Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.
Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.
The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)
Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).
Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.
High unemployment and increased reliance on government programs has also shrunk the nation’s share of taxpayers. Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.
A plan like Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would make sure that everybody is paying their fair share of taxes, and maybe then people who collect these benefits without paying their fair share would have a reason to want to cut government spending.
A “just” God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately. In the Western tradition, we punish people for the actions they commit, but the extent of punishment is dependent also on the person’s mental state, and a person’s mental state is reflective of his or her beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices and wants the victim dead; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering a person’s beliefs may well be relevant, especially if those beliefs have motivated the criminal behavior.
But the challenger’s mistake is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for not accepting the gospel. Christians believe that people are condemned for their sinful behavior – the “wages of sin is death” – not for what they fail to do. The quoted challenge is like saying that the sick man died of “not going to the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific condition – perhaps cancer or a heart attack – which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in His presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.
The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress Him. What we do right we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. This is expected of them. They can’t commit a murder and then claim that punishment is unfair, because they had been kind and generous in the past. When a person gets his mind around the idea of what perfection entails, trying to impress a perfect Creator with our “basic goodness” no longer seems like such a good option.
Here’s a related answer from CARM. This one answers the question about degrees of punishment in Hell.
Excerpt:
Yes, there are different degrees of punishment in hell.
[…]But, not all people are equally bad. Though all deserve damnation because all are sinners, different people have committed different degrees of sin.
Mt. 11:20-22, “Then He began to reproach the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 “Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you…I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
Luke 12:47-48, “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”
John 19:11, “Jesus answered [Pilate], ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.’ ”
Heb. 10:29, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
So, if Jesus speaks of greater condemnation for Chorazin and Bethsaida than Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 11:21-22), one slave received more punishment than another (Luke 12:47-48), the one who delivered Jesus to Pilate has the greater sin (John 19:11), and a more severe punishment is reserved for those who trample underfoot the Son of God, then does not greater sin mean that greater punishment will also happen in hell? Yes it does.
Not only are there degrees of punishment in Hell, but there are degrees of reward in Heaven, based on what you do on Earth and what strengths you start out with.
10 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.
11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.
12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.
13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
14 Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles.
15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only;
16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.
17 Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account.
18 I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.
Everyone who believes in Jesus gets salvation, but your experience in Heaven will be different based on what you do while you are alive. And that’s also the answer to another common question – about deathbed conversions. Both deathbed converts and William Lane Craig will get the same experience of being in the presence of God, but there are completely different levels of reward. One person has an empty account, and the other person has huge massive amounts of virtuous action on deposit. But I think the real reason that Christians are trying to do good things here on Earth is that they like God, and they want to be his friend. They want to work on the relationship, even if it means a little self-denial, and a little sacrifice. We all have things that we would rather be doing for ourselves, but sometimes we have to things that work – things that are effective – for someone else. My values are not his values. Sometimes it is good to do something based on what He values. I don’t always have to get my way, because then it wouldn’t be a real relationship.
I enjoy thinking about Bible puzzles like this… so often in church we just make Christianity a checklist of things that we are supposed to believe somehow, by brute force willpower. I think reflecting on these problems, asking questions, and making sense of them on our own, is a much better approach.
It’s a Zogby poll, so it could be off by 6-8%, in my opinion. But still.
Excerpt:
Herman Cain has opened up a 20 percentage point lead among likely Republican primary voters in the race for the Presidential nomination, and also holds a narrow lead among all likely voters over President Barack Obama.
Cains share of the GOP primary has jumped 10 percentage points since Sept. 26 and is now at 38%. Mitt Romney is second with 18%, followed by both Rick Perry and Ron Paul, at 12% each.
The Oct. 3-5 IBOPE Zogby interactive poll also matches Cain, Romney and Perry against Obama. Cain led Obama, 46%-44%, while Obama is one-point ahead of Romney, 41%-40%, and leads Perry, 45%-40%.
As for President Barack Obama, both his job approval (41%) and the percentage who believe he deserves re-election (38%) are virtually unchanged from recent polls.
Republican Candidates (asked only of the party’s primary voters)
If the Republican primary for President were held today, for whom would you vote?
Candidate
Oct 5
Sept 26
Sept 12
Aug 29
Herman Cain
38%
28%
12%
8%
Mitt Romney
18%
17%
14%
12%
Rick Perry
12%
18%
37%
41%
Ron Paul
12%
11%
11%
11%
By the way, in that video up above, he mentions AEGIS warships, like the Arleigh Burke DDG I posted earlier. He explains that his foreign policy will be “peace through strength”. Watch that video, it will you help to understand why people are raising Cain.
Unemployed Wall Street protesters only have themselves to blame for lacking a job, so says Herman Cain.
The Republican presidential candidate insisted that the demonstrations were being “orchestrated” to help President Obama.
“I don’t have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration,” Cain told the Wall Street Journal.
The Tea Party favorite then argued that the plight of the unemployed was their own fault.
“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed,” the ex-Godfather’s Pizza CEO declared.
The fiery remarks come as protest organizers plan for their biggest demonstrations yet — at least 2,000 people are expected to gather in lower Manhattan Wednesday.
Last week, 700 protesters who spilled onto the streets near the Brooklyn Bridge were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct.
Cain acknowledged that the banking industry played a role in the 2008 economic meltdown, but argued they were no longer responsible.
“They did have something to do with the crisis that we went into in 2008, but we’re not in 2008, we’re in 2011,” Cain said.”…These demonstrations, I honestly don’t understand what they’re looking for. To me, they come across more as anti-capitalism.”
Cain’s campaign has been picking up steam since he won Florida’s straw poll last month.
And in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, Cain trails Obama by just five points in a head-to-head matchup.
Normal politicians don’t talk like that. Can you imagine RINO Romney saying something like that? No way.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard a more offensive interview on MSNBC than the one I just heard from Lawrence O’Donnell with Herman Cain. In one interview O’Donnell managed to accuse Herman Cain of not only sitting on the sidelines during the civil rights movement, but also of dodging the Vietnam war. His contempt for a black Republican has never been more clear.
At one point in the interview, O’Donnell asked Cain where America would be right now if Rosa Parks took his dad’s advice to stay out of trouble and just sit in the back of the bus. Seriously. It was like he was trying to prove that Cain hadn’t earned his black skin or something. It was terribly offensive and I hope Cain never steps foot again in the studios of MSNBC.
I will say that Cain proved he could hold his own and not be rattled by the offensive assumptions of these whackos on MSNBC. He hit back in the interview several times but always kept his cool. He could have hit back more in my opinion but overall I think he did great.
It’s a long interview but it covers four main topics: Brainwashing, Civil Rights Movement, War dodging, and the 9-9-9 plan.
Even Mediaite’s radical leftist Tommy Christopher doesn’t like the interviewer:
Based on his interview with GOP supernova Herman Cain, a cynical person might think that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is trying to push the upstart candidate over the finish line for the Republican presidential nomination. On Thursday night’s The Last Word, O’Donnell conducted an interview that surpassed unfair, sped through the tollbooth at offensive, and came to rest in the parking spot marked “Reserved For Despicable.”. . .
Let me start by saying this: I like Lawrence O’Donnell, and not just for his contribution to the ultimate liberal television show, The West Wing. O’Donnell is part of a new breed of liberal commentator who doesn’t talk himself into a corner, and viewers into a coma. He takes strong positions, and expresses them with aggression and clarity.
I also don’t like Herman Cain, for a variety of good reasons, some of which O’Donnell touched on in his interview. His victory in the GOP primary race would be great for America, as it would keep a party, hell-bent on fundamentally crippling the government’s ability to govern, out of the White House for at least four more years.
That’s why my reaction to O’Donnell’s interview with Cain was so shocking. I’m not the kind of person who says things out loud to himself, or to the TV screen, but throughout O’Donnell’s grilling of Cain, I found myself doing just that. “What the f***?. . . Are you f***ing kidding me?”
Rather than debate Herman Cain on his substantive weaknesses, O’Donnell opted to pull at symbolic threads from Cain’s own personal history. The portion of the interview that will cause most stomachs to churn will probably be when O’Donnell tried to shame Herman Cain for “sitting on the sidelines” during the Civil Rights movement.
(There really isn’t any racism, but from now on, any leftist who disagrees with Herman Cain is going to be called a racist on my blog)
