The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Snooty Katie

9.29.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

Your article was excellent and demonstrated once again the theological bankruptcy of the UCC. My question is personal: How can you stay in a denomination that has forsaken the basic truths of Christianity. The ordination of practicing homosexuals is a case in point. Then there are the matters you have discussed. Can an apostate group be turned back to the foundational doctrines of the gospel? Thanks again for the article.
-- Raymond Coffey
Pastor, Fairlawn CRC

Thank you for your explanation of your connection to the UCC and the Congregationalists' organization pattern. It was there, many years ago, in my small home town where I first learned about Jesus Christ. I can still hear Reverend Skarett's explanation of good and evil and I have been blessed to have had that brief association. May you blessed in your continuing association. I am quite sure Reverend Skarett would have no difficulty explaining to this year's Vacation Bible School students who is sitting on whose shoulder's and who is listening to whom! There would be no separation of church from state for him, nor would he hesitate to name those politicians who are listening to the wrong guy!
-- Rose Storey

SOCIALLY INSECURE
Re: David Catron's The Audacity of Slander:

A very good article but the part about Social Security is the one that got me. I don't believe that neither party is being really truthful on this issue and that all of the media and pundits are ignoring it.

When President Roosevelt was pushing for Social Security he made the following promises and congress, controlled by the democrats, passed them into law. 1. That Social Security will only be used for retirement and disability benefits, 2. The monies will be kept in a trust fund separate from the general budget, 3. The benefits will NOT be taxable. I don't know if he promised it but when the bill was enacted it was not used for identification purposes. Don't believe me, it is true it is printed on my S.S. card and I saw it posted recently on S.S. offices.

I registered for SS in 1949, needed it to be a caddy. At that time and still my card says so, "NOT TO BE USED FOR"IDENTIFICATION', there was a trust fund entirely separated from the general budget, the fund was NOT used for any other purposes and was not taxable. Since then Social Security has became taxable, ask any person retired filing their taxes. It tells you that portions of S.S. maybe taxable. So who lied and changed it?

During President Eisenhower's administration Congress decided that there was too much money in the trust fund and put the trust fund into the general budget. Eisenhower should have vetoed it but didn't. Even if he did the Democrat Congress would have over ridden his veto. Now the fund wasn't so safe.

President Johnson wanted guns and butter and a balanced budget. How to do it? By executive order the trust fund became fair game and Congress has been spending it like it was going out of style. Since then there was always a crises concerning the future availability for retirement money. Since then our Social Security number has become unofficially our national identification number. Since then Social Security benefits may be taxable. I have seeing fixes like raising the retirement age or raising the Social Security tax.

The result is that Social Security isn't secure, the quick fixes forces the workers to work longer, and Congress has more money to spend on pork but Social Security has not been fixed. Yes, Obama and democrats the poor are suffering more because of the cash in their pocket is less because of taxes, have a shorter retirement time to enjoy their fruits of labor and very possible that some of their retirement benefits are taxed. Nice going.

The Democrats say that privatizing S.S. would hurt the needy. From what I read that would be an option and only part could be privately invested. Either way they would be protected. The IRA program offers higher returns than the return that Social Security has and is offering.
-- Tom MacKay
Pennsylvania

HE'S BAAA-AAAK
Re: Mike Dooley's letter (under "Think Before You Write") in Reader Mail's All Power to the Palin:

Being a bright guy, I suspect that Mike Dooley already knows that one could lift the words "lib" "liberal" and "right" from his letter and insert in their place the words "con" "conservative" and "left" without changing a single other word and you would have a fair approximation of how some liberals view their counterparts.

Mr. Dooley writes: "While denouncing the purported hatred, vitriol, and narrow-mindedness of the right, they spit out indignation and outrage in unmistakable colors of hate." Purported? One would think Mr. Dooley has never read a single letter from other conservatives who write in response to articles in TAS. There is plenty of hatred, vitriol and narrow-mindedness on both sides of the cultural divide; most of it, thankfully, from the fringes.

Mr. Dooley also writes: "Conservatives, although significant part of the population, are by definition are unsuitable." Further, he asserts: "Why, when conservative views are presented and defended, do they (liberals) act as if it were a personal insult?" I have long wondered why I find statements like these so curious. While I'm not, I have friends and acquaintances who are conservative. We break bread together, we work in the community together and we discuss important issues in a civil manner. It strikes me as very narcissistic that someone can actually believe there are significant numbers of people devoting their entire lives to a conspiracy against conservatives. I don't think the world works that way, however, I do understand the brilliance of this myth in the political arena.
-- Mike Roush

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Television, Economics, Federal Budget, Social Security, Sports, Law, Iraq, NATO, Alaska, Medicare