World War II); and carve-out special tax exemptions. Religious groups have also been the beneficiaries of grants and other programs which use tax money to assist churches operating social service programs. At least on paper, those programs had to be "secular" in their intent and function, and could not involve religious proselytizing. Often, houses of worship and sectarian groups were not permitted to apply for subsidies because of concerns over the separation of church and state. Churches, mosques, and temples wishing to operate social service programs frequently established "separate" non-profit corporations, and supposedly observed rules segregating their religious and secular social outreach missions.
All of this began to change with passage of the 1996 welfare reform act, which declared that religious groups could compete with their secular counterparts and operate state-funded programs without altering their "religious character." The legislation was sponsored by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, who now serves as U.S. Attorney General. One effect of the Act was to "muddy the waters" concerning how far religious groups could go in promoting their sectarian message, while still accepting public funds. Ashcroft's measure did not provide for any monitoring or oversight mechanism, a deficiency which critics charged gave a "green light" to churches and other houses of worship seeking to blend religious proselytizing and the delivery of badly-needed social services.
Since passage of the 1996 law, the effort to "level the playing field" and give religious groups wider access to public funding and other grants has accelerated. President Bush created his White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives just days after being inaugurated. Nearly a dozen federal agencies have loosened restrictions on handing money over to faith-based outreaches which cover everything from feeding the poor to providing job training and teen pregnancy counseling. Critics say that the net effect of religion-saturated programs is to weaken the wall of separation between church and state, and even institute a de facto "Religion Tax" on Americans.
The new regulation pushes the envelope on how far government can go in assisting religious social service groups, though, since it deals with buildings and "hard assets" like real estate.
"A church could erect a building using federal money to create a shelter for the homeless in one part and private money to create a sanctuary in the other, official said," noted the New York Times. "A synagogue could use a grant to rehabilitate part of its building for a counseling center for AIDS patients or the poor. A Muslim group could apply for federal money to upgrade the lighting and equipment in a room in its mosque to allow it to be used as a counseling center for single parents."
There may be constitutional problems, though, in such an lofty entitlement program. Legal experts point to a 1971 Supreme Court case, TILTON v. RICHARDSON, that restricted the use of public funds in such projects. The case examined the 1963 Federal Higher Education Facility Act which provided construction grants to religion-affiliated schools. The money was to be restricted only for the building of non-religious structures, but stipulated that after twenty years, the school could use those facilities for any purposes including sectarian worship.
In two votes, the high court divided over different aspects of the issues raised in TILTON. A 5-4 ruling upheld the precedent of providing grants for school facilities which were not to be used for worship or other sectarian activities. But the justices ruled 8-1, deciding that a provision limiting the state's interest to a period of twenty years was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren Burger cited an earlier case (BRADFIELD v. ROB) which stated that not all financial assistance to church-sponsored activity violated the Establishment Clause. He also noted that under the Higher Education Facility Act, the beneficiaries were supposedly schools where "children are not as susceptible to religious coercion and in which religious instruction is not as central to the curriculum." He also argued that the HEFA "did not lead to excessive entanglement because the aid was aimed at religiously neutral facilities." But, added Burger, "Because the State's interest in the structure remains after twenty years, the provision giving the schools the ability to use the facility for religious purposes is unconstitutional."
What the court studiously avoided in TILTON v. RICHARDSON, and has steered clear of in other cases, is the more nagging issue of whether assistance to religious groups for non-religious purposes could, somehow, facilitate and enhance their ability to proselytize and carry out religious propaganda. If a church receives government funding to operate or expand a community food bank or other social service program, can it really segregate that activity from its religious mission? What if a hall constructed with public money that fed the homeless also was the site of sectarian services? Who monitors these programs to make sure that those sorts of abuses would not, or do not, occur?
Dr. Marci Hamilton, professor at the Cardozo School of Law suggests that defenders of the latest rule revisions at HUD may face an uphill legal battle.
"Once religious entities start arguing that any portion of their building is for nonreligious purposes," she told the New York Times, "they start opening themselves up to all sorts of problems like their tax-exempt status as religious institutions."
She described the legal travail of segregating secular and religious activities a "whole Pandora's box."
William Terry of the National Congress for Community Economic Development said that the new Bush rules conveyed "an important message, and it denotes the tenor of this administration." Citing the problem of dividing secular and religious missions, Terry added "It's like trying to take the sugar out of cupcakes. The line can get blurred."
BUILDING CHURCHES UNDER THE EXCUSE OF
"SERVICE TO OTHERS"
The new HUD rule, which still has not been officially improved, is the most explicit and overt move by the Bush administration to rally support for not only the faith-based initiative, but the use of public funds to construct new houses of worship, or rehabilitate existing dilapidated structures.
Until now, the goal of tapping the public treasury to save crumbling houses of worship appealed to notions such as architectural preservation or "inner city redevelopment." The administration has quietly enlisted the support of private advocacy groups like "Partners for Sacred Places," suggesting that in the right political climate, money would be available to repair and pay for the upkeep of select houses of worship.
John DiIulio, the first Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, told a PSP gathering two years ago that Americans were "behind the curve" in not being willing to use tax revenue to assist inner-city religious groups in preserving these structures. He also cited the need to utilize these buildings as centers for the delivery of faith-based social services.
The idea is finding a wider audience on Capitol Hill, with key lawmakers like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) expressing support for the proposal.
"This should be a welcome aid," declared an excited Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III, president of the National 10-Point Leadership Foundation, in reacting to the new HUD proposal. His group represents a coalition of denominations composed of primarily black churches which increasing have come out in support of the Bush faith-based initiative. Dismissing constitutional concerns over the separation of church and state, Rivers describes the plan to build new social service-cum-worship facilities at public expense as "entirely reasonable."
|
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/faith50.htm |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| i stand corrected...doesn't make it right |
|
|
|
|
|
