The Roots of the Tea Party War on Social Justice

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Bill,
You've been copying-and-pasting the same links for about three years, and you refuse to listen to contrary evidence. There's not much dialogue to be had with you!

Scott Galupo of VA 9:44AM February 24, 2012

From “Mitt Romney's Boneheaded Across-The-Board Tax Cut Plan”
Scotty. No answer !!!
Ungodly Scott Galupo of VA _ How condescending a writer on this site you are...
1. “Newt didn't do anything by himself. Last time I checked, the Speaker of the House is not constitutionally empowered to enact laws without the signature of the president”
Maybe you recall CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ? Maybe you recall Bill C. refusing to sign balanced budgets ? Closing down government twice ?
2. “Further, even if I grant you that "Newt cut taxes," he didn't do so until 1997—after Clinton's reelection in '96.”
In your article, you had “"President Bill Clinton was re-elected in part because voters figured they were doing fine, even under comparatively higher tax rates”
"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases."
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
I did not say Newt’s tax cuts went into effect in Bill C. first term. Clear your mind !?!? I wrote “Newt CUT the tax rates Bill C. increased and increased government revenue...”
3. “And stop citing the CBO in your tax-cuts-increase-revenue myth. The 2001 tax cuts put at least a $2 trillion hole in the budget, as even this Bush-friendly report admits:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27364.html ”
You are a A**. Will give quick answer. Read my CBO quote:
"According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts
Not a “myth” but FACT. Congress spend WHOLE BUNCH. Check out link you have provided brother. Maybe you did not know this WHIZ KID, you can get a bigger pay check and OUTSPEND IT. That’s called debt. See your link. About after loss of revenue, notice any RECESSION OCCURING ??? THEN, Bush warned year he was elected about Bill C. mess...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:34PM February 23, 2012

James Hill,
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. You're right that I should have been more careful about using "social justice" and "social gospel" interchangeably. What I was thinking, as I wrote, was Glenn Beck's attack on "social justice."
I am hesitant to lump evangelicals, even conservative ones, and fundamentalists together. There are important differences. Perhaps a better catchall would have been "ultraorthodox." In any case, mainline Protestants' championing of the social gospel is one of the beefs conservatives have with them, as I'm sure you know.
As for the gospel ministry having this-worldly implications, I of course agree. The point I tried to make is that the conservative view of Christ's core mission is that it was to open a path for eternal salvation--not to ameliorate poverty; not to establish an egalitarian order on earth.
It's not a theological dispute I intended to settle in one blog post.
I'm simply arguing that, in a strange way, conservative Protestants have embraced capitalism in such a way that it's part and parcel of scripture. It has become their own (inverted) notion of the social gospel.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

Scott Galupo of VA 7:05PM February 23, 2012

Hmm...Mr. Galupo, I generally like ready your editorials as you are one of the least partisan writers on this site. However, you've strayed away from your comfort zone on this one.
Your use of "Orthodox Protestants" as a descriptive group makes little sense. The group to which you are refering would be better defined as "Conservative Evangelicals" or even "Fundamentalist Protestants." After all, it is Mainline Protestants, as much as Catholics, who champion social justice.
You also make a mistake many political commentators make in confusing Social Justice with the Social Gospel movement. I would not deny a relationship, but these can not be used interchangeably and refer to very different things.
Finally, your characterization of the gospel as primarily concerned with "the next world, not this one," is both poor theology and poor exegesis. When Jesus said the Kingdom of God has come near (meaning in him and his message) he was at the beginning of his ministry, not the end of his life. The gospel is absolutely about this world -- and the next as well. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and.
Without question, the Tea Party and their ilk have done a great disservice to themselves and others in allowing western capitalism to become so confused with their theology and reading of scripture that their presentation of the Christian faith has become a perverse one.

James Hill of MO 5:57PM February 23, 2012