Debt deal

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that being in conducting me prosperously thro' a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, though without the smallest conceit of meriting such goodness. My sentiments on this head you will see in the copy of an old letter enclosed, which I wrote in answer to one from a zealous religionist, whom I had relieved in a paralytic case by electricity, and who, being afraid I should grow proud upon it, sent me his serious though rather impertinent caution.

P.S.... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and as I have never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.

There is no doubt that Franklin was a devout Christian, at least at some point in his life.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Jefferson said it simply to convey that it was not Government's place to establish religion, it was up to the individual (which is why the whole quote is important).

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ummmm... your own quote shoes that Franklin doubted the divinity of Christ. Accepting the divinity of Christ is required if you are a Christian. Therefore, if one is unsure about the divinity of Christ, or one disavows the divinity of Christ, one can't be a Christian.

[Ddrak]

What Embar said - his quote explicitly says he doesn't believe Jesus was God, and also says that he believed in salvation by works (not by grace). Franklin believed that Jesus was a good man who had a pretty decent set of moral standards and that's all. He was quite critical of organized religion (what he called 'dogma') his entire life and never expressed any real sentiment to the contrary. Franklin was raised Presbyterian but never accepted that faith, or that of any other Christian denomination.

And Jefferson's quote says a lot more than that. He's explicitly separates Church from State and State from Church. To suggest anything else is to ignore the wealth of other writings (some of which I quoted) where he says religion has no part in government. Some apologetics like to think of it as a one-way wall but that's a serious misunderstanding and cherrypicking of Jefferson's work to maintain a distance between both. Jefferson did hold Christian beliefs, but he kept them very strongly distinct from his politics.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm shocked Lurker missed these ones of Embar's

We saw which party pushed policy that made things worse. We saw which party blocked needed stimulus. We saw which party forced the focus from stimulus to debt reduction. We saw which party refused to pass a clean debt limit increase resulting in the decrease of our credit rating. We saw which party has deliberately sabotaged the recovery to gain a political advantage.

.

LOL.. what?

The house of cards we call US fiscal policy was headed for a meltdown. Obvioulsy you didn't read S&Ps reasoning, nor Moody's warning,that the downgrade was due in large part to there not enough deficit reduction. the downgrade had nothing to do with a "clean debt limit increase" and I challenge you to show me where S&P said that. Or Moody's (they've come out with a recent statement that hints at a future downgrade if the US doesn't get its spending under control). Most of the cuts (which are in the future and not guaranteed, since one Congress can't bind another), are from discretionary spending programs. Little was done to address entitlement reform in this process, which is where the real problem lies with US spending. And the party that is resisting entitlement reform, and therefore putting us on a path to fiscal insolvency, is the Democrats.

[Lurker]

LOL.. wrong.

The primary reason for the downgrade was Republican refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and Republicans seeming willingness (sometimes eagerness) to allow the US to fall into default if their demands weren't met. You even parroted them here when you commented that a default wouldn't be that bad a thing.

Yes, spending needs to be cut in the future, but our spending forecast isn't that much different than it was before and S&P didn't downgrade us then. It wasn't until it became clear that the Bush tax cuts were not going to expire and until the Republican's pushed us to the edge of default that they downgraded us. They cite a broken system. They no longer have confidence that our politicians will do the right thing.

You need to re-read the report. You need to take an honest look at what the Republicans did the last few months on this issue. Unfortunately you aren't capable.

If the Republicans had allowed a clean increase to pass our credit wouldn't have been downgraded. That's a fact.

[Kulaf]

What Embar said - his quote explicitly says he doesn't believe Jesus was God, and also says that he believed in salvation by works (not by grace). Franklin believed that Jesus was a good man who had a pretty decent set of moral standards and that's all. He was quite critical of organized religion (what he called 'dogma') his entire life and never expressed any real sentiment to the contrary. Franklin was raised Presbyterian but never accepted that faith, or that of any other Christian denomination.

And Jefferson's quote says a lot more than that. He's explicitly separates Church from State and State from Church. To suggest anything else is to ignore the wealth of other writings (some of which I quoted) where he says religion has no part in government. Some apologetics like to think of it as a one-way wall but that's a serious misunderstanding and cherrypicking of Jefferson's work to maintain a distance between both. Jefferson did hold Christian beliefs, but he kept them very strongly distinct from his politics.

Dd

The tone of Jefferson's "wall of seperation" quote is clearly written to protect religion from the state......not the other way around:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Jefferson believed that each man had the right to practice as they will. But I think he certainly would have bristled at the way religioous practice of any sort has been banned from Federal buildings and offices. It is one thing to seperate church and state on a systemic level.....and quite another to ban religious practice by individuals in violation of the free excercise clause.

[Lurker]

the downgrade had nothing to do with a "clean debt limit increase" and I challenge you to show me where S&P said that

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

And... S&P Official: U.S. Downgrade Was Due in Part to Debt-Ceiling Brawl

Other than that, it had nothing whatever to do with Republicans using this as a tool to force cuts, refusing to consider revenue increases even when Democrats agreed to entitlement cuts, and taking us to the brink of default by refusing to pass a clean limit increase.

[Lurker]

And now the same crowd who spent months downplaying the consequences of a default or credit rating downgrade will rush here to attack Obama for the situation they themselves created.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Uhhh... were you aware that S&P stated that the spending CUTS in the plan were not enough, in their estimation, and those spending CUTS should have been in the neighborhood of $4 trillion.

The plan, in S&Ps analysis, did not CUT enough. So thank god for the Reps, whp pushed for as many CUTS as they could. It was the intransigence of the Dems that nearly caused a collapse. The Reps knew we had to cut, cut, cut to get our fiscal house back in order. We are spending too much, way beyond our means. Hence the perceived need to up the national credit card.

Looking to constantly up the amount of money we borrow as a nation is not sound fiscal policy. Living within our means, is.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Ummmm... your own quote shoes that Franklin doubted the divinity of Christ. Accepting the divinity of Christ is required if you are a Christian. Therefore, if one is unsure about the divinity of Christ, or one disavows the divinity of Christ, one can't be a Christian.

Then what was he? He certainly claims to have believed in one god, that he governs by his providence and that he ought to be worshipped.

He obviously was not Athiest then, as most people claim.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And now the same crowd who spent months downplaying the consequences of a default or credit rating downgrade will rush here to attack Obama for the situation they themselves created.

And the Dems who preached financial armageddon if US credit was damaged will now pooh-pooh the downgrade. So what's your're point.. that politicians spin?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ummmm... your own quote shoes that Franklin doubted the divinity of Christ. Accepting the divinity of Christ is required if you are a Christian. Therefore, if one is unsure about the divinity of Christ, or one disavows the divinity of Christ, one can't be a Christian.

Then what was he? He certainly claims to have believed in one god, that he governs by his providence and that he ought to be worshipped.

He obviously was not Athiest then, as most people claim.

He was a person wo beleived in "a" god, just not "your" god.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Just because he didn't believe in the divinity of Christ doesn't necessarily mean he believed in a different God.

[Lurker]

And now the same crowd who spent months downplaying the consequences of a default or credit rating downgrade will rush here to attack Obama for the situation they themselves created.

And the Dems who preached financial armageddon if US credit was damaged will now pooh-pooh the downgrade. So what's your're point.. that politicians spin?

Republicans spent months downplaying the dangers of a default / credit downgrade and used the credit rating of the United States as a political bargaining chip, resulting in damage to our credit rating. Democrats warned of the potential damage a default or downgrade would cause and then tried to limit the damage by "pooh poohing the downgrade" when their warnings became reality.

You look at those facts and say "politicians spin".

/facepalm

[Embar Angylwrath]

Am I to understand that you are saying the Dems' predictions of financial armageedon happening if the credit status of the US was damaged are now coming true? That's what it sounds like in your post. Given that, it seems odd that the Dems would then deny that that anything really terrible is happening, if indeed something terrible is really happening.

And you failed to address S&Ps statements that one of the main reasons (along with the way business is done in Washington.. the fault of both sides, not just the Reps), is that the CUTS in the plan didn't go far enough. One wonders what their response would have been if the CUTS had been $4 trillion, had been real and not pushed off into the future. And I hope you realize that the reason debt ceilings are ever raised is because the government spends too much money relative to revenue.

This is, and always has been, a spending issue. Not a revenue one.

[Lurker]

Embar, trying to limit damage after the fact is not the same as causing it.

And I hope you realize that the reason debt ceilings are ever raised is because the government spends too much money relative to revenue.

This is, and always has been, a spending issue. Not a revenue one.

Right... "tax cuts don't cause deficits; only spending causes deficits!"

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

You challenged me to show where S&P blamed the fight and I did. If the Republicans had allowed a clean debt limit increase we wouldn't have been downgraded. If the Republicans would consider revenue measures in addition to the cuts Democrats agreed to we would be in a stronger position to address our problems, and again... wouldn't have received the downgrade.

[Kulaf]

You are both wrong. The S&P analysis said that cuts in ENTITLEMENT spending was what was needed. Neither party had the BALLS to actually do it.

[Minute]

Then what was he? He certainly claims to have believed in one god, that he governs by his providence and that he ought to be worshipped.

He obviously was not Athiest then, as most people claim.

He was a deist. Why is this complicated?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Yes, but he believes in the moral teachings of Jesus... just not his divinity. Which would make him a Christian deist.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar, trying to limit damage after the fact is not the same as causing it.

And I hope you realize that the reason debt ceilings are ever raised is because the government spends too much money relative to revenue.

This is, and always has been, a spending issue. Not a revenue one.

Right... "tax cuts don't cause deficits; only spending causes deficits!"

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

You challenged me to show where S&P blamed the fight and I did. If the Republicans had allowed a clean debt limit increase we wouldn't have been downgraded. If the Republicans would consider revenue measures in addition to the cuts Democrats agreed to we would be in a stronger position to address our problems, and again... wouldn't have received the downgrade.

Your second to last sentence is pure speculation, and just plain dreaming on your part. S&P clearly stated that part of their concern was that CUTS didn't go far enough. Congress needed about 1.8 trilion extra in spending cuts to mollify S&P. And those cuts needed to be real. Not just possible inthe future, but real. You clearly did not address the question honestly, otherwise you would have included S&Ps position on spending cuts, along with your statements about the toxic atmosphere in Washington (please note: S&P didn't point the finger to either party, as much as you would like to. They blamed the process, which encompasses both parties.)

The Dems held the line on entitlement spending. The Reps blinked on that, and shame on them for doing so. I find it laughable that Dems and lefties are crying the blues and pointing at the Reps, when the real meat of this happens in a future, and unknown Congress, and that body can undo anything this one did.

Political bargaining chip???? The Dems came out on top on that one. They got a huge increase in spending leveraged against an unknown future Congress.