"I wish I could say I wll see you in heaven. But probably none of you will be there."

This recent post by CG White illustrates two things wonderfully:

1) The fact that over the last two years you can check all the threads and here is the common "tread" you will find. You will find people such as Connie and CG constantly complaining about how "mean spirited"...."unloving" "not filled with the Spirit"...etc...ad naseum.....myself....E. Lee....and others are.

AND YET.....it is they who constantly make eternal judgments!! Has anyone besides me noticed this over the last two years?? Not one single time in two years have I ever suggested to anyone....."You're going to hell."

2) It also illustrates the influence of liberal secular thinking into the church. When liberals say ugly things....it's OK....but if conservatives do it...."it's mean spirited."

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Answers

CG says "conservative don't care."

Hmmmmmm......let's see...

According to the 1999 tax return filed by Al Gore.....he gave a whopping......$300 to charity.

According to his 2000 tax return....Dick Cheney gave.....$40,000.

Hmmmm.....the evidence don't look good CG!!!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Conservatives don't care?? Hmmmmmm.....

According to the multi-million dollar actress Sarah Jessica Parker.....she was upset when Bush became president because...and I quote...."her sister is on govt. programs and they might be cut."

I got an idea Sara.....why don't you give a couple of your million to help your sister out....instead of taking from everyone else....and having the govt. redistribute it....so you can keep your money and salve your conscience at the same time.

And by the way....tell that to the rest of your liberal Hollywood croonies....if they want to save a tree.....do it with their multimillions.....not the American taxpayers.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Dear Lord....

Please forgive Connie....she knows not what she does.

I mean it....she really doesn't.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

And Link....Liberalists, social govts. count on people like you.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

OK Connie....good suggestion....so here goes....

Dear Lord,

Please forgive our govt. for slaughtering millions of children who never had a chance to take their first breath.

And Dear Lord, please forgive them for stealing way too much of the people's money in order to accomplish this hidious task.

O Lord.....how long will thou tarriest before you avenge the blood of these innocents??

In Jesus Name, Amen!!

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Multi million dollar Dr. Seuss Monument....supported by Ted Kennedy!!!

Nah....our govt. is not wasteful and stealing from us!!!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

A cross in a jar of urine sponsored by the NEA.....a picture of the Mary, the mother of Jesus.....with dung splattered on her....also sponsored by the NEA.

The govt. stealing from us to support this trash??? Nah!!!

The point being folks......if the govt. would quit overburdening the people of America with their excessive taxation.....then....they would have little money to spend on such "social experimentation".....and "cultural destruction".....and....they might have more to fund the things that truly meet the needs of people.

Everyone else has to live on a budget....and so should the Fed. govt.!!!!

And....from the recent rounds of taxation debates in Congress....I think it become pretty clear which party wants to at least attempt to live on a budget.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Oh...and by the way...I certainly don't think GW is a saint. For instance....I don't think his tax proposal went far enough....and it certainly wasn't "front end loaded" enough to suit me.

And....I'm anxious to see how much he panders to the environmentalist whackos on his energy policy.....and the results of his interaction with China....are yet to be seen.

Point being, unlike Liberals who just loved everything Clinton did...including his sleaze (i.e., "it's his private life").....I feel perfectly comfortable parting with GW.....as do most conservatives.

But....compared to the last 8 years....the office had no where to go....but up!!!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Really CG....where do you get the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer??

I have tried to understand that "mantra".....and I just can't.

It's very simple....the people that pay the most taxes should get the most relief.

Betty Single Mom.....who didn't pay a dime in taxes.....should not get a thing back!!! Period.

I agree with GW...."no one should have to pay more than 30% in taxes."

Well...I guess I kind of agree him.....I still don't think he cuts it enough.

Simply put.....the only thing that drives Liberal economics is greed, jealous, and envy of what others have.

I don't live my life concerned that Bill Gates makes too much. I could care less. In fact...I hope he makes more. I've got Microsoft stock.

BTW....I agree with Mark...and Dick Armey....I'm all for the across the board flat tax of 10%....no loopholes...not tax credits....just 10%.

We would run a surplus every year....and the best part is.....we could get rid of the biggest organized crime unit in America....namely....the IRS!!!

Have you seen the form for the "flat tax??" It's the size of a post card.....and take 5 minutes to fill out.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Ahhh....but the fact is CG....both get richer!!!

At the heart of things seems to be your resentment that some people make more money than you.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"I could flip it around and say that the Republican big-wigs are not happy unless they know almost everybody makes less than them"

CG....you could flip it around....but you know that would not be true.

I think there is a whole lot greater evidence to suggest that the Democrats who were in power for over 40 years had a much greater interest in keeping people in poverty. By keeping people in poverty....it guaranteed the Democrats power....in that they kept promising...."to do something for the people."

But in 40 years.....they did nothing but increase the welfare rolls and dependcey on govt....the very thing that empowers Democrats.

Come on CG......how seriously can we take Teddy Kennedy when he says he is concerned about the poor as he sits on his multi-million dollar estates and yachts?? How seriously can we take the Hollywood elitist Democrats who want to burden the tax payers of America even further while they themselves live in plush spendor??

Don't paint with broad strokes and make these sweeping generalizations of Republicans. It sounds too much like the "mantra" of the left.

Just as there are good Democrats.....Breaux of Louis., and Zell Miller of GA just to name two.....there are also very compassionate conservatives.

Both groups have one thing in common.....to have less govt....less taxation.....and less govt. intrusion into our lives.

I believe that everyone, given the chance....can pull themselves out of their bad situation. And by given the chance....I don't mean govt. handouts....I mean.....govt. leaving us alone.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Anon....good question about Bush and the debt.

Bush has addressed this by pointing out....that it is not wise business practice to pay off bonds....before they mature. The bonds will be paid off as they matured and he has pointed out numerous times that his budget includes paying those bonds.

CG.....difference between Cheney and Kennedy's wealth.....1) Cheney actually earned his; 2) Cheney's not interested in salving his conscience at the expense of the American taxpayer.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG states: "We need both a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage."

CG....they tried that in Russia. Nuff said!!!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Robin....

Good point!! Thanks!!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

CG....isn't allowing labor to keep more of their own hard earned money as opposed to the govt.'s confiscatory taxation.....pro labor??

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

No CG.....the rich do not bother me at all for the Scripture makes it very clear......"thou shalt not covet."

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

"I find it funny that the stockmarket went up almost sixfold in ten years but the wealth never trickled down."

Really CG?? That's funny.....my portfolio went up considerably....and I'm certainly not rich. It trickled down to me.

Well....we may be dupped by the Republicans (not really)....but at least we know which holes to punch on the ballot card!!!:)

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Danny?????

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Are you accussing Connie of being a liberal?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Yes, Link, that is hilariously funny. If I were any further to the right, I'd fall off the 'edge' of the earth.

Thanks for asking the question.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Danny

What would it take to make peace with you? What would I have to do to no longer be evil in your eyes?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Danny

You may not have said anyone was going to hell, but when you say someone is not a brother or sister in Christ, doesn't that reveal that you believe that person is on the way to hell?

If there is some way to clean the slate and have productive dialogue I am all for it.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Are 'Raca,' 'thou fool,' 'idiot' and 'liberal' all in the same category?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Well........

Not all fools and idiots are Liberals, but all Liberals are either fools or idiots because they ignore the teachings of Scripture, as well as that of simple logic & common sense.

These are not to be confused with "Raca". The inference of "raca" is that the person it is applied to is So worthless as to be considered sub-human......i.e. not worthy of life. That is why Jesus considered the application of that word as murder - because the only thing preventing a murder under that circunstance is opportunity.

Which, of course, is why the application of this passage to several of the current threads is not valid........no one has said or applied that some on here are not worthy of life - just that they are ignorant or self-deluded as to the facts.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Hello, Mark.

Long time, no see.

Do you think that an honorable, honest person, when proved wrong and when he, himself, has said he would apologize if proved wrong, but doesn't do it, is what a Christian would do?

Would a brave, macho man of honor, Christian or not, do such a thing?

Just wondering.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Hey Connie,

Honor is honor - Christianity has no bearing on it. An honorable person apologizes when he is proven wrong. But the absolute proof has to be there, because an honorable person also is obligated to make a stand for truth irregardless of the pain such truth may cause. If he (she) compromises truth - they are no longer honorable.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Hello, Mark,

I delivered some incontrovertible proof with several documents but never got an apology, which I consider dishonorable.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Ok......I'll bite.....where are the proofs?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark writes:

Well........ Not all fools and idiots are Liberals, but all Liberals are either fools or idiots because they ignore the teachings of Scripture, as well as that of simple logic & common sense.

CG replies:

No, man. some of the things liberals embrace--pacifism, social justice and redistrbuting wealth, etc., are very Biblical. Come on Mark, as Danny says, do not use broad brush strokes. Some of us lean toward liberal politics BECAUSE OF our Chrsitan faith. The only issues I am not with the liberals on are abortion and homosexuality.

I would cite Ron Sider and Richard Foster as two examples. Look into Evangelicals for Social Action. I think there you will find biblical balance.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Twelve Principles for a Just Society--by Evangelicals for Social Action

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE--CGW

1. Made in the very image of God, every person enjoys an inalienable dignity and worth that society must respect. 2. Persons are not just complex socio-economic, materialistic machines, they are also spiritual beings enjoying God-given rights and responsibilities. Each person is a body-soul unity made for relationship with God, neighbor, self and earth. 3. Because the trinitarian God created persons for mutual interdependence in community, society must be organized in ways that nurture the common good. Since persons reach their potential only in a multi-layered community of diverse institutions (family, church, school, media, business, government), society must promote policies (consistent with religious freedom for all) that strengthen all institutions to play their full proper role. 4. Every policy, both public and private, must be measured by its impact on the poor because biblical faith teaches that one of the central criterion by which God judges societies is how they treat the least advantaged. 5. Both because God wants all persons to be dignified participants in their communities and because centralized power is always dangerous, we must strengthen the economic and political power of the poor. 6. Renewing the family must be a central goal for both government and civil society. (A family is that set of persons related by marriage, blood or adoption.) While recognizing that today’s families come in many shapes (two-parent, single parent, blended), all policies, both public and private, should promote the biblical norm of mother and father (united in life-long marital covenant) with their children, surrounded by a larger extended family. 7. Every person and family should have opportunity to acquire and use (without discrimination based on religion, race or gender) the productive resources which, if used responsibly, will enable that person or family to earn a decent living and be a dignified participating member of the community. 8. Everyone able to work has an obligation to do so; society where possible has the responsibility to make work opportunity available to all; and everyone who works responsibly should receive a living income. 9. Society should care–in a generous, compassionate way that strengthens dignity and respect–for those who cannot care for themselves. 10. Quality education must be available to all, regardless of family income. 11. Quality health care consistent with society’s present knowledge and resources must be available to all, regardless of family income. 12. Every community must enjoy public safety where people normally feel physically secure, where violence is rare, and the police and courts function without bias for or against anyone. (I would strive for violence to be eliminated, though.)

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

You could be no further from the truth on this.

First off, I do not see pacifism as a "Liberal" issue - it is an interpretational error. Now, Gun Control is a Liberal issue.....that is forcing your beliefs on someone else. Believe it or not, one can be a Pacifist without forcing the issue of Gun Control. A true Pacifist refrains from violent interaction, and therefore cannot by definition "Force" his view on others as that would be violating his own pacifism.

Second - what in the world is "Social Justice". There is only 1 justice......Truth! Right is right, wrong is wrong (as defined by Scripture)! The Bible has not proposed "gray areas" - the Liberals did it.

Third - where is a "Forced" redistributing of wealth proposed by Scripture? The only "Welfare" system in Scripture is the Old Testament version. Leaving the edges of the fields unharvested was a way for the poor and hungry to EARN their sustanance - it wasn't a hand-out, it was a Hand-UP. The whole purpose of the Old Testament Law was to point to the ideas of that which was to come - teaching principles as opposed strict Law-keeping. Henceforth, that is why we see the Churches in the 1st Century pooling their resources. It wasn't a mandated government hand-out - it was a Hand-Up based upon their love for the Brethren. It was not a focus on making sure that no one has "too much money", which is all the Liberal Element seem to care about (and you know exactly what I'm talking about..."oh, Bush's Tax Plan gives back too much money to the wealthy" - hogwash!).

Not all Liberals are wrong on all matters - nor are all Conservatives correct on all matters. But there is a simple rule that we must be aware of when dealing with "Liberals".......... "wrong in little things, wrong in big things". In other words, the road to the left - goes to the left!

A big problem (other than the obvious Scriptural ones) that I have with Liberals is Inconsistancy - see the above comments on Honorable Men. As an example: The union I'm required to be a part of on the job, like most, is staunchly Democratic (ie Liberal) in its views and Political Support. They are currently auctioning off a commemorative .30-30 rifle to its members. Don't you find it ironic (and hypocritical) that a group (Union) that supports a group (Democratic Liberals) that is dedicating its resources to take away my right to own a gun; Is Trying To GIVE ME a GUN !!!!!!!!!

I sure hope I win it......I would hate for it to fall into the wrong (ie Liberal) hands!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Ok......I'll bite.....where are the proofs?

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), May 11, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Check out the 'Gideons' thread ~ and I know you received the package I sent with copies of all the statements from the official Gideons publications.

But I never got the PROMISED apology.

rESPECTFULLY,

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark,

If you recall, that was about the time you quit posting.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark says:

A big problem (other than the obvious Scriptural ones) that I have with Liberals is Inconsistancy - see the above comments on Honorable Men. As an example: The union I'm required to be a part of on the job, like most, is staunchly Democratic (ie Liberal) in its views and Political Support. They are currently auctioning off a commemorative .30-30 rifle to its members. Don't you find it ironic (and hypocritical) that a group (Union) that supports a group (Democratic Liberals) that is dedicating its resources to take away my right to own a gun; Is Trying To GIVE ME a GUN !!!!!!!!!

CG says:

Glad to know you are in a labor union. I would have died as an infant w/o health care if my dad had not been in one. Unions are not perfect but they are more good than bad.

BTW--non-pacifism is the "interpretational error." :)

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

MARK--SHAME ON YOU FOR SAYING:

(and you know exactly what I'm talking about..."oh, Bush's Tax Plan gives back too much money to the wealthy" - hogwash!). BUSH'S TAX PLAN DOES GIVE TOO MUCH BACK TO THE WEALTHY. IT IS IMMORAL TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Immoral? Excuse me? Let's get something straight. Bush's tax plan doesn't give a dime "back" to the wealthy, or anyone else. Nobody is getting "back" anything. That's "liberalese". Bush's tax plan takes less away from the rich, and from everyone else, than what is currently being taken away from them. It is their monies in the first place, not the government's, so there is absolutely nothing immoral in the government taking less of it.

In the Old Testament, the people cried out for a king. God told them that they could have a king, but that he would "curse" them by taxing them ten percent. TEN PERCENT was considered a CURSE! Yet today we are taxed upwards of 40 percent by our out-of-control government ... and when someone proposes we tax less -- especially to those who are providing the jobs in this country, namely the wealthy -- it is called IMMORAL! As our kids would say, "Whats up with that?!"

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

BUT WE HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO NARROW THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

EXCUSE ME, BUT IT STIINKS TO GIVE A REBATE OF $40,000 TO MILLIONAIRES AND NOT WANT THE WORKING CLASS TO MAKE AT LEAST THAT MUCH PER YEAR.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Repost to comment:

Bush's tax plan takes less away from the rich, and from everyone else, than what is currently being taken away from them.

***********

Bush's tax plan takes less away from the rich than from anyone else when viewed in light of what they have left over. That chaps my hide!

The current rates are: 15%, 28%, 33%, 36%, 39.6%

I would drop the 15 to 10, the 28 to 25, thhe 33 and 36 to around 32, and raise the 39.6 to 45 or 48.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Why do we have a "moral obligation to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor as much as we can"? I don't see this commandment in my Bible. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you."

And where does it become the state's job to redestribute the wealth? (That's communism, by the way.) Isn't it the church's job to reach out to the poor, not the government's? Why has the church abrogated its responsibility and put that burden on our government in the guise of huge federally-funded social programs that, for the most part, don't work and cost too much? (Thank God for Pres. Bush's advocacy of faith-based programs; maybe we can shake loose of this muddle-headed thinking!)

And why should we expect our nation, which at this moment seems to be largely hostile to Christianity, to behave in a Christian manner toward the rich, the poor, or anyone else?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

"Bush's tax plan takes less away from the rich than from anyone else when viewed in light of what they have left over." So what? Are we supposed to be punishing these entrepreneurs for becoming wealthy, providing jobs to millions of Americans, spurring growth in our economy and so forth, by taking more money away from them? Doesn't that really amount to stealing from them?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

Who made you GOD????

Who gave you the right to say a person makes too much money???

Why is it "Unfair" if my occuaption pays higher wages than your job? Why is my 5% tax break unfair because it it returns to me a few more of MY OWN dollars than your 5% break?

My God, man._______This is America, home of the Free and land of the Brave. If you want a better tax break - GET A JOB and MAKE MORE MONEY! Don't sit there & whine and moan because someone else has more - Such attitude is a transgress against the 10th Commandment! You are just coveting what some one else has - PLAIN & SIMPLE!

That is another reason to dispise Liberals: all they want, is what Everyone else Has! And CG, I didn't say it before, but I do now. You are without a doubt, a Classic, Bleeding Heart Liberal!!!!!

This is why I didn't post for a long time - I got tired of arguing with idiots (ooops, there's that word again). So, it's back to finding an intelligent group to converse with - maybe I'll visit the NRA website to clear my mind of this Lefist rubbish.

Hey....anybody interested in a string of pearls that was only waved one day before swine?????

And CG......would you like some cheese to go with that "whine"?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

OK Connie,

I when through the lengthy Gideon Thread ........ I owe no apology.

The bottom line is this....I don't really care what their statement of beliefs says, what do their actions (their publications) say? (ala faith without works is DEAD)

They have not yet changed the wording "the Bible contains the MIND of God". That is an error and it is a "catch phrase" used by every Liberal scholar of the last 10+ years. It is nothing more than a way to disguise their belief that not all of Scripture is applicable - in this particular case, the references to Baptism. By omitting those references in their little addition at the end, they have deliberately led people toward their "Faith Only" beliefs and away from "just what the scriptures say".

If you bring to me a "Head Gideon" that is willing to remove the "sinner's confession" from the end and change the opening wording to "the Bible is the WORD of God" - then I might back down. But as of this date, they are still wrong and they are still promoting something that is wrong. I owe no one an apology on this - the Gideons owe the world an apology for promoting a false doctrine.

Sorry, no fortune cookie on this one.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark, I think you overreact. Conservatives usually have never been in want and do not give a hoot about those who are. I grew up in a community which had homes w/o running water in the 1970's. I have seen people have to choose between food and clothing or food and medicine.

And what people do not know is that the rich, by definition, exploit the poor. The apostle James knew:

(James 2:6-7 NRSV) But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? {7} Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

(James 5:1-6 NRSV) Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. {2} Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. {3} Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. {4} Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. {5} You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. {6} You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.

And besides--what is wrong with being liberal. Conservative economics are not in the Bible either.

How come it is OK for someone to be a one-issue voter on abortion but not on a fair economics (which supply side is not.)???

You say to Me:

Why is it "Unfair" if my occuaption pays higher wages than your job? Why is my 5% tax break unfair because it it returns to me a few more of MY OWN dollars than your 5% break?

My God, man._______This is America, home of the Free and land of the Brave. If you want a better tax break - GET A JOB and MAKE MORE MONEY! Don't sit there & whine and moan because someone else has more - Such attitude is a transgress against the 10th Commandment! You are just coveting what some one else has - PLAIN & SIMPLE!

My response: Why is it fair for your occupation to pay more than mine? Either side is based on simple assumptions. It is not that I personally covet anything. It is that I have seen poor people in West Virginia who work their tails off and have a pittance because the investors have to get what they think is coming to them. And even after the Reagan tax cuts what has happened is that jobs have moved overseas because of the greed of those who have the most.

Did you know that the wealthiest 1% pay one-third of the taxes? Did you know that the wealthiest 1% have one-half of the wealth? That means every dollar I have is ultimately taxed double what Bill Gates pays. The top half of the dollar supply provides one-third of the taxes and the bottom half of the dollar supply provides two- thirds. Sounds great, doesn't it?

BTW--you will not find intelligent life on the NRA site. Try Evangelicals for Social Action.

And I have a job. I make $40,000 annually. But I know a lady who has worked in a textile mill here in NC for 41 years and still doesn't make $10.00 per hour. Doesn't that bother you?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

"... the rich, by definition, exploit the poor." By definition? Where is this "definition"? This sounds like stereotyping to me. There are thousands of rich people who give millions to charity work. Is it the poor who own the companies that provide jobs? Is it the poor who give people the opportunity to become gainfully employed? Is it "exploitation" to become rich enough to own your own company and provide employment to others? And how do we define "rich"? People living at the poverty line in this country would be considered rich by the standards of most of the other countries in the world.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Danny

Touche"

Cheney is one conservative I happen to like by the way. But he got 35-40M from Haliburton (sp?). Why did he not give away say 2 or 3M? Both of them, as we all, could do more...

Mark--

The get a better job thing. That would be like a guy who works in the textile mill coming home on Friday and telling his wife, "HOney, I quit at the mill today. I want some of them there tax breaks. So starting Monday I am a brain surgeon.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Most of the "poor" in this country have made themselves that way by coveting everything they could see and driving up obscene amounts of credit debt to have them. Or by sitting on their behinds and drawing welfare checks and whining about "the man" keeping them down. Most of the rich in this country have gotten that way by hard work, goalsetting and determination. Yet we are supposed to punish the hard workers in our society, take the money away from those who earned it, and give it to those who are irresponsible with it?

Compare this to Jesus' teaching about the master with three servants (the rich man with three employees, if you will). Two of them worked hard and wisely invested what they had been given, and were commended and given even more! But one squandered what he was given, and that poor one's meager savings were taken away from him ... and given to the richest one of the three! What's up with Jesus?!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

John,

You are partly correct. But shouldn't we as a society value work enough to guarantee that everyone who works full time will have what they need.

You are looking at the MOST, and I agree with you. But I am looking at the MANY, and how nobody cares. I am not AS liberal as you guys think.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Mark, et. al.,

Which of these do you disagree with, and why?

1. Made in the very image of God, every person enjoys an inalienable dignity and worth that society must respect. 2. Persons are not just complex socio-economic, materialistic machines, they are also spiritual beings enjoying God-given rights and responsibilities. Each person is a body-soul unity made for relationship with God, neighbor, self and earth. 3. Because the trinitarian God created persons for mutual interdependence in community, society must be organized in ways that nurture the common good. Since persons reach their potential only in a multi-layered community of diverse institutions (family, church, school, media, business, government), society must promote policies (consistent with religious freedom for all) that strengthen all institutions to play their full proper role. 4. Every policy, both public and private, must be measured by its impact on the poor because biblical faith teaches that one of the central criterion by which God judges societies is how they treat the least advantaged. 5. Both because God wants all persons to be dignified participants in their communities and because centralized power is always dangerous, we must strengthen the economic and political power of the poor. 6. Renewing the family must be a central goal for both government and civil society. (A family is that set of persons related by marriage, blood or adoption.) While recognizing that today’s families come in many shapes (two-parent, single parent, blended), all policies, both public and private, should promote the biblical norm of mother and father (united in life-long marital covenant) with their children, surrounded by a larger extended family. 7. Every person and family should have opportunity to acquire and use (without discrimination based on religion, race or gender) the productive resources which, if used responsibly, will enable that person or family to earn a decent living and be a dignified participating member of the community. 8. Everyone able to work has an obligation to do so; society where possible has the responsibility to make work opportunity available to all; and everyone who works responsibly should receive a living income. 9. Society should care–in a generous, compassionate way that strengthens dignity and respect–for those who cannot care for themselves. 10. Quality education must be available to all, regardless of family income. 11. Quality health care consistent with society’s present knowledge and resources must be available to all, regardless of family income. 12. Every community must enjoy public safety where people normally feel physically secure, where violence is rare, and the police and courts function without bias for or against anyone.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Well, if you partly agree with me, you can't be that liberal! LOL!

I just think that as Christians, it is the individual's and the Church's responsibility to look after those who are less fortunate, not the government's. In the book of Acts, they didn't go to the Jewish leaders or the Roman government and ask that they give handouts; they shared what they had with the poor, set aside for themselves for the collection, and set up among themselves men to distribute what they brought before the church to help out the needy. They took the responsibility on their own shoulders, they didn't pawn it off on the godless government. And neither should we.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

John

But one area I agree with Bush is that govt has SOME ROLE. I do not think the church can do it all in today's society. The early church basically took care of their own poor.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

You have apoijnt. In Acts, we see the church taking care of the widows. Paul wrote to do good to all, especially those who are of the household of faith. We have a priority to help believers, and it seems like the official efforts were for the church to help those among themselves who were poor. Many churches sent money for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

I think the Romans were already giving out the 'daily dole' in the first century- free food distribution within the city. We don't see Paul writing to the churches to go protest against the daily dole in the book of Romans.

If someone is making policy, it would be wise to keep Paul's admonishions against idleness in mind. There are areas in which the social welfare system in the US is innefficient. But most Americans have it pretty good compared to most of the world, even after paying all the taxes for this.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

If you cut off your Social Gospel Diatribe after point #2 I could live with it. None of the rest are "thus sayeth the Lords". The rest of it looks like it was written by Jesse Jackson - another Liberal whose only purpose in life is to spread his covetness rather than the Gospel of Christ.

Show me in Scripture where GOD specifically played Robin Hood, stealing from the rich & giving to the poor and then maybe I might believe a little more of this tripe - but not until then.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

IIRC, Jesus was sent here to try to even the score on behalf of the downtrodden. What did the Rich do to him? They CRUCIFIED him! Literally!

And I think you have developed a false sense of what "liberals" are. Many of them do not covet the lifestyle of the wealthy at all. In fact, they find the Lifestyles of the Rich to be shallow, empty, and meaningless. Many are content to live, simple unintrusive lives, HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that they will take kindly to being cheated or trampled upon.

Have any of you ever watched a PBS special called "Affluenza"? If not, watch it, and discover what it is that the Tenth Commandment is designed to combat. Then, examine, critically examine, the policies of your Illustrious Leaders support. Chances are, you'll find that they are ones supporting the monstrous waste so prevalent in America today. The so-called liberals that support are either #1) Not true liberals or #2) Liberals who have had to compromise in order to bring about any true change at all. Ever notice the continuous drop in interest rates since Bush took office? It's simple, it's to encourage people to take out loans, in short, to encourage DEBT. Belt-tightening obviously is bad for profits. How are businesses going to make money off their products when no one is willing to buy them?

Conservatism, by its definition, promotes the status quo. This clearly benefits the Rich. Hey, the Rich are, well, RICH, and most like it that way. Who would want to change anything if they are having it so good? Well, the status quo may be just fine for those who are already well off, but for those of us having problems, the status quo stinks.

Don't get me wrong, those who insist on going into debt and living beyond their means deserve what they get. However, conservative policies don't hurt just them, they also harm those hard working citizens who would normally just be content with food on the table and a roof over their heads.

I'm not a big-time reader of the Bible, but I do know that it is replete with verses encouraging compassion for the poor. Not helping the poor just because there will always be poor people makes as much sense as not helping a drowning man because there will always be men who will drown.

--"According to the 1999 tax return filed by Al Gore.....he gave a whopping......$300 to charity."--

According to his 2000 tax return....Dick Cheney gave.....$40,000."--

Ok, Dick Cheney gave more than Al Gore, but why not tell the whole story? Let's see those figures again, THIS time alongside the amount of money each of man makes per year.

--"People living at the poverty line in this country would be considered rich by the standards of most of the other countries in the world."--

True John, very true, and again, why not tell the WHOLE story? You conservatives support those businesses that are opening up factories in places like Mexico and the Phillipines. Oh, yes, those compassionate business-people, giving the poor in those countries all those jobs. You think with that with all the new employment, their living standards would improve, right? WRONG! In almost every case, the standard of living for the poor in countries for changed, not for the better, but from poor to abysmal. How can anyone who support companies like that and call themselves compassionate? Methinks they should have their head examined. Also, why don't you mention that the standard of living for America's poor has been declining since the '70s, and that the periods of fastest decline were during the Nixon and Reagan administrations? Hmmmm.....

--"They took the responsibility on their own shoulders, they didn't pawn it off on the godless government. And neither should we."--

If I recall my history correctly, such was the case in our country until the 1930's. Before then, the conditions that the working poor had to live and work in were HORRIBLE. It wasn't until the 1930's and 1940's when the "godless" government started to intervene that those conditions began to improve significantly. Seems these so- called Christians have been shirking their responsibility of late....

--"Two of them worked hard and wisely invested what they had been given, and were commended and given even more! But one squandered what he was given, and that poor one's meager savings were taken away from him ... and given to the richest one of the three! What's up with Jesus?!"--

What's up with Jesus, you say? He was trying to emphasize the value of hard work and the importance of using one's resources wisely. The poor man obviously deserved what he got. OK, for the sake of arguement, let's change the scenario a bit. Let us suppose that the third man worked hard and invested wisely, just like the other two men did, and then he lost his fortune, not by squandering it, but by losing it in some terrible accident or misfortune (getting robbed for instance). How would Jesus have reacted then? Would he have acted differently? I suspect he would have.

--"Yet we are supposed to punish the hard workers in our society, take the money away from those who earned it, and give it to those who are irresponsible with it? "--

Yup, that's exactly what's happening now. Those irresponsible ones are, for the most part, VERY rich, and getting richer by the day.

Not all poor people are lazy, shiftless bums. There are many poor people who actually work HARD for what little they get, and they are proud of what little they have and do NOT take it for granted. Such people DO exist folks! To lump these people with the Idiotic and Shiftless is not only astonishingly callous, but gravely insulting as well.

P.S: I do not accuse you that are here PERSONALLY of being greedy, callous, and uncharitable. For all I know, you could very well be compassionate and generous, as I know not what you do outside this forum. It is the fact that there are many of your conservatives peers that not only refuse to give to the poor, but take what little the poor have left and laugh at their misfortune that I take issue with. How they can behave in such a reprehensible manner and still call themselves Christian is beyond me.

"Every army thinks that God is on their side" - (Forgot Name)

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

I can agree to 1, 2 and 7 ... if you change "must" to "should", I can agree with most of the rest. But it's not the government's job to advance the Church's agenda, and we shouldn't expect the government to care.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Mark,

I think your watching too much Rush Limbaugh or something. I saw him on TV, after years of being in Asia (looks like he had some plastic surgery.) He was on Larry King Live on CNN.

Limbaugh refered to a Reuters article which said that one of the 'tactics' Bush was using was to stand by his campaign promises. Limbaugh then started saying that for liberals in general, honesty and sticking by your promises is a 'cactic' and used this type of reasoning as an attack on liberals in general. He committed the errors of 'painting with a broad brush' and 'slipppery slope' reasoning. One Rueter's journalist is no basis to characterize all liberals.

You talked about liberals being inconsistent because your union is trying to promote a gun, and they support Democrats. I don't see how this makes liberals inconsistent. Not every member of the Democratic party is going to follow the stereotypical agenda. A Union may support the Democratic party because their policies seem more favorable to unions. That doesn't mean that a union will support everything on the 'liberal agenda.' There are Democrats who like to go hunting and own handguns. Gun control people may get more support from Democrats.

Mark, talk about inconsistancy- you are anti-liberal, and yet you are a part of a union! If you are so anti-liberal, why don't you quit your job to get out of that union? If you are a part of a union, does that mean you are a liberal? Aren't you being inconsistant by not being liberal if you are a part of a union? Why don't you becoem a liberal?

'Liberal' is a label. Instead of labeling broad categories with people, and calling them bad because of the label you put on them, why not deal with one issue at a time.

I don't see in the Bible where it says that a Gentile nation is required to hive out food stamps. I don't see a command in the Bible which forbids a Gentile nation to give out food stamps. Some of these issues are just not issues that you can get clear Biblical support on.

Can you find anything in scripture that forbids a social welfare system, fun control, or most of the other economic policies on the so- called 'liberal agenda?' I can't. And yet you are bold enough to say that liberals are fools.

The Bible commands individuals to work to eat their own bread. It doesn't command Gentile nations to only give 'hand ups' (whatever that means,) and not to give out free food or cash. The Bible tells us that rulers are ministers of God and have authority to collect custom.

Most would think of me as conservative, but I'm a Christian. I am a citezen of another kingdom, and I am concerned with the laws of that kingdom. Are your differences of opinion over economic issues worth calling a large group of people 'fools' over?

if you want to talk about social justice and economic policy in relation to Christianity, please deal with the issues one by one, rather than just labeling all economic liberals as foolish.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

CG,

An easy way to help narrow the gap between the rich and poor is to give some of your money to someone who is poor. If everyone who had money did that, the gap would narrow. I don't see in the Bible where the church rose up to try to get influence in the Roman Senate in order to tax the rich pagans to support the poor pagans. A lot of the ideas of Christian socialism are based on the presupposition that we live ina 'Christian society.' Well, must of the US is atheist or agnostic, or pagan, or just isn't walking in God's grace for salvation. Why should Christians try to push the government to take care of the poor? Why not try to take care of the poor through the church and through one-on-one giving.

The Gospels say a lot to Christians about caring for others.

Also, there is a pattern I've noticed. With food and clothing let us be content. James uses the one who says 'depart in peace be ye warmed and filled' to the naked hungry person as an example of someone who claims to have faith but doens't have works. I John asks if we do not give what is needful to the body to someone who is hungry and needs clothes how can it be that the love of God dwells in us? Jesus taught people not to worry about what they would eat and what they would wear.

I see a pattern here- food and clothing. The Bible doesn't say if your son is getting a college education, but you don't pay for all the other kids in the country to get a college education, that you are in sin. It's good to help others get an education. But when we talk about poverty, having to eat corned beef instead of filet mignon is not poverty. Driving a beat up pick up is not poverty.

There are people in the US who have problems with real poverty. A lot of them are people on the streets who fall through the cracks in the system. They may have mental problems, be on drugs or alcohol, or just have fallen on some bad times. But a lot of the people below the 'poverty level' are living like kings compared to people inteh third world.

In this country, there are a lot of people in poverty, and there is no safety net. If you think a society should try to help their own poor (or their own less rich) why should this be limited just to the US? Do you think the US should send all it's tax money abroad to help even things up?

To all,

Christians who want to get wealthy are going down a dangerous path. Paul said that many had strayed from the faith and pierced themselves through with many griefs. Jesus taught that you cannot serve God and money.

The Bible teaches us to pay our taxes. It doesn't tell us to complain about how too much tax money is given to the poor. The Bible doesn't teach that we are to force Gentile governments to feed the poor either, and complain when the governments aren't doing it.

One problem with some people in the US, too, is that they think that the US is the land of opportunity, and they think that if someone is poor or on the street he must be an alcoholic. Some people don't want to give to beggars. Jesus taught about giving 'alms' and we can see in scripture that alms were given to beggers on the streets.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

I re-post to comment:

OK Connie, I when through the lengthy Gideon Thread ........ I owe no apology.

The bottom line is this....I don't really care what their statement of beliefs says, what do their actions (their publications) say? (ala faith without works is DEAD)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why am I not surprised that you would not keep your word?

I did everything you requested for proof, obtained the documents and sent copies from the publications of the Gideons.

The untruth you told was that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and of course, we are tallking about manuscripts which no longer exist. The inerrancy refers to the 'autograph' languages.

We work from copies of copies.

I believe that with all of the bias and simple error of the translators and the copyists, and even the political intervention of a King james, God has preserved the message of salvation by trust in,and reliance on the propitiation for our sins by the death, shed blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Selah!

P.S.

You owe me an apology. But I will not hold my breath while awaiting it.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Connie,

I'm glad you're not holding your breath - because you would die waiting on your Gideon buddies to make a stand that accepts Baptism as a requirement for Salvation or take out that "mind of God" drivel.

That's another thing about honor - a man of honor never apologizes for being right, for standing for the truth! I shall not be turned to "Faith Only" because I do not wish to burn. Deal With It!!!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Link,

If it makes you feel any better - I dispise the Union as much as I do the Liberal Democrats. When I started this job, it was a management position, But due to Liberal Gov't changes, the position was changed to an hourly one & the Union was forced on us.

This Union is worthless. They take our dues - and do nothing for us. They offer little "benefits" here & there that I can beat their prices & rates on at every bank & lender in town (in other words they are preying on the ignorant in their own ranks). Sounds like the Democrats to me - "Trust Us, We'll take care of You"! Yep they sure will.....all the way to the poorhouse.

The Demo/Liberal agenda is highlighted in an old '60s song which said, "tax the rich........feed the poor.......til there are.......no rich no more". That is called covetousness. That is called Fraud. That is called Theft. Don't need it & don't want it in my life.

Funny thing is..........those are some of the exact same problems that George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc went to war to stop. But now you Liberals want to turn things over to Benedict Arnold - selling our rights away to the highest bidder.

God save the Queen (Hillary)!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Well, I came back to say that I don't really want an apology, even though to keep your word and for your sake before God, you really should.

But one thing I will do:

Let you burn on your own. You have racked up enough debits to achieve it.

And I am not even angry when I say that. Just realistic.

God, please forgive Mark his unrelenting hatred. I feel sorry for him and for Danny and for E. Lee.

And for the unsuspecting who chance on this forum, as I did a year ago, thinking it was Christian.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Sounds like a pretty lousy union you're in. ANY hierarchical organization, be it the government, the union, the corporation, or dare I say it, the Church itself, runs the danger of becoming corrupt. Let's face it, any position that offers power and control over others attracts evil, greedy, ambitious people like manure attracts flies.

For all of it's problems, though, the Unions might be your only protection when Boss-Man decides it's time to make unreasonable demands and say to you "You must give up X, X, X and do Y, Y, Y or ELSE!" Hey, chances are that this guy is pretty powerful. If you think you can take him on by yourself, Good Luck, you'll need it!

Besides, if you do not like the way the Union is being run, why not try to play a more active role and try to change things? Grumbling and complaining won't accomplish anything if it's not accompanied by action (Faith without works is Dead, remember?). I think that is the cause of the pathetic state of our government today, too many people whining and complaining how the government is so crooked and corrupt and yet not lifting a finger to help change it. If you don't participate in making decisions, those decisions will be made for you, and those decisions may not always be to your benefit.

I'm not interested in Social Welfare (becoming too dependent on ANYTHING is a definite hazard) so much as Social Justice. I don't think anybody likes being lied to, cheated, bullied, intimidated, harassed, or stolen from. If none of those things are done to the Honest Poor, they will eventually be able to claw their way up, but the fact is, those things DO happen. They happen all the time, and it's the people up top that are doing those odious things the most.

Those Honest Poor MUST be allowed to organize together in order to stand up to the Bullies. It's the only way they have a chance. Bush's policies, however, creates an environment that is extremely hostile to the formation of such organizations. Think about it, the thought of all the Bully's victims banding together against him and ganging up on him is every Bully's worst nightmare.

Those wealthy like to whine about how taxes are stealing their money from them. The fact is, what they pay in taxes is only a pittance compared to what they make. When you say they pay 30% to 40% of their income, that means 30% to 40% of their TAXABLE income. The vast majority of their true income they all have safely stashed away in loopholes and tax shelters where Uncle Sam can't lay a finger on them.

So they are going to have to wait until next week to buy that new Lamborghini instead of this week. Poor Things....

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

i PETER 4: 4-19 4:4 In {all} this, they are surprised that you do not run with {them} into the same excesses of dissipation, and they {you;} 4:5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to {the} {will of} God. 4:7 The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober {spirit} for the purpose of prayer. 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 4:9 Be hospitable to one another without complaint.

4:10 As each one has received a {special} gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 4:11 Whoever speaks, {is to do so} as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves {is to do} {so} as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 4:13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 4:14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IF YOU ARE REVILED FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, YOU ARE BLESSED, BECAUSE THE SPIRIT OF GLORY AND OF GOD RESTS ON YOU.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4:15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 4:16 but if {anyone suffers} as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. 4:17 For {it is} time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if {it} {begins} with us first, what {will be} the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 4:18 AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CAPITALIZED IN NASB +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4:19 Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Mark W.

The Bible doesn't call the governmetn taking taxes 'theft.' The Bible says they are ministers of God, and attend continually on taking custom. (I wonder if Paul's sense of humor is showing up in that comment.)

Jesus asked hows image and superscription was on a coin. They said Caesar's. he said render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

Take a coin or bill out of your pocket. Do you happen to see 'The United States of America' on that coin?

If you call someone who collects taxes a theif, and the Bible calls them the minister of God, couldn't you be guilty of slander?

Mark, why not spend the Rush Limbaugh hour reading the Gospels?

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Btw, I don't have a problem with someone thinking it wiser to do one thing or other in the government. But it does bother me to see people caling the government theives for doing something the scripture does not forbid. That type of attitude is not what the Bible teaches us to have toward rulers.

The Bible doesn't say that you can slander your rulers if they are Democrats.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

PRAY FOR YOUR LEADERS............

OBEY YOUR LAWS...............

PAY YOUR TAXES..................

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

No one yet has touched my question, if not all have the right to health care, then who decides who gets it? On what basis? What about when the poor who do not deserve it infect the rich who do?

Link

Thanks for your post--I agree wholeheartedly that you cannot just label someone liberal becuase of their economic views. Also, I agree with your point that if Mark thinks the union is so bad he should get out.

Danny

Amen, to your comment about our government slaughtering the innocent millions of children.

All

BUT--Isn't it funny that our government is supposed to care that these lives should not be terminated before birth but not care about what happens after birth. Someone said that re: social justice/social welfare--our government is not supposed to care. I found it, John Wilson wrote:

I can agree to 1, 2 and 7 ... if you change "must" to "should", I can agree with most of the rest. But it's not the government's job to advance the Church's agenda, and we shouldn't expect the government to care.

Point 1: The word must is meant in the sense that it is the right thing to do. Remember that governments will someday answer to God as well. Jesus said, "You must be born again" but He did not mean anybody was going to make us. These are principles which are necessary components of a just society. The only reason we must do them is that not to is unjust.

Point 2: If we should not expect the government to care about the church's agenda, then do not whine when the kind of administration that Clinton had does things which you see as contradictory to God's word. You can't have it both ways. People will elect a government who does not care primarily because they themselves do not care.

Point 3: At one time the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Reagan dropped it to 50% and then to 28%. (I would have stopped at 50%.) The idea is not to "take" anything. The idea is to nudge the wealthy to investment because the invested money avoids taxation. Now there are better ways to do this--one way would be to end all corporate and business taxes because the customer ends up paying them anyway. But what happened when the top rates got slashed is actually that investment went down and consumption went up. Think about it. If I can avoid taxes by investing X dollars and putting them at risk, versus avoiding the taxes because a govt will not tax them no matter what I do and I can spend them and not take a risk, I will go buy a BMW!

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

CG,

By what right does you or the Gov't deserve a 50% tax on ANYONE?

God only asked for 10% - are you better than HE?

Connie,

I'll save you a seat in the furnace - then we can compare notes on my "bad attitude" vs your damnable false doctrine of "Faith Only".

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Mark

I am not God, but I would gladly accept a 10% top tax rate in exchange for redistributing capital every 50 years.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Link

Thanks for your post--I agree wholeheartedly that you cannot just label someone liberal becuase of their economic views. Also, I agree with your point that if Mark thinks the union is so bad he should get out.

Mark won't get out because he works for the government ~ NASA. And gets all those government perks

I am sorry, Mark, but I won't be with you in your ultimate abode. I will be with the Lord.

I've obeyed the Lord. And when I have not, I have repented and confessed. And He then cleanses me.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Excuse Me, Connie,

What Gov't perks are you referring to?

Not getting a raise for 5 years because "I made too much money" even though the exact same type of job with the local utility company paid $5 to $6 more an hour?

Maybe it's getting up at 2:00 to go to work at 3:00am (like I am at this moment) for NO Extra Compensation?

Maybe it's being harrassed by the local School Board because I pulled my kids out to be homeschooled and they were mad because their schools lost that extra Gov't compensation?

Maybe it's being considered a "red-headed stepchild" by the NASA folks because I technically work under Air Force guidelines and as such "don't launch people, just machines". (Even though the USAF as final control on all launches)?

Why do I work here (and stay in the Union)?

My Family has to eat! Plus I need to pay the bills to finish my Seminary work - then I can leave this behind and do the work I want to do....the work I feel called to do.

Unless you, CG, & Link are willing to pay the $40k+ I earn (as blood money) to keep me going until then - don't question why I am here, doing what I'm doing.

And besides all of that - I'm also out here as a service to my country. I did not serve in the Military (probably a mistake of my youth) and I feel I owe this country some of myself. What I do is vital to the US Space Program and to be perfectly honest, the things I could tell you about the part I played in the Persian Gulf War would shock you.....especially when you found out that I would have to kill you after telling it to you!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark Writes:

Unless you, CG, & Link are willing to pay the $40k+ I earn (as blood money) to keep me going until then - don't question why I am here, doing what I'm doing.

CG says:

That's a non sequitur! Would you do the same for someone who wanted one of the higher praying jobs to get the tax advantages you wrote of earlier.

Mark Writes: And besides all of that - I'm also out here as a service to my country. I did not serve in the Military (probably a mistake of my youth) and I feel I owe this country some of myself. What I do is vital to the US Space Program and to be perfectly honest, the things I could tell you about the part I played in the Persian Gulf War would shock you.....especially when you found out that I would have to kill you after telling it to you!

CG says:

I do not mind dying. Anybody can take my life anytime they want. I am ready to be with the Lord. But...I would still just as soon not know. :)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

No I wouldn't care to pay them CG.

Afterall, I don't believe in the Liberal Hand-out system. People have had the same opportunities I've had (maybe more) - they should have taken advantage of them.

That's why I don't whine and beg anyone to bail me out of the current situation. I'll do all that I can on my part and wait for God to work out the rest.

Oh....I'm not worried about dying either. It's a good thing, since I spend most of the launches out here in the "blast danger zone". I guess that must be one of those Gov't perks!! Funny thing that is.....to the Gov't I'm disposable,.....but to God I'm indispensable.

Go Figure!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark when you say:

Afterall, I don't believe in the Liberal Hand-out system. People have had the same opportunities I've had (maybe more) - they should have taken advantage of them.

I say: not all have those opportunities...those who have not are those whom I am concerned about.

Mark when you say:

.....to the Gov't I'm disposable,.....but to God I'm indispensable.

I fully concur on both counts. Have a good day!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

CG,

Opportunity is what one makes of it.

I had to work since I was 13 to be able to get things. My Dad literally worked himself to death as a seaman to feed us as kids (meaning that I basically had little contact with a "father-figure" while growing up, just like most of today's broken homes). I worked HARD in school to make grades and learn what it would take to make it in this world. And I rejoice in every difficult step I had to take....because God paved that way for me so as to prepare me for the future.

This is absolutely no different than what most of the "underpriveledged" deal with today. I've made it so far mostly by God's hand and not my own. The same applies to all those today. The Gov't doesn't need to be giving them things - the Church needs to be working to give them Christ. Once God is on their side..........who is going to hold them back?

The only welfare system needed in this country - is tending to the welfare of the Soul.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark

I agree with you more than you realize, and I commend your hard work. I too have worked hard, have physical and emotional handicaps, come from Appalachia and have a world-class theological education.

But the "I did it myself, let them do it too" attitude has a pitfall of becoming potentially uncaring, although I believe you are a very caring man and if more were like you, the world would be better.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

CG,

I can't bring myself to disagree with you on that last point.... ;~)

Truth. Every thought, every action, every conceived notion of man has potential for either good or evil. Again that is why the hearts must be reached first, until that happens all the material efforts are worthless.

It's like the old saying.....Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day....Teach a man to fish and he will waste the rest of days on the riverbank drinking beer and telling tales of the one that got away......;~)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Dear Mark,

I re-post to comment:

Opportunity is what one makes of it.

I had to work since I was 13 to be able to get things. My Dad literally worked himself to death as a seaman to feed us as kids (meaning that I basically had little contact with a "father-figure" while growing up, just like most of today's broken homes). I worked HARD in school to make grades and learn what it would take to make it in this world. And I rejoice in every difficult step I had to take....because God paved that way for me so as to prepare me for the future

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am thankful you have used well what you have bee GIVEN.

What about the person who did not have the example-setting father who worked hard supporting you and your family. (That is the price you all paid to be fed and clothed ~ and educated).

What about the people who do not have your intelligence and 'chutzpah'(Sp?)?

What about the poor, the widows, the ill, and the prisoners? What did Jesus say we should do about them?

I agree that it is not the government who should do these things ~ it is the church.

But Mark, do you not think that a mother of children who works 2 part-time jobs and has as many responsibilites as you do should have an insurance policy such as you have?

What is it you do (and I agree it is necessary and a service to our country) that is more important than what that mother does?

Or some person who did not have the faithful parents you had, who GAVE YOU MUCH TO BE THANKFUL FOR, ~ what can they do?

The corporate world and the education world have set it up to hire part-time workers at minimum wage (or almost) so that they don't have to offer those 'perks'.

WHAT MAKES WHAT YOU DO MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT THEY DO? The government (we, the taxpayers) is paying your salary and 'perks'.

I believe we should provide health care for our citizens. Formerly, I was very against that. The poor we will always have with us and the wealthy can always pay for the best health care.

And I'm not mad at you, and I am thankful for the work you do.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

If you guys have your way, souls will be ALL that the rest of us have left!!

I'm for Social JUSTICE, not Social Welfare.

Demanding one's fair share is NOT the same as sponging off others.

How can opportunities be taken if there are none to be found?

It seems you Conservatives think of the Poor as lazy chattel undeserving of ANY comfort or security, only as commodities to be used, abused , and thrown away. Those Poor who DO try to work and DO try to take advantage of their opportunites are not being rewarded for their efforts, mainly because the people YOU support are cheating and hoodwinking them out of what they have justly earned. I am from one of such communties of people. I'm SICK of seeing workers being laid off right and left while their bosses give themselves 60 to 70 percent pay raises. If times DO get tough, why can't they tighten THEIR belts just like the rest of us? *** I just saw what I described happen in my OWN BACKYARD!***

The offender: Quebecor World Color.

Location: Salem, Illnois

Scenario: The company in question was definitely NOT in any financial trouble at all. In fact, even the company itself ADMITTED to making RECORD profits the previous year. When it came time for contract "negotiations" to come around, the company made an offer to the union working the Salem Plant, an offer which constituted having the workers to take pay cuts and reduced benefits, and when the union understandably refused this offer, rather than negotiate, the company simply announced that they were closing down the plant, even despite the fact that the plant was just as profitable as any of the other plants they had in operation.

Basically, the workers were effectively fired for even SUGGESTING that they share in their company's good fortune. Of course, the workers were not technically fired, as that would have given the union grounds for legal action. To get around that problem, the company simply closed the plant down. Either way you look at it, the end result is the same, the workers are out of a job simply for asking for a share in their company's record profits.

If that wasn't bad enough, the day following the announcement, the Quebecor executives had the GALL to give themselves SEVENTY percent pay raises after just putting 900 of their workers out of a job.

Such actions are not just reprehensible, they should be downright criminal.

The policies of Bush and your precious Republican party actually REWARD companies for doing what I just described. Their whole philosophy of trickle-down economics is, pardon my French, bulls***. The whole philosophy of it, that when the people up top prosper, that prosperity eventually works it's way down to the people below them, is solely dependent on the generosity of the people on top, which I consider to be questionable at best. Trickle-down works fine with cheesecloth, not so well with cellophane wrap. The people not on top are NOT getting the trickle down from Bush's policies, they're getting Tinkled-Upon.

How DARE you support or defend the actions of such criminals and say that God is your side? If that is not taking the Lord's name in vain, I don't know what is.

And if you think I'm using ad hominem(sp?) attacks on you, you bet I am! The way I see it, you are aiding and abetting the type of thugs I have described above, something that I cannot condone.

A word to the wise:

Unlike Connie or CG, I am Pro-Gun and NOT a pacifist. If you come to try to take what little I have left, I WILL fight you. You can count on it.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Anon

Don't worry...if remain anon we can't come to fight...but I agree with you about how business takes advantage of labor.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Not getting a raise for 5 years because "I made too much money" even though the exact same type of job with the local utility company paid $5 to $6 more an hour?

Maybe it's getting up at 2:00 to go to work at 3:00am (like I am at this moment) for NO Extra Compensation?

Maybe it's being harrassed by the local School Board because I pulled my kids out to be homeschooled and they were mad because their schools lost that extra Gov't compensation?

Maybe it's being considered a "red-headed stepchild" by the NASA folks because I technically work under Air Force guidelines and as such "don't launch people, just machines". (Even though the USAF as final control on all launches)?

Why do I work here (and stay in the Union)?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I Corinthians 10: 31

NASB

10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...WHATEVER YOU DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It seems to me you are doing a little whining and complaining here.

Repsectfully, (Honest!)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I remain anon because I don't want the goons crashing on my door too soon. I need to get my act together first.

CG, I'm not worried about you. You appear to be on my side. I just take issue with these knuckleheads that think Bush is a saint and try to defend his actions. Clinton may have been sleazeball, but this guy is ten times worse.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Not complaining Connie, just making a point. You assume way too much about things you do not know. Don't try to paint me or any other person as a "Conservative FatCat" just because you think we "have it made". Gov't work these days (especially in the AeroSpace Industry) is about the most insecure job there is.

So what perks are you talking about? They ain't none - other than the fact that the Lord has blessed me with work....and that was God's doings, not the Govt's!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Mark,

My point was not to tell you to quit your job (so of course I'm not going to pay your salary if you quit.) What I was doing was pointing out the flaws in your logic- painting with a broad brush.

If Unions typically support liberal Democrat policies, and gun control people are generally liberal Democrat supporters, it doesn't follow that a Union is being inconsistent by selling handguns. I was trying to point out that someone could accuse you of being inconsistent using the same faulty logic. If you are going to be a part of a union, then do it without complaining. There is a verse that says to do everything without complaining.

I get sick of seeing liberals whine. But I also get sick of seeing conservatives with a chip on their shoulder complaining.

I don't like big beauracracy and high tax rates either. Am I in favor of a 70% tax rate? I don't feel like I am truly 'free' if I am required to keep track of exactly how much money I make from selling a used toaster at a garage sale, or interest on a bank account at the bank. I am not truly free if I have to go through the hassle of figuring out how to interpret a new tax return every time my employment situation changes. These things bother me, and I imagine the tax paperwork must be a lot more difficult for someone who hasn't graduated high school. I can relate to a lot of what you are saying.

I think smaller government is better. But what I see on this forum is that some of the conservatives think that if the government takes taxes that it is stealing money. I don't see that in the scriptures. A government may have policies that are unwise or even repressive. Jesus taught to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's in a culture where it was common for tax collectors to be corrupt.

Anon,

If a big company shuts down a plant, that may be a rotten thing to do, but it is not stealing according to the Law. Who owns the company? The workers? Only if they have stock. In a free company, a company is supposed to have freedom to make decisions. Some companies make decisions by what their profit will be at the end of the year. If they fire people to make money, what law have they broken? If business leaders are greedy, God will judge them for that. But if the government passes a law forbidding every little thing, business slows to a halt.

The US is called 'the land of opportunity.' I came over here to Indonesia, and felt like it was the land of opportunity, not the US, before the economic crisis. here, if you want to sell noodles or meatballs on the side of the road, you just get a cart set up, a propane tank with hose and burner, with a big pot, fill it with the food, and push the cart out t the street.

In the US, if you wanted to do this, you'd need a business license if the city government even allows any street sales at all. You'd need to get approved by the health department. The fire department would probably ban that burner hook-up (though people seem to survive just fine with them here.) By the time the vender paid for all the permits and cut through all the red tape, the oodles would be very expensive.

I can understand and even appreciate the need for health inspectors, fire inspectors, and business licenses that limit the number of street venders. (You can actually walk on the sidewalk in the US.) But there are so many laws that it's hard to start a business in the US.

I hate to see you insult the leader of our country just because you disagree with his politics. Bush obviously believes that having a government law for every little thing bogs the system down. that doesn't make him a crook. Even when there are conservative presidents in the US, there is still some social welfare.

To Conservatives,

Under the influence of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich in the 90's, the 'Conservative smirk' has become very common. Many outspoken Conservatives are smug and condescending. When they have this attitude toward liberals, it just creates division and strife. This attitude is divisive to the nation. You can talk about liberals 'whining,' but is that any worse than conservatives arrogantly complaining.

The Bible shows us that governments have power to tax. So don't slander government leaders by calling them thieves when they are extremely diligent in using the power to tax.

Liberals,

The Bible doesn't teach that the government must give money to all the poor in the country. It certainly doesn't teach the Christians to protest against the government not helping the poor. It doesn't teach that the Christians are to pressure the government to take more tax money from the rich to care for the poor. If you want to help the poor, give, and encourage others to do the same. If a leader doesn't want to add complicated laws to give lots of money to the poor, that doesn't make him a criminal. If a leader wants to lower the tax rate for the rich, that doesn't mean that he is robbing from the poor. You shouldn't slander someone because you don't like his politics.

Everyone,

Can't we be Christians first, and conservative or whatever, not second, but somewhere else way down the list? Our kingdom is not of this world. If we bite and devour one another over different political viewpoints, what good will it do us?

In the US, people are given the right to vote. use it wisely. But don't be arrogant, or condescending, or treat economic policies as if they were a part of a religious creed.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Link

I agree with most of what you write immediately above. But the thing that bothers me is that the government is clearly supposed to protect the well-being of those in its care, and with regard to issues like health care that means more than just keeping traffic lights working and the fire dept. outfitted, etd. In order to have a safe society EVERYONE needs health care, regardless of ability to pay, because any persons illness puts others at risk.

As far as taxes goes, the point is not taxes per se, it is the income gap. The crappy slogan "A rising tide raises all ships" fails to recognize that the issue is not how many dollars people have, but how many they have in relation to those who have most. Think of it as supply and demand in reverse--whoever has the most dollar supply can make the most demands. I think the single biggest economic issue is the income gap issue. That was one of the things the jubliee dealt with. We need to find some way to control this gap or we are practicing economic Darwinism, the survival of the fittest. And the fact that conservatives do not care irks me.

One last thing, I think you are wrong when you say that if a company fires workers to increase profits that is OK. I mean, it is OK to a point maybe, but that is making capital moreimportant than labor--and forgetting that the work of the laborers has as much todo with the success of a compnay as the money of the investors. Those who have capital have a responsibility to use it to do good for others as well as themselves and not holding them accountable is not good. Instead of laying off 10 workers making $30,000, why can't the CEO be content on $400,000 instead of $500,000?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I did not have my math right. I meant $400,000 instead of $700,000 but the principle remains valid.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Repost to comment:

A cross in a jar of urine sponsored by the NEA.....a picture of the Mary, the mother of Jesus.....with dung splattered on her....also sponsored by the NEA. The govt. stealing from us to support this trash??? Nah!!!

The point being folks......if the govt. would quit overburdening the people of America with their excessive taxation.....then....they would have little money to spend on such "social experimentation".....and "cultural destruction".....and....they might have more to fund the things that truly meet the needs of people.

Everyone else has to live on a budget....and so should the Fed. govt.!!!!

And....from the recent rounds of taxation debates in Congress....I think it become pretty clear which party wants to at least attempt to live on a budget.

-----------------

Danny finally says something with which I totally agree. Way to go!

Repost again to comment:

Oh...and by the way...I certainly don't think GW is a saint. For instance....I don't think his tax proposal went far enough....and it certainly wasn't "front end loaded" enough to suit me.

What did not go far enough? The end result of the tax cuts will be that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Danny--is that what you want?

Like I said, the top marginal rate OUGHT to be 45%-48%.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Link,

You make good points on your "across the board" comments. No group is "perfect" as long as there are men (women) in it.....but some do have better ideas than others.

Gov't most definitely needs to be made smaller - not because you or I want it to be so.....but because that would put it more in-line with the Biblical direction for Gov't (i.e. - protecting the people from anarchy from within & without - according to Romans 13:1-7).

And truthfully, I don't mind paying taxes (at least not too much :~). The Gov't is like a Church - it takes money to pay the bills, and those who receive benefits from those bodies need to contribute to make sure their bills are paid.

What I have a problem with, is using taxation as a way to PUNISH certain groups of people - that is NOT the purpose of a tax!!!!!!! (Unless you're a Liberal)

10% is 10%. If I own 10 olives, I give 1 olive back in taxes. If I own 10 olive groves, I give 1 Grove back. The principle is EQUAL.....otherwise God would have never instituted it in the first place, because among all things......GOD IS JUST!

Why do people continually feel the need to improve on what God institutes? Probably because most in the Liberal element do not believe God has the authority to make such decisions (only they do) - which is why they have worked so hard to keep Him out of the School and Gov't Systems!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Another thought...

Not all conservatives are appropriately critical of Bush, just as not all liberals were appropriately critical of Clinton. I voted for Clinton twice, but in the end he terribly disappointed me.

I was critical of --his morality --his dishonesty --his foreign policy --the pardons he doled out

But most of his domestic policies I agreed with (not all).

The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because of the income gap. If I have an income of 10000 dollars and yours is 100000, and we each get a 10% increase, instead of beign $90000 behind you I am not $99000 behind. The crux of the whole thing is the income gap.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Another thought...

Not all conservatives are appropriately critical of Bush, just as not all liberals were appropriately critical of Clinton. I voted for Clinton twice, but in the end he terribly disappointed me.

I was critical of --his morality --his dishonesty --his foreign policy --the pardons he doled out

But most of his domestic policies I agreed with (not all).

The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because of the income gap. If I have an income of 10000 dollars and yours is 100000, and we each get a 10% increase, instead of beign $90000 behind you I am now $99000 behind. The crux of the whole thing is the income gap.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Another thought...

Not all conservatives are appropriately critical of Bush, just as not all liberals were appropriately critical of Clinton. I voted for Clinton twice, but in the end he terribly disappointed me.

I was critical of --his morality --his dishonesty --his foreign policy --the pardons he doled out

But most of his domestic policies I agreed with (not all).

The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because of the income gap. If I have an income of 10000 dollars and yours is 100000, and we each get a 10% increase, instead of beign $90000 behind you I am now $99000 behind. The crux of the whole thing is the income gap. The gap is the main issue because it represents one's relative economic strength in an economy based on competition.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Forgive the triple post. I goofed on the Submit button. If Duane wants to delete a couple, it is OK by me.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

No Danny, they do not both get richer. There is no evidence to support that.

Why cut taxes by rates? Why not give everybody a tax cut of a dollar amount? (Say $300/person--you could make an argument that this is just as fair.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Danny says:

Ahhh....but the fact is CG....both get richer!!! At the heart of things seems to be your resentment that some people make more money than you.

CG says:

Maybe you are right...but I could flip it around and say that the Republican big-wigs are not happy unless they know almost everybody makes less than them. And that is just as wrong.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

The point here being......by what right do We have to be concerned about what ANYBODY makes for a living? It's none of our business!

The Bible doesn't say, "Shall shalt know they neighbor's income".

If you see someone in need - you help meet that need....that's all.

CG,

By your income gap method, in order for us to help those who are "truly poor" we will have to have them complete a questionaire to establish they're poverty level before we can help. What a horrible way to torture someone who has a need!!!!!

I think you need to realize that the Biblical concept is to help "those in need" not those "in need of money". Drop the envy & look past the money......and you would be surprised at how many of your "wealthy" are in need of help. Jesus showed that those of "lower class" in society seem to get special attention from Christ because of what they endure, but the rich are in desperate need.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The wealthy need our help!!! Their souls are at risk!! Will you win them by taking their money out of your envy..........Or will you win them by giving them Jesus Christ and letting them work out the "money issue" with their Lord?

Kinda makes the whole "tax the rich, feed the poor" argument a moot point, doesn't it? At least it should.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Mark

You are correct about much of your point and I need towork on this. My Appalachian background has predisposed me to see some things about economics in the way I do. Not that it's bad or I am totally wrong, I do not think I am.

When you say:

Kinda makes the whole "tax the rich, feed the poor" argument a moot point, doesn't it? At least it should.

I must respectfully disagree. I think you are looking at this as an either/or when I see it as a both/and.

Also, remember the command not to covet is given in a context where God fully expected the Jubliee to be practiced and therefore the income gap tobe somewhat governed.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

CG,

Jubilee had nothing to do with "income balancing" - it had to do with property. Jubilee's purpose was to restore parcels of land to the proper family ownership - thereby preserving the family inheritance, which was the OT Jew's only claim (and evidence) to be being present in the Land. It was also extremmely important in maintaining and recording Family lineage - Without it - the lineage tracing Jesus back to David could well have been lost.....voiding many OT Prophecies.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Danny writes:

"I could flip it around and say that the Republican big-wigs are not happy unless they know almost everybody makes less than them" CG....you could flip it around....but you know that would not be true.

CG says: No, I do not know that...why are people who have six and seven figure incomes, (even after taxation) so adamantly oppopsed to a higher minimum wage? I have absolutely spoken the truth here. It is funny to me that those who would give a tax rebate of $50,000 to someone making $300,000 often do not want folks at the bottom to make enough that if they worked full time, THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. The difference between my approach and yours is that I want to use carrots to get people to work, and you want to use sticks.

Danny writes:

Come on CG......how seriously can we take Teddy Kennedy when he says he is concerned about the poor as he sits on his multi-million dollar estates and yachts?? How seriously can we take the Hollywood elitist Democrats who want to burden the tax payers of America even further while they themselves live in plush spendor??

Don't paint with broad strokes and make these sweeping generalizations of Republicans. It sounds too much like the "mantra" of the left.

Just as there are good Democrats.....Breaux of Louis., and Zell Miller of GA just to name two.....there are also very compassionate conservatives.

CG Responds:

I like John Breaux very much. I would vote for him for president in a heartbeat. Would you?

Yes there are compassionate conservatives, I call them moderates. I have had a warm personal relationship with Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa when I lived there. I was registered Democrat at the time but we would write back and forth and he told me he valued my input. Many of the people I serve in ministry here, in a county which is 75% Republican, are compassionate conservatives. A local politician told me on a local level here there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties.

But I think, Danny, you often paint liberals with the same broad brush strokes. What is the difference between Ted Kennedy and his wealth and Dick Cheney and his? The right has its own mantra too.

Mark writes:

Jubilee had nothing to do with "income balancing" - it had to do with property. Jubilee's purpose was to restore parcels of land to the proper family ownership - thereby preserving the family inheritance, which was the OT Jew's only claim (and evidence) to be being present in the Land. It was also extremmely important in maintaining and recording Family lineage - Without it - the lineage tracing Jesus back to David could well have been lost.....voiding many OT Prophecies.

CG says:

You are correct about family lineage here, but that is not the ONLY reason for the Jubilee. The Jubliee is also a type of how our sins are forgiven in Christ and what is lost in the fall is restored to us. BUT IT IS ALSO ONE MEANS OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE--it had the effect of placing some limits on the power of the rich over the poor. What bugs me about raw conservativism is that it wants no such safeguards.

Take for example the prohibition about harvesting the corners of one's field, so the poor could glean there. Yes, the poor had to word to get the food. I am all for that. Like I said, I have two debilitating conditions and have never taken public assistance even when it is offered. I BELIEVE IN WORK AND I WORK HARD.

BUT...raw conservativism, and even some "compassionate" conservativism--wants there to be no such provisions for the poor. Danny stated it well: "I believe that everyone, given the chance....can pull themselves out of their bad situation. And by given the chance....I don't mean govt. handouts....I mean.....govt. leaving us alone."

Well, unfortunately not everyone can, and government should have SOME ROLE here. Israel had provisions mandating societal care for the poor, but I hear you guys saying society has no responsibility here.

Have a good day, guys.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

**"The point here being......by what right do We have to be concerned about what ANYBODY makes for a living? It's none of our business! The Bible doesn't say, "Shall shalt know they neighbor's income".

If you see someone in need - you help meet that need....that's all.**

Let's use some common sense here. While it's not neccessary (not to mention being very nosy and rude) to learn every detail of your neighbor's lives, it is a good idea to observe your surroundings once in awhile, because sometimes, what happens to your neighbor, can happen to YOU!

Is what happens to your neighbor none of your business? Most of the time, yes. But does the same hold true if a tornado just flattened your neighbor's house and now is appearing to head toward yours? Definitely not!

Link, you said:

**"If a big company shuts down a plant, that may be a rotten thing to do, but it is not stealing according to the Law. **

I must disagree with you there. The company executives tried to cut the worker's wages and benefits even when there was absolutely no reason to do so. In fact, it was done to increase the profits for the company executives, and for no other reason. When the worker's refused, they were willing to shut down a perfectly profitable facility rather than pay the workers a single cent more. I call it spitefulness of the highest order. What they tried to do to the workers was to cheat them out of their rightful share of their company's massive gains. I call it exploitation, I call it STEALING. Isn't that a very basic violation of the Law?

I've been surfing around on the net lately, as well as watching the news, reading the papers, etc., and have had some sobering revelations concerning the Democratic Party. What Danny said about them is true, they ARE hypocrites. They all claim to help the common man and the working class, but when the going starts to get dicey, they either chicken out, or even worse....SELL OUT.

And I have found out that dependency is a very dangerous thing, it gives others power over you, power that can be abused if there is too much of it. California fell into that trap with it's current energy crisis. Rather than make any attempts to produce power themselves (and no, those power sources need not be polluting coal and oil, as some money-grubbing oil-barons would suggest. Nuclear is okay, provided the waste is dealt with responsibly, which I doubt it would be.), they seemed to be content to let out-of-state sources provide for their needs (of one which happens to be Enron, which Our Illustrious President just happens to own stock in.) Now, in the past couple of years, when unusual weather conditions have caused Californians to use more power than usual, overtaxing their underdeveloped power grid, the Californians have become more dependent than ever on out-of-state power sources. Those sources, realizing California's dependence, and knowing they now have a government and administration friendly to their interests, decided to stick it to California and make obscene profits from the crunch.

I can forgive the Northwest in this situation, as I have heard recently, their situation isn't much better than California's. But what about the sources in say, the Southwest? In Texas? What about Enron? What's THEIR excuse?

What Enron and the other power company's are doing is rotten, but California is also partially to blame for letting itself get into such a vulnerable position.

Self-sufficency and independence can combat this sort of gouging. But there is more, the whole SYSTEM is designed, not to encourage independence, but to enforce DEPENDENCE. The Powers That Be (you should know what I'm talking about) do not like anything that doesn't contribute to their profit-making machines. It has started during Ancient Times and has been happening ever since. These Empires systematically crush any group of people that has the ability to sustain themselves and even to this day, they crush people that make any attempt to make a go at independence. The whole idea is to squash independence and to force people to be dependent upon them, for the purpose of gaining POWER over them.

So which is worse? The Democrats who insidiously dupe people into giving away their independence, or the Republicans who forcibly strip others of their independence? Some people propose that they are not even really opposed to each other at all, and that all of their partisan bickering is just a smokescreen to distract us. That thought horrifies me.

Sounds like our 2-party system is turning out be a lose-lose situation for those of us without power and privelege.

This sounds cynical but I have to say this. Just what does Jesus mean by returning quickly? He said he would return quickly. Nearly 2000 years later, we're still waiting for Him. I'd hate to think how long it would be if He told us that it would be awhile before he returned!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Mark

If Jubilee was just about family lineage and inheritance--why did God command all debts to be forgiven?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

One more thing:

**"Everyone else has to live on a budget....and so should the Fed. govt.!!!!"***

Seriously, if Bush intends to do anything about this, then why haven't I heard him say anything about paying down the $4 trillion national debt that Reagan (a REPUBLICAN, btw) was largely responsible for running up? Perhaps I'm hard of hearing or have not been paying attention... I haven't heard any serious talk from the Democrats about this either.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

**"Jesus taught to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's in a culture where it was common for tax collectors to be corrupt."***

Hey, "this render Caesar's things that are Caesar's bit" can be interpreted one of two ways. Most of us tend to think that this means that we should be good little boys and girls and pay our taxes when Caesar asks. However, this can also be be read with the implication of "rendering unto Caesar things that are RIGHTFULLY Caesar's". This quote then takes on a meaning quite different from the former interpretation . From what I can tell of my history, most of Caesar had was NOT rightfully his, as he acquired it through thievery and plunder." So, instead of saying that everyone should knuckle under and pay their taxes like good little citizens, they should render unto Caesar things which are RIGHTFULLY Caesar's, meaning, diddly-squat.

Is there any text elsewhere in Scripture that supports either interpretation?

If it's the former, I can understand that aspect too. Under an oppressive regime like the Roman Empire, openly defiant acts such as refusing to pay taxes can attract VERY unwelcome attention, which is an extremely bad idea if you're not prepared for the inevitable retaliation, which could've been deadly for the fledgling Christian Church.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG,

You ask, "If Jubilee was just about family lineage and inheritance-- why did God command all debts to be forgiven?"

Simple.....The Israelites were not supposed to HAVE any debts. It was against the Law of Moses to charge usuary to a fellow Israelite. Jubilee was mandated to correct the affects of sin committed against one another - not to even wealth.

Notice about Jubilee.......those of wealth were not commanded to give any more than those who had little. If a wealthy man had bought another's property for a cheap price (due to hardship or whatever reason), Jubilee required that he give that piece of land back.......not give the land back plus another 2 parcels of land as punishment. Jubilee just returned things to it's rightful owner.....it didn't attenpt to balance wealth, it was just a second chance for all to do right - and as such it is definitely an example of Forgiveness in Christ as you have said (which ultimately was it's purpose - just like all of the Law was - to point toward Christ).

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Hi, 'anon'.

I re-post:

One more thing: **"Everyone else has to live on a budget....and so should the Fed. govt.!!!!"***

Seriously, if Bush intends to do anything about this, then why haven't I heard him say anything about paying down the $4 trillion national debt that Reagan (a REPUBLICAN, btw) was largely responsible for running up? Perhaps I'm hard of hearing or have not been paying attention... I haven't heard any serious talk from the Democrats about this either.

-- Anon (Arax7@mvn.net), May 16, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Are you aware that it was a DEMOCRAT congress which got us into the mess and a REPUBLICAN congress which got us out?

Clinton, knowing he was outnumbered and being the political chameleon he is, moved to the center. He had to. For Clinton to take credit for the good economy is like Colonel Sanders taking credit for eggs.

Ads I've said many times, the CONSERVATIVES I know give the most of their own money. They just do not want their tax dollars to fund the various social agendae the DEMS come up with. They prefer to fund what they know will glorify God.

But I do believe that medical costs should be covered for every citizen. The wealthy can always afford the best.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Connie

You are right somewhat about Clinton, but Bush is just as bad. Bush ran toward the middle and is governing way too far right. My home state put him over the top, (if Gore had carried West Virgnia, Florida would have been moot.) GWB came there and said, "I know and understand West Vriginians, and I will go to bat for you." That is a Baloney Sandwich! The first week he signed orders making it almost impossible for the widows of coal miners to apply for Black Lung benefits. He did not give a flip about anybody but his rich oil buddies and Bush is just like Clinton in that he was willing to say anything to get elected.

As far as the DEMS go, they did pass all those outrageous budgets, but the eternal idiot Ronald Reagan signed them all--so he is equally responsible.

You say:

Ads I've said many times, the CONSERVATIVES I know give the most of their own money. They just do not want their tax dollars to fund the various social agendae the DEMS come up with. They prefer to fund what they know will glorify God.

Come on Connie, Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan wanting to Glorify God??? There is no way in Hades!!!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Danny

When you say:

Bush has addressed this by pointing out....that it is not wise business practice to pay off bonds....before they mature. The bonds will be paid off as they matured and he has pointed out numerous times that his budget includes paying those bonds.

I say:

I totally agree with Bush on this point.

When you say:

CG.....difference between Cheney and Kennedy's wealth.....1) Cheney actually earned his; 2) Cheney's not interested in salving his conscience at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I say:

OK...but have all wealthy conservatives earned theirs? Have all wealthy liberals not earned theirs?

What I want to know is...why am I the only one the income gap thing even bothers?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG,

That is because there is no such thing as an Income Gap. Such is a man-made conconction just like the "Generation Gap". People make what they make. If you tax on a equal percentage basis, everyone is treated equally. Actually, those with money are being treated unequally now....if they have to pay 38%, then everyone should.

What is wrong though, is unequal tax deductions. Why does a single mom who irresponsibly procreates a dozen children deserve to pay less tax because of her irresponsibility? Remember....the question isn't about her needing more money to feed all those mouths......the question is about whether or not the tax was levied equally - two different issues. Trying to fix one of those issues with the other is like placing a Band-aid on a sucking chest wound - wrong and ineffective.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Mark says:

That is because there is no such thing as an Income Gap. Such is a man-made conconction just like the "Generation Gap". People make what they make. If you tax on a equal percentage basis, everyone is treated equally. Actually, those with money are being treated unequally now....if they have to pay 38%, then everyone should.

CG says:

No income gap??? So I make as much as Michael Jordan, right???

You are too intelligent to believe this Mark. What about eqqual pay for equal work, etc.? We need both a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage. Then I will sign on to a flat tax.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

But Danny

Why do you not want to have the laboring class not make any money compared to business? Why do you want there to be millionaires, but you also want some people to make less than 15 or 20K per year? That is the way it is now--and it seems to me you approve.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG,

"Equal pay for equal work"........I'm fine with that! But I don't play basketball, why should I get Michael Jordan's salary? Jordon don't launch rockets, why should he get mine?

Now.....if they hired Jordon in my office he deserves the same base pay as I for doing the same work. Or does he? Should he make as much as I, since I have 22 years of experience at the work while he would be an Apprentice?

CG....you have to accept the fact that you live in America. We have a "Free Enterprise" economical system. People have the right to bargain for better wages. People have the right to educate or re- educate themselves in order to get better jobs & make more money. It's a choice people have to make for themselves - just like accepting Christ.

What you seem to want done toward "income balancing" is exactly what put Russia where it is today. I don't know if you have read any of the works of Karl Marx - but there is a hauntingly familiar ring between them and some of the ideas you have proposed.

And by the way, if Jordan made too much money in his career, it is the fault of the citizens of Chicago. They are the ones who willingly paid way too much for the tickets that paid his salary. Supply and Demand baby........supply and Demand!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Mark

That was an excellent answer!! Hats off to you. But the disparity still bothers me. Am I alone in this? I do not think I am Marxist-- I just think some boundaries would be in order. A totally free market would eat some folks alive. I have ethical trouble with that.

Having said that, Mark and Danny are both making more sense to me all the time. Should I be scared? I will never be a Republican though, I tried that once and did notlike it.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

***CG states: "We need both a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage." CG....they tried that in Russia. Nuff said!!!"***

Nuh-uh, that is NOT 'Nuff said! What happened to the Russian worker's living conditions AFTER the Soviet Union collapsed and Yeltsin and Co. installed the Capitalist Free Market system, eliminating the minimum wage in the process? I'll tell you what happened, their living conditions went down the toilet. Their life expectancy has dropped from about the mid-60's down to about the mid- 50's. This has left many of them longing for the "good ol' days" of Brezhnev and his ilk. You may talk about the oppression of the KGB being gone, my answer is no, the oppression hasn't gone, it's just transferred into the hands of a different group of people, namely the Russian Mafia.

***"Why does a single mom who irresponsibly procreates a dozen children deserve to pay less tax because of her irresponsibility?"***

Good point, but we are talking about more than just the mother here. The mother clearly doesn't deserve any more help, but what about the children? It wasn't like they ASKED to be born. Must they be forced to pay for the sins of their Fathers (or in this case, Mothers:))? We are already being forced to pay for the sins of Adam and Eve, that's bad enough. No need to make a bad situation worse than it already is.

I realize now that the Christian Church has really nothing to do with this sorry, grossly unfair economic system we are suffering under. The fault lies with the Romans, for installing this whole patrician/plebian, have/have-not system, which has caused SO much misery for mankind over the centuries. However, the Roman Octopus has so effectively enmeshed it's tentacles into the structure of the Church that sometimes, it's difficult to distinguish the two. Yeah, the Devil would LOVE for someone to lash out and hit the wrong guy. He'd think it would be hilarious.

Karl Marx has referred to religion as "the opiate of the masses". Was he truly against religion or was he alluding to the way that the rulers and the upper classes shamelessly used religion to control the thoughts of the masses to further their own ends? Until I can get an English copy of the Manifesto, it's impossible for me to know.

You see, quoting messages out of context is a favorite method that propagandists use to get people to think what the propagandists want them to think.

Now guys, don't get me wrong. Even though I now see the Liberals in the Govt. for the two-faced jerks (not a strong enough word, but I don't want to curse here:)) they really are, do NOT think that my opinion of their Conservative counterparts has improved. I do not think that Dick Cheney earned his fortune at all, I think he stole it, like Ted Kennedy, the only difference may be the method of theft Cheney used as opposed to Kennedy's.

I watched a documentary on the Roman Empire just last night. The parallels between Ancient Rome and the United States are astonishing! It makes me wonder. Prophecies refer to a Beast that will appear to be slain but then revive and hold the rest of the world in awe. Could the Scripture be referring to Rome/The United States??

I not saying that this is the actual identity of the Beast in Revelation, just a possible conclusion rendered by the musings of an inquiring soul, namely me. Try to figure it out for yourselves and see what you come up with.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Mark, you said this....

***"People have the right to bargain for better wages."***

That's my point! All too often, that right is being DENIED! The negotiating style of "You will either accept X term and Y pay cut or you're fired!" is NOT, I repeat, NOT bargaining. That is COERCION. It's not saying "Let's work out a deal", it's saying "My Way or the Highway." What kind of bargaining is that?!?!

And Bush's economic policies encourage businesses to conduct precisely the type of "bargaining" described above! It doesn't hurt those that already have businesses of their own, but for those of us who are effectively forced to work for someone else, it, for lack of a better term, sucks big time.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Ads I've said many times, the CONSERVATIVES I know give the most of their own money. They just do not want their tax dollars to fund the various social agendae the DEMS come up with. They prefer to fund what they know will glorify God.

Come on Connie, Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan wanting to Glorify God??? There is no way in Hades!!!

-- (Whitecg@juno.com), May 16, 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Who mentioned Rush Limbaugh or Ronald Reagan? I watched Limbaugh for about eight minutes when he first came on thre scene. I couldn't stand him. I didn't vote for Reagan or Bush, Sr. (I sat on my hands for about ten years because I got tired of holding my nose before voting). I voted for Jimmy Carter TWICE because he was the only one who came right out and said he was a Christian (and I am not sorry to this day ~ unlike how I feel about voting for Richard Nixon).

I said the most generous people I know PERSONALLY are fiscal and political conservatives. I have seen people give thousands in some cases to help those less fortunate.

And who is this hypothetical woman who's had 13 children out of wedlock?

Of course, I am against anyone's having children out of wedlock. I am more against abortion. Giving tax dollars to people who do this simply encourages the bad behavior. I do feel sorry for the children, though. These are the very ones the church should be helping, with food, clothing and shelter, but not with money. And they should be doing work of some kind.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG,

My brother-in-law was from W. Virginia ~ Point Pleasant. His family owned 'Haynes Jewelers' there. He was a Doctor of Optometry and everytime I asked an optometrist over a period of 40 years if they knew Dr.Harold M. Haynes, they did. He used to travel all over the country giving 'White Papers' to optometrists at their conventions.

He taught at Pacific University in Forest Grove, OR., for almost 50 years. He died a couple of years ago.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Anon...

You said, "Mark, you said this.... ***"People have the right to bargain for better wages."***

That's my point! All too often, that right is being DENIED! The negotiating style of "You will either accept X term and Y pay cut or you're fired!" is NOT, I repeat, NOT bargaining. That is COERCION. It's not saying "Let's work out a deal", it's saying "My Way or the Highway." What kind of bargaining is that?!?! "

In many, many sectors today there is a severe labor shortage.... Most companies cannot act the way you indicate and survive. Of course, there are exceptions... but, most companies are finding themselves paying more and providing more benefits... or their labor walks (acts on their right to bargain for better wages). Very recently, with the economic slow-down, companies are paring back... they have to in order to cut costs and survive. As Mark so rightly said, "Supply and Demand baby........supply and Demand!"... it applies in the Labor Market too.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Connie

I know about Haynes Jewelers. Pt. Pleasant is 35 miles from Scott Depot, which is where I am from.

Glad to know you are not a Limbaugh or Reagan fan.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

CG,

By the way, I have softened my stance on Reagan. I believe he has been subjected to the liberal method of discrediting people. (As GWB is being subjected to). I think he can be given credit for holding firm against communism and in conjunction with Billy Graham's preaching the Gospel repeatedly across Russia, bringing that evil regime down.

If I had it to do over, I would have voted for Reagan and Bush, Sr. (If I hadn't been not voting in protest).

But as I said earlier in this thread, I have become a one-issue voter.

One Democrat I do like is Robert Byrd. I also like Russ Feingold and James Trafficante. I hope James is not guilty of what he has been accused of. I believe that someone is trying to get even with him for voting with the Republicans.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Connie,

I too see the point in being a "one-issue" voter.....that issue being Abortion. It's amazing (not really) to see that when people uphold the sanctity of life, all the other ideals I hold to, almost always fall into place with those I vote for.

The Pro-abortionists do not understand what life is and therefore are unable to actually do anything to improve life for anyone.....and in hindsite, have pretty much ruined it for everyone.

CG,

Just for the record, I am a registered Republican. Not because I'm a "Party Freak", but because Florida makes you declare some affiliation to prevent multiple voting attempts during Primary Elections, and, as a group, they more closely uphold most of what I feel are the proper values.

But understand that when it comes time to vote.....I am a functioning Pedestrian. I don't vote Party lines. I vote my conscience. If I can't live with the man's views on some issues (Abortion being the Biggie) then I can't live with myself for voting for him - and I will not do so. If I don't like either candidate for a particular office, I will either abstain from that particular office or insert a Write- In candidate. Some would call that a waste of a vote - I call it a good night's sleep.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

***"In many, many sectors today there is a severe labor shortage.... Most companies cannot act the way you indicate and survive. Of course, there are exceptions..."***

That's actually true, and that's why laborers here enjoy conditions that are so much better than they are in countries where there are huge labor surpluses, say for instance, Mexico. But I fear the balance of power swinging too far in either direction. If the workers get too much power and make too many demands, then the companies will not be able to keep up expenses and collapse. If the company gains too much power, they may feel tempted to eat away at the worker's wages and benefits to increase profits, because they know they can get away with it. In which case, the conditions in which the labor force lives and works could suffer. Mark was sorta there, it could also be construed as "Balance of Power, baby! Balance of Power!"

It's the growing number of exceptions that worries me. Those companies that act that way even when there is absolutely no reason to do so. I notice that, in general, it's the larger companies that do this. Is it because that they are capable of moving outside the US to areas where there are labor surpluses and few, if any regulations? Companies that can do so can crush their competition back home by flooding the markets with cheap capital. Smaller companies that CAN'T afford to leave the US will still have to deal with the labor shortages. In order to compete, they would have to cut the prices on their capital to match that of the other companies. HOWEVER, if they did that, the profits could dwindle to the point where they are actually losing money. When that happens, they will be forced to cut their wages and benefits of their labor force, possibly to the point of having to lay off workers. If course, Labor isn't going to take that lying down, and could threaten to walk out, which could end up hurting the company even more.

While the large international companies with access to cheap surplus labor make huge gains by selling their cheap capital back home, the companies still stuck within US borders are stuck between a rock and a hard place. This was made possible by the Free Trade Agreements approved by Clinton and wholeheartedly supported by both Dems and Reps. The giant sucking sound Perot mentioned is loud and is getting louder by the day. The policies the Dems and Reps make not only hurt the workers, but small businesses as well. Only the companies big enough not to be constrained by national borders benefit from from them.

When you use such terms as "Supply and Demand" or "Labor Market" or "Human Resources Department" when referring to workers, you are giving the implication, intentionally or unintenionally, that workers are just another form of capital. That is de-humanizing the worker. Such de-humanization can lead to indifference or even contempt for the labor force, and can cause enormous resentment among the workers. Would any of you like it if you were treated as a mere commodity? An object that can be bought, sold, used or thrown away whenever someone sees fit? Anyone in their right mind would not stand for such treatment. I know I wouldn't, but what I described above is exactly how some people in this world treat their fellow Children of God.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

***"When you use such terms as "Supply and Demand" or "Labor Market" or "Human Resources Department" when referring to workers, you are giving the implication, intentionally or unintenionally, that workers are just another form of capital."***

Oops, I phrased that wrong, I meant that you COULD BE giving the implication that workers are just another form of capital.

Danny, Mark, and a few others: After listening to you throughout this LOOONNNGGG thread, I have begun to learn and understand some of your concerns. It seems that I was wrong about you. If I sounded judgemental in the past, I am sorry. My eyes have been opened and I now realize that you are not monsters, but men. I still cannot agree with you on some issues, at least now I can understand why you believe the way you do, even if I don't always agree with those beliefs. I was wrong about you, please forgive me.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Mark, when you write:

Just for the record, I am a registered Republican. Not because I'm a "Party Freak", but because Florida makes you declare some affiliation to prevent multiple voting attempts during Primary Elections, and, as a group, they more closely uphold most of what I feel are the proper values.

I say:

(1) It is a good thing that they make you declare down there. We don't want multiple ballots, it's hard enough for them to count them when people only vote once. :)

(2) As far as the values go, I would be a Republican in a minute IF they would be more pro-labor, instead of holding the view, as Anon says, "that workers are just another form of capital."

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Anon,

Thanks guy.....no harm, no foul!

CG,

We can count just fine down here - it's just that "the chad keeps getting in our eye"......:~)

And I hope this discussion will make think a little more about what you see as the anti-Labor position of the Republicans. Like what was said above, there are always a few rotten apples in every barrel; but by and large, the GOP isn't anti-Labor.....just pro-Free Enterprise.

Unfortunately, some of the problems you and Anon have spoken of do exist, I'd be a fool to think otherwise (especially since I've experienced some firsthand). But typically those transgresses are not the fault of the GOP or Demos - it is the fault of greedy and corrupt corporate CEOS, Presidents, Managers, etc. And those folks are going to act that way regardless of the rules, laws, or the current Party in "power" - it's just in their nature to be that way.

What's the perfect solution? ........There is none - not in a sin- stained world. What those type of people do is criminal and needs to be prosecuted - as there are plenty of laws on the books to convict them. What we don't need to do is to change our entire economic system in order to "fix" personnel flaws. Afterall - do you throw out the whole barrel because of the 1 bad apple?

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Mark says:

Unfortunately, some of the problems you and Anon have spoken of do exist, I'd be a fool to think otherwise (especially since I've experienced some firsthand). But typically those transgresses are not the fault of the GOP or Demos - it is the fault of greedy and corrupt corporate CEOS, Presidents, Managers, etc. And those folks are going to act that way regardless of the rules, laws, or the current Party in "power" - it's just in their nature to be that way.

CG says:

Yes, but our elected officials need to call them to account for it.

Danny says:

CG....isn't allowing labor to keep more of their own hard earned money as opposed to the govt.'s confiscatory taxation.....pro labor??

CG says:

Yes, but opposing minimum wage increases, or even the idea of a minimum wage--when the stock marked has quintupled in a decade but laborers are only getting inflationary raises, if that, is anti-labor.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

An honest to goodness question.

How many in this thread that have done any complaining have ever fought for this country? Spent time in another country?

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

I thought I'd add a clarifying point here. In "pure" business management terms, human beings are just another form of capital, or another resource. In fact, it is referred to as "human capital." Sending an employee to a seminar or college for a company is the same type of investment for a company as putting in a new piece of machinery. Its improvement on capital. We may not like it, but that is the *techincal and exact* use of the term in Business Management Science. I resent being thought of as a 'resource,' but since Business Management deals in the theoretical, not the real, that's the textbook answer.

And Faris, I can say "yes" to both of your questions. I never understand how someone could look back favorably on the old Soviet system. I saw how "good" they had it in East Germany.

My problem of course is not how many *posters* have military/overseas experience, but how many in congress!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

CG,

By what authority do we hold a public official liable for the acts of another person (Corporate Entities)?

If I go shoot up the local McDonalds, are you responsible?

If I preach a false doctrine in church, who is God going to hold responsible.......me or the participants on this Forum?

The Gov't has done it's part in the matter. It has passed laws that do not allow such dispicable behavior by Corporations. The only thing we can hold the officials accountable on, is their failure to consistantly enforce those laws.

Hey, wait a second...........isn't that the same problem we have will gun control? Not new laws.........just enforcement of that which already exists.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Come on Mark,

That last post was nonsense. Our govt. can do more. We could penalize companies for taking jobs out of the country...We could assess them fines equal to 150% of what they save in labor costs, making it cheaper to keep the jobs here.

The govt could raise the minimum wage. Here is how it ought to be determined. Take what the poverty level of a family of four is and divide that by 2000--that ought to be the minimum. In 1997, the latest figures I have seen, it was $16,400. I would imagine you could make it $18,000 now. Divide that by 2000 to represent 50 weeks of work, 40 hours per week. That would be $9/ per hour. Regardless of the market, everybody who works ought to make that much, and that is something government could do.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Danny,

Prove from scripture that the IRS is organized crime, or thatthe government colelcting taxes is 'stealing.' Would you agree with this idea Danny? That if you kill someone on the street out of anger, that is murder, but if the government tries and a killer and finds him guilty, and kills them, that is not murder.

What about this one? If you demand money from someone on the street under threat of violence, that is theft, but if the government demands money under threat of violence (dragging you off to prison) that is a different matter.

I think it's extremely unwise to charge high tax rates and filter a large portion of the money maid in the US through the various bearacracies to finance a huge social welfare system.

Aaron,

Stealing is when you take something that isn't yours. If someone hires you, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or some sort of law to the contrary, then that person has to right to fire you.

Imagine you hired a kid to cut your grass for $10 a week, and then decided you wanted to fire him, or that you just wanted to cut the grass yourself. Maybe your income dropped or you lost your job, or the kid was doing a bad job and cutting your flowers to.

How would you like it if the city council passed a law that forced you to pay this boy $10 a week to cut your grass for life or until he quit. Is that fair? Wouldn't you feel like your rights to decide what to do with your own money were being violated?

What if the city government passed a law that said, since you had hired a white kid, you also had to hire a black, hispanic, and Asian kid to do something else around your house.

Wouldn't you rather live in a society where the government doesn't tell you who to hire and for how long? If you signed a life-time contract with the kid for $10 a week, then he'd have a right to demand that you keep your end of the bargain. But for the government to pass a _law_ demanding you not fire your employee is harmful to you. Why is it that when it comes to big faceless corporations, some people seem to think it is good to pass laws to force the corporations to care for people?

One of the downsides of American businesses is that a lot of them are mainly concerned about 'the bottom line' rather than how good their work is for soceity. But, just being realistic here, many companies do focus on making money. Their investors like it when they make money. If the US adds more and more socialist legislation which puts the burden for individual workers on the shoulders of companies, we will just see more companies opening factories in Third World countries where there is not so much socialist legistlation.

I'm not even thinking of minimum wage laws. There is a lot of hassle involved in starting a business in the US ebcause of all the legislation.

I had a friend who saw a space in a shopping area that he wanted to rent. He thought it would be a good place to sell salad by weight. The heavy stuff- meat and dressing-- is expensive. Vegetables are light. It would work out really well. People could come get their salads and take them off to the office.

This space had a little rest room for employes only. He was going to rent the place, but a lobby group started hassling him and telling him that he had to re-do his restroom so it would be suitable for the handicapped. The employees in his food stand couldn't be handicapped and do their job anyway, and there was a public rest room close by with handicapped facilities, but the lobby group gave him so much hassle that he didn't even open the restaurant. The US is not as free as a lot of other countries are in terms of business.

Why do you think workers have a right to a share of the money earned by a company? I'm thinking of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. If a laborer agrees for a certain amount per day, then that amount is what he has a right to. Let's imagine the next day at work after the parable ends. The next day, all the laborers could organize and demand a higher wage for the next days work, but the owner of the vineyard also has a right to not hire any workers. It's his money, and his vineyard. What if the workers then go to the legislatures and try to force the owner of the vineyard to hire them at a higher rate? Is that fair?

CG,

Under the Law, the poor were able to survive because of legal customs which allowed them to eat without filtering a lot the people's income through the government. A poor person, or anyone, could eat in the field or vineyard of a fellow countryman as long as he didn't carry anythign out in a container. This was fair in that the farmer himself, when traveling to antoher area, was supposed to be able to eat in other people's fields. Anywhere there were fields with ripe enough crops, travelers were to be able to eat. A traveler could grab a fig off a treee, and eat it without stealing.

There were some laws which allowed for redistribution of some of the wealth. Two of the tithes related to redistribution of wealth (in the form of livestock and produce.) The tithes for Levites and priests gave these groups support. They did not have a land inheritance like the other tribes. Every third year, the economically disadvantaged groups- Levites,widows, aliens, etc. would be given an agricultural tithe.

There were also laws which allowed for the poor to pay less for certain offerings- grain or two turtle doves for the poor instead of certain animal sacrifices.

But I don't see any scriptural justification compelling Christians to lobby for laws which try to take money from the rich and give it all to the poor in order to do away with the gap between the rich and the poor. The US is so RICH, and has so much surplus, that even if the there is a huge gap between the rich and poor, that many 'poor' could in fact not truly be poor. They can have plenty of food, clothes, and a warm place to stay with modern conveniences. Now, there are some poor people on the streets who don't live up to this. The Bible says that we are to be content with food and clothing. Shouldn't we learn this, and teach the poor to think that way as well?

Jesus didn't tell his disciples to lobby the Roman Emporer or the Jewish Sanhedrin to redistribute wealth.

Muany of the Laws regarding wealth in the Old Testaments were laws with no punishment listed in the OT. God was the Judge. If a le3nder required a poor man's cloak as a pledge, and kept it overnight while the man was cold, God would judge. God warned people not to be stingy about lending before the year of cancelling debts. Personal responsibility, morality, and fear of God would make the system work economically.

There is not a lot of legislation in the OT which has their government collect a lot of money from everyone and redistribute it to the poor. The Bible doesn't teach Christians to lobby for the government to do that. The Bible doesn't teach that we should ask the government to forcibly take money from the rich so that we can give it all tot he poor.

CG,

In the parable of the vineyard, was it not lawful for the owner of the vineyard to do what he wants to with what he owned?

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Link

You are correct in your interpretation of the law. But the laws you cite embody a spirit of mercy which is entirely lacking in capitalism, and because it is lacking, the folks at the bottom suffer. I believe the laws I am suggesting would be the equivalent of the OT laws you cite--embodying the same spirit and the same principles for our modern world.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

CG,

Why would the Gov't penalize companies for manufacturing overseas, when it was the Liberal Gov't (Clinton & Gang) that passed legislation like NAFTA that practically forced the hands of these companies to do so???

$9 an hour? Surely you jest. Less than 15% of the people in Florida make that kind of money - and things are starting to get tight already. All such wages would do, is put every store smaller than a Super WalMart out of business for good. Then who would pay their minimum wage? The taxpayers would! That's the bottom line on the Minimum wage issue - the higher the minimum standard, the higher unemployment goes......especially in stressed economical times.

If you want a "Fair" wage system, this is how you do it:

Every type of position starts at a determined minimum - based on the job requirements, education level required, location (as the standard of living is different in most all areas of the country) and any related job hazards (i.e. - a high voltage lineman makes more than a house painter). Now if they want to make more money than the minimum - they have to meet certain, pre-agreed-upon criteria in job performance in order to get a bonus wage. Things like a salesman making a certain # of sales each month, or a ballplayer hitting a certain # of home runs during the year, etc.

I'm not deluded enough to think that such would ever happen, but it would sure get people motivated to work better, smarter, & faster - which is the current Mantra of the business world.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

**"The US is so RICH, and has so much surplus, that even if the there is a huge gap between the rich and poor, that many 'poor' could in fact not truly be poor."***

Yes, true. But there are fears that we COULD end up like some of the abject poor that you saw in Indonesia. The threat is always there, we all may not know the true severity of the threat or know how much our fears are justified, but the threat exists. Things are good in the US now, at least for most of us, but for how long? Some of us fear that the decisions of our leaders may push us in that direction.

***"Now, there are some poor people on the streets who don't live up to this"***

Quite true again. What is scaring people is that the number of these types are growing, and those on the bubble are horrified at the thought of joining their ranks. It's can be quite easy for one on the lower end of the spectrum to fall through the cracks, through no fault of their own. It COULD happen. A member of the working poor can be getting by now, but, one layoff and a couple of accidents later, the person could very well be joining the ranks of the homeless due to his recent inability to pay rent on the apartment or the mortgage on the house. The reason MORE people are not on the streets is #1) The welfare system still functions. The Safety Net is becoming frayed, but it's not completely useless yet. #2) Some of them have support systems other than welfare, such as family, friends, and charity organizations.

My fear is that if Safety Net #1 is removed, it may place more burden on Safety Net #2, possibly to the point of it giving way. The result could be that our streets would be filled with LOTS more of the abject poor.

***"If the US adds more and more socialist legislation which puts the burden for individual workers on the shoulders of companies, we will just see more companies opening factories in Third World countries where there is not so much socialist legistlation."***

The effect you're describing is a symptom of an effect called "The Race to the Bottom". Using the threat of relocation, companies big enough to do so can indirectly dictate economic policy by pressuring governments to give in to their demands. What do they usually demand? Lower minimum wages, fewer environmental regulations, cut backs and eliminations of health and retirement plans...etc. If this continues, we may find that in order to keep jobs here, we may have to lower our standards to those of countries like Mexico or Indonesia. Admittedly, this is one battle the US government that, even if they were willing, cannot win alone. Combating this will require the raising of standards on a GLOBAL scale, not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination, as these big companies have most countries in the world under their control willing to oppose it with violence if need be.

**"The Bible doesn't teach that we should ask the government to forcibly take money from the rich so that we can give it all tot he poor."***

To my limited knowledge, it does not. On the surface, what you said does sound unfair. But there is more to the story, a lot of the rich DO break the Law when establishing their fortunes. Sometimes, they blatantly break it, by fraud (Bearing false witness, stealing), putting other Gods before God (the Almightly Dollar mostly), and by being covetous (recently named having "Affluenza"), but many times the Law is broken more insidiously. The Rich do this by creating an environment hostile to people's ablilty to provide for themselves. If a person cannot get access to food (because they don't make enough money, nobody gives them food and unable to find any food that they can safely take), he could very well starve to death. If the Rich Person just happened into the situation and simply did nothing, there is no crime, BUT if he KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED to the conditions that caused the man's starvation, then he has broken the Law, because the Rich Person, in a sense, killed that man. Same goes if the Rich Person, say, dumped Mercury or Arsenic into a stream, didn't warn anybody, and later some poor sod dies from drinking the stuff not knowing it was poisoned.

You, Link, have quoted the Law and it sounds pretty reasonable. However, this is the 21st Century, not 1st Century Judea, and the Law, as you describe it, is largely not being applied. I'm sure the world could become a better place if the Law was applied more, but the problem is, the Law is not being applied.

Also, it is possible to obey the LETTER of the Law, and yet, at the same time, break the SPIRIT of the Law. Politicians, CEO's, and the like are masters at this. It is possible profit while making the lives of others miserable while the same time, not break any rules.

Case Sample: Let's, for simplictiy's sake, say that the Ten Commandment consist of the Law.

Scenario: A Young Boy beats on his little sister for fun.

(Please excuse me, if I don't have them in correct order)

"Thou shalt not have any other God's before me" - Heh, not breaking this one. Gods of any sort are most likely NOT on his mind right now.

"Thou shalt not worship me unto any graven image" - Nothing here. Unless he pounding on his sister as a sacrifice in front of an idol. VERY UNLIKELY

"Thou shalt honor the Father and thy Mother" - Hmmm...possibly, if it's against Mom's and Dad's wishes. Quite likely, but doesn't always apply. What if the parents simply don't care? Or worse, encouraged him? (Actually happens all too often in today's society)

"Thou shalt remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy" - Well, chances are 6 out of 7 that he's NOT breaking this one, if you know what I mean :)

"Thou shalt not Steal" - If this commandment applies to material things only, it most likely doesn't apply. He not interested in stealing the little sister's possesions, he just wants to have a little fun.

"Thou shalt not Kill" - If his sister dies from the beating, then he's broken this one, but most likely, she won't die. Killing probably was not his intention in the first place.

"Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy neighbor" - This act in and of itself is not bearing false witness. If broke his promise to his parents not to beat his sister up, or he lied to someone about beating her up, then he has . "Thou shalt not covet" - Nope. He's not neccessarily out to outdo the biggest bully on the block, or is jealous of his sister's toy collection. He's just perfectly content with beating her to a pulp.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" - Well, unless he's raping her (YUCK!!), he is not.

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" - Nope, he's probably not breaking this one either, unless he's pounding his sister in the name of God (highly unlikely) or cursing using God's name (could happen, but he just as easily pound her without cursing.

So there you have it, he successfully avoided breaking any of the Ten Commandments and yet he still managed to ruin his little sister's day. Technically, he didn't break the law, but does that make it right? You say God will judge in cases like this, but when is judgement going to be rendered? What are rest of us supposed to do in the meantime? You could say, that Little Sister could attempt to escape, but what if that is not possible? I'm SURE she doesn't want to stay in that situation, I don't think ANY of us would want to. It seem her only option in the meantime is to take matters into her own hands, if she can.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Mark:

***"If you want a "Fair" wage system, this is how you do it:...."***

Interesting! Instead of a flat minimum wage, you suggest instead upon a situation & merit based minimum wage. Now that's an idea I haven't heard of before. NEVER have I heard anything like this being suggested by those pinheads in Washington. It has the advantage of being flexible, but is prone to becoming complicated and prone to loopholes. Nice idea though.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Repost to comment:

$9 an hour? Surely you jest. Less than 15% of the people in Florida make that kind of money - and things are starting to get tight already. All such wages would do, is put every store smaller than a Super WalMart out of business for good. Then who would pay their minimum wage? The taxpayers would! That's the bottom line on the Minimum wage issue - the higher the minimum standard, the higher unemployment goes......especially in stressed economical times.

Comment:

I have never been more serious in my life. The way I described determining minimum wage would be a philosophical statement that the minimum would be determined by care for humanity and not market forces--it is a recognition that humans are not "capital". The philosophical method I used toc ome up with the $9 figure is the best rationale I can do but I would like to see a minimum of $12.

Also, we need a maximum wage. By your logic, if increased minimum wages drive prices up, a maximum will push them down. Now, I have not figured out yet what that ought to be, but philosophically there ought to be one, to remind us that we are all humans and the market cannot make "royalty" out of us. Off the top of my head, I would say that NOBODY, regardless of what they do, ought to make more than $100 per hour. That would be $200K annually and no job is important enough to merit more than that, also there is no one anywhere that could not live more than comfortably on that.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Mark

When you write:

Less than 15% of the people in Florida make that kind of money - and things are starting to get tight already.

Do you mean that 85% of Floridians make less than $9 per hour?

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

I would say that is the case across the country. (Perhaps you have been sheltered as to how much people in this country really make?) My wife works in management in a national clothing store chain, and she makes barely more than $7 an hour.

The basic difficulty I have (and I am speaking as a "poor" person; my wife and I are currently below the "poverty line") is where do you define a "poor" person. Do you take a car away from a "rich" person who has three and give it to a "poor" person who only has one, so they both have two?

In most countries, even having one car is a luxury. In this country, even most "poor" people have at least one automobile - especially in California. And here in California it seems to be a status thing among those of lower income to have expensive Cadillacs with detailing and lowering and custom bodies and tires and hydraulics ... am I making my point? If these people spent more time on caring for their families than on their status symbols (not to mention their drugs, their alcohol, etc.), they wouldn't be so "poor."

I have no problem with taking care of people who really need it, who are in shelters or living on the streets, who really are poor. But most people in this country make themselves "poor" through their own irresponsibility, then whine that others make more and have more (which is really the point) than they do. I have absolutely no sympathy for those kinds of people. Its all a selfish thing; they covet the money that those who invest more wisely than they have; they desire to have that same amount of money without doing any of the work it requires. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Even among the "poor."

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

mrbatman says:

I would say that is the case across the country. (Perhaps you have been sheltered as to how much people in this country really make?) My wife works in management in a national clothing store chain, and she makes barely more than $7 an hour.

CG says:

But how much do the investors make? That is where the problem is...not that they should not make anything, but your wife has more to do with the success of the chain than the investors do. Man, people at McDonalds or Food Lion make that much, if she is in management and only makes $7/hr. SHE and YOU of all people ought to be sympathetic with my views.

mrbatman says: (I love that screenname!)

The basic difficulty I have (and I am speaking as a "poor" person; my wife and I are currently below the "poverty line") is where do you define a "poor" person. Do you take a car away from a "rich" person who has three and give it to a "poor" person who only has one, so they both have two?

CG says:

No, but you adopt measures such as a maximum wage which will have the effect of rebounding wealth down. The problem with trickle down is that the folks at the bottom only get a trickle. (Of course, that is all the folks who advocate trickle down want them to get--ever.) My system would send wealth back down to the bottom in torrents.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Yes CG,

At least 85% of Floridians earn less than $9 an hour. I have to also believe that (except in high tech regions of the country) such is the same nationwide (adjusted for regional cost of living, that is).

Florida in particular has based its economy on tourism and retirement - i.e. it is a "Service-Oriented" State. Disney sure don't pay their popsicle salesmen $9 an hour and the elderly that need to supplement their retirement income are glad to make $4 or $5 an hour greeting people at WalMart - sure beats eating cat food.

Here is an interesting comparison: Early in his Presidency (possibly in his 1st State of the Union Address), Clinton said his vision was for America to become a "Service-Oriented" Nation. Seeing what such has done for Florida, it doesn't seem that "Slick Willy" had much of a vision for the working man afterall.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Mark

Why then doesn't the "income gap" bother you? It ought to offend us all that some folks are filthy rich, because the only way people get that way is at the expense of the 85% who they do not pay fairly.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

That is an ad-hominem -- why is the word "rich" always preceded by the adjective "filthy"? And it's an unfair stereotype. A great many of the so-called "filthy rich" get that way not by exploitation but by hard work and wise investments, something Jesus praised. So why should that offend me? It offends me that some rich are exploitive and greedy, but no more than it does that some "poor" are covetous and greedy. The basic problem is not that one person makes more than another. The basic problem is that men are sinful and greedy, whether they are on the top or on the bottom. And you cannot deal with the problem of sin by social redistribution of wealth.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Mr Batman says:

The basic problem is not that one person makes more than another. The basic problem is that men are sinful and greedy, whether they are on the top or on the bottom. And you cannot deal with the problem of sin by social redistribution of wealth.

CG says:

It is not EITHER/OR but BOTH/AND. You are correct about greed and coveteousness but the gap incomes is also a problem and it ought to aggrivate the stew out of all of us, because IT ALL is the result of exploitation.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

CG

What bothers me is people who care too much about what everyone else has instead of trying to maximize what they have themselves. It's called envy, greed, covetousness, and poor stewardship.

What bothers me is stero-typing someone as "filthy" rich.....when the best any of us has is but "filthy rags" in the first place.

"Envy not thy neighbor's rags"

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Amen, Danny. If you are bothered that the rich have more than you do, that is nothing more or less than coveting. Which means you are part of the problem. And the problem is still sin, not riches.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

The Parable of the Talents addresses some of what you have been discussing:

Matthew 25: 14-30 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not completely understand this parable, other than the fact is established that we should be wise in our handling of money.

It seems to me that this is harsher than Jesus usually is; but He was also harsh with the money-changers, on another 'money' issue.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

John writes:

Amen, Danny. If you are bothered that the rich have more than you do, that is nothing more or less than coveting. Which means you are part of the problem. And the problem is still sin, not riches.

NO No NO. I do not covet anything. There is nothing in this world that I want that I do not have. The issue is EQUALITY--which you guys do not believe in. With all due respect--you guys have politics and economics dead wrong, and have no concern for justice at all.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Let me say more...I do not want anything I do not have, but it bothers me when I look around and see one guy making $200,000 and another guy $16,000. The poor usually work hard. Ever hear of the term "working poor"? I have no sympathy for lazy people.

But, if we allow the market to determine what people make instead of insisting on a living wage and a narrower income gap, then implicit in that is the fact that we believe the market is more important than people. Economics should be governed by ethics, instead of the other way around. And Chhristian ethics demands that we work to see that there is no such thing as working poor.

It used to be that in business schools they taught that CEO's should make something like 20 times what the laborer on the production floor made. Now the average is more like 140 times. And that is not exploitive??? Anybody who is not bothered by that should be.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

CG White,

A man who makes $50,000 owns a small business and hires a carpenter for $25,000 to work for him. Another man owns a large business and makes $5,000,000 and hies a carpenter to work for him, and pays that carpeter $25,000 to work for him.

Is the second man wrong? Should he pay that man more money? I don't see how he is wrong?

I live in a country where white skin is interpreted to mean 'rich guy.' You ahve to haggle over prices for fruit in the market. If I try to buy something, they give me a much higher price than my wife, who is Indonesian. Should I have to pay more because I'm perceived as being rich? Should I be required to pay a higher price?

I usually have my wife negotiate these things out, btw.

I don't see how the rich guy is required to pay the carpenter mroe money. The people who actually own the big companies have a right to the profits they receive. In the example above, if both carepenters are making the market wage, why would the second carpenter have any right to complain.

I think we can take a lesson about economics from the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Aside from spiritual truths, I learned not to get jealous if someone doing the same job gets better benefits or gets paid less. If I make a deal with an employer, then it is his right to pay me what we agreed upon. I don't feel like he owes me more money just because he is rich. So I don't see how your philosophy that the money needs to be taken from the rich and given to the poor is really 'social justice.'

On a personal morality level, the rich _should give_ to the poor. If a man is rich, whether he is righteous or wicked, God has generally given him money and a responsibility to do what is right with that money. God gives some people spiritual gifts, talents, houses, money. We have to be faithful with what we receive.

A rich man has to be faithful with his big income. If an executive makes 140 times what a laborer in his factory makes, and he takes his income and feeds the homeless on the street, supports missionaries, and lives simply himself, I don't see any reason that we should lower his wage.

If he takes his money and buys BMW's and puts trash in beggar bowls of blind beggars, he'll have to answer to God for that, and God does work right here in the earth when this type of stuff happens. But I don't see anything in the Bible which tells rulers to tax the rich to death to give the money to the poor in the name of a type of Robinhood 'social justice' philosophy.

On the level of personal morality, this is something most American Christians, including myself need to learn more about. This is a part of the synoptic gospels we quietly overlook so often.

Notice the extent of Job's righteous actions:

Job 31:16-22 16 If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; 17 Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; 18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;) 19 If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering; 20 If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; 21 If I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, when I saw my help in the gate: 22 Then let mine arm fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone.

Wow! Look at the extent of Job's goodness to the poor. This makes it sound like Job clothed every single poor person he could, and never let a poor man go cold. Job was a very rich man before he lost it. He was a good steward, too.

if you lived in Job's day, in Edom or wherever he lived, would you advocate taxing Job so that he would be 'middle class' and giving all his money to the poor? By the time Job's lambs were sold, went through administrative offices with a little corruption scraped off the top, there would be a lot of waste, and less money would have gone to the poor perhaps than if Job did it himself.

God will judge the rich who did not behave righteously toward the poor, who loved money and even oppressed the poor by cheating them. But there is still plenty of food and other resources in the world. God still manages to feed the poor without all the money being taken away from the rich.

I don't see a problem with some 'saftey net' for some situations. We can have some taxes for this. But I don't see any Biblical imperitive for taxing with the purpose of making the rich not rich so that the poor can be not poor. None of the taxes in teh OT, as far as I can see were just designed to knock the rich down to a lower economic standard.

There were special provisions in the OT for the poor, requiring them to give smaller offerings. But the taxes or tithes for landowners seem to ahve been on a percentage basis, and not designed in such a way that the wealthy had to give away 50% of their income each year.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Link, when you say:

But I don't see any Biblical imperitive for taxing with the purpose of making the rich not rich so that the poor can be not poor. None of the taxes in teh OT, as far as I can see were just designed to knock the rich down to a lower economic standard.

My question is:

Does the imperative have to be expressly Biblical? What about imperatives of conscience? What about a society determining that such 50% taxation is in the best interest of the whole?

Many rich people do wonderful things for the poor. I applaud that. But you are not dealing with my question about whether economics should govern ethics or ethics governing economics.

Have a wonderful day.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Good post Link!!!

CG,

Surely you really didn't mean it when you said, "What about imperatives of conscience? What about a society determining that such 50% taxation is in the best interest of the whole?"

Are talking about the society that says Homosexuality is a "lifestyle" instead of a sin?

Are you talking about the society that says Abortion is a "choice" instead of murder?

Are you talking about the society that has worked HARD to get God taken out of every public venue that they can?

So....."Does the imperative have to be strictly Biblical?"

ABSOLUTELY !! God makes much better imperatives than man could ever do.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Is this part of the hermeneutic that says if it is not expressly authorised in the Bible we cannot do it?

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Another thing...why doesn't it bother you guys that some people make oodles and others get dribbles. Like I said, the whole idea behind trickle-down economics is to make sure the folks at the bottom only get a trickle.

Bush, Reagan, Cheney, all want the poor to stay poor. I challenge anyone to produce evidence to the contrary.

Link said:

**"If a big company shuts down a plant, that may be a rotten thing to do, but it is not stealing according to the Law. **

Anon replied:

I must disagree with you there. The company executives tried to cut the worker's wages and benefits even when there was absolutely no reason to do so. In fact, it was done to increase the profits for the company executives, and for no other reason. When the worker's refused, they were willing to shut down a perfectly profitable facility rather than pay the workers a single cent more. I call it spitefulness of the highest order. What they tried to do to the workers was to cheat them out of their rightful share of their company's massive gains. I call it exploitation, I call it STEALING. Isn't that a very basic violation of the Law?

CG says: I agree with Anon. I find it funny that the stockmarket went up almost sixfold in ten years but the wealth never trickled down. If it really worked, realizing that Reagan left us with a minimum wage of under $4, then those same people would be making $15- 18 now. (If the investors increase their earnings sixfold, the laborers should too, or you cannot argue that it trickles down.) This argument alone is conclusive proof that supply side economics is unjust.

For the life of me I do not unerstand why intelligent people like Link and Mark and John and Danny let the Republicans dupe them the way they do.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

... the whole idea behind trickle-down economics is to make sure the folks at the bottom only get a trickle. This is a patently false misrepresentation of "trickle-down" economics. The whole idea behind trickle-down economics is that those who are on the top and making more money will be more inclined to increase the wages of those under them, and give more in charity to those who have not.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

CG,

Biblical imperatives come in more than 1 form.

Sure, there are "thus saith the Lord's"...such as "thou shalt not murder".

There are also "implied" imperatives. For instance, I believe that you consider Abortion as murder? If so, where does the Bible say "thou shalt not abort"? It doesn't, obviously. But the principle of the sanctity of life is a current theme thoughout the Scriptures, and is therefore obeyed by God fearing people.

However, there is no Biblical principle teaching that wealth is bad (difficult to deal with maybe....but not bad). Nor is there any Biblical principle teaching that the poor are inheritly good (in fact the opposite may be true........remember the 10 lepers that Jesus healed......only 1 was decent enough to thank him for the help).

Also nowhere in scripture is there even any suggestion that taxes are to be used to penalize any group of people.

Funny thing about the "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" passage....................the money was going to the gov't to support said gov't in its function to prevent chaos - not to go to the poor.

Yes, Believers need to be concerned about their brothers and do all they can to help....as a Biblical principle. But that is an imperative for the individual and Church body, not the gov't.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

CG wrote, >>reason. When the worker's refused, they were willing to shut down a > perfectly profitable facility rather than pay the workers a single cent > more. I call it spitefulness of the highest order. What they tried to do > to the workers was to cheat them out of their rightful share of their > company's massive gains. I call it exploitation, I call it > STEALING. Isn't that a very basic violation of the Law?

This is not 'stealing.' The owners of a company use their own money that they have rights over to open a plant. The plant is theirs. They own it. If they want to close the whole plant because they don't like the color of the paint, it is their legal right.

Now, considering the cirumcstances, the people who shut down the plant might have been violating the law 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' if the only reason they shut it down was out of spite.

But honestly, none of us know the reasons the plantshut down. Maybe the strike cause some internal company problems. maybe someone in management had a nervous breakdown. We don't know what happened.

If we look at the Law of Moses, there is no command that a man who does not love his neighbor as himself be stoned. Love is a heart issue. It comes out in actions. Lack of love also shows in actions. There were laws to punish these external actions. Murderers were to be executed according to the proper procedure. Theives were to be tried and had to pay back more than what they stole. People who did wicked things could be beaten.

A law that demands that a factory stay open is not beneficial to society. This type of law can force the factory owner who is losing his money to keep his factory open. A factory owner _owns_ the factory. A factory owner should not be _forced_ to keep someone in his employ unless there is some agreed upon contract. If the owner does not make an agreement to keep employees, we shouldn't try to force him to keep his employees in the name of so-called 'social justice.'

Firing employees or 'letting them go' is not a sin in and of itself. If someone does this out of hatred or spite, that can be a sin. But some people let employees go because they are not hard-working or because of financial problems.

If our laws force factory owners to keep jobs open, then we will penalize the fair factory owners who face financial problems or who want to take their companies in a different direction. It is better to let the owners who fire employees for bad reasons have the right to do so, and let God judge them. God takes care of the people on the earth, and people who are let go out of factories usually find a way to get by and feed their kids until they find something. God feeds the poor. God feeds the sparrows. Our laws should not be motivated by an excessive fear of poverty.

As Christians, we should pay attention to feeding the poor and taking care of people who are disadvantaged, especially other Christians. The early chruch had all things in common, maybe because they kept hearing the teachings of Christ from the apostle's int he temple. The synoptic Gospels contain a lot about giving and not being servants of money, and the early Christians probably heard these teachings repeatedly in the temple back before they were written down in the Gospels. I can see why they would have all things in common. I can respect those who live in Christian communes because they want to live like this.

A good witness for a Christian concerned about social justice is that if he takes care of his own family, his extended family, his fellow Christians, and unbelievers who have financial need. that is a great witness, adnit is a very practical way to help provide for the poor.

A BAD witness, imo, is to form a big political society made up of Christians who want to use the government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Since unbelievers don't usually believe Romans 13, they might consider your plans to be to use the government to STEAL from the rich so that all the money can go through all the various expenses of government administration so that some of it can be given to the poor.

Individuals can give to the poor with less overhead. Churches can work together to give to the poor without losing money to government beauracrasy. The Bible contains information about individuals and the church giving to the poor. If you are concerned abotu social justice and providing for the poor, instead of trying to help them by giving the covernment responsibility to care for the poor through socialism, why not just teachign Christians to take care of one another and the rest of society. That is a good witness. Many Christians need to hear teaching on giving to the poor. If a body of beleivers considers it a chruch responsibility to help those who get fired to get by and get back on their feet, this is a great opportunity to show love and a great witness to unbelievers.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

***"If you are concerned abotu social justice and providing for the poor, instead of trying to help them by giving the covernment responsibility to care for the poor through socialism, why not just teachign Christians to take care of one another and the rest of society. That is a good witness."***

Sounds like a good idea, BUT, what do you do about those who hear the teaching, yet refuse to listen? Sorry bud, but the Exploiters have already heard this message, they even pay lip service to it, yet they continue with their destructive practices. Sorry, but teaching has no effect on those who refuse to learn.

***"If a body of beleivers considers it a chruch responsibility to help those who get fired to get by and get back on their feet, this is a great opportunity to show love and a great witness to unbelievers."***

Already being done, and it will soften the impact. But I doubt that it is going to stop Quebecor (and companies like it) from continuing to engage in their harmful, hateful business practices. Many of the people in charge of companies like that don't give a rat's ass about Love (unless there is a Dollar to be made from it), they're just interested in the Bottom Line.

***"God feeds the poor. God feeds the sparrows."***

Seems God is not doing a very good job of doing this. Read and watch the news. Look around you. The poor can and do starve, and so do sparrows.

***"But some people let employees go because they are not hard- working or because of financial problems."***

I can understand people doing that under those conditions, I know I would. The thing is, with Quebecor, things could be not be any further from being the case. The company was making RECORD PROFITS, and the workers have been doing their jobs, taking it on the chin in order to prevent strikes.

***"If the owner does not make an agreement to keep employees, we shouldn't try to force him to keep his employees in the name of so- called 'social justice.'"***

I don't call being forced to take pay cuts or giving up one's job in order to pay for 70% pay raises for the executives 'social justice'. Most likely, they'll just open up another plant elsewhere and then hire only non-union workers, who are FAR less capable of negotiating fair terms for themselves with their employers.

Link, have you ever worked for someone else? How would you like it if your Boss called you in and told you to either take a pay cut or be fired, without any good reason whatsoever? Would you be so sympathetic to your Boss then?

***"This type of law can force the factory owner who is losing his money to keep his factory open."***

Well, the law can be adjusted for situations such as this. Letting workers go in order to stave off bankruptcy is an entirely different kettle of fish from letting workers go in order to pay for a 70% pay raise for oneself.

***"The owners of a company use their own money that they have rights over to open a plant. The plant is theirs. They own it. If they want to close the whole plant because they don't like the color of the paint, it is their legal right."***

True, up to a point. But when what they choose to do with it starts to affect the welfare of others, it gets more complicated. If you own a handgun (doubtful, but for the sake of arguement), that handgun is yours, you can fire it when you please, but what if a stray bullet strikes and kills someone? Just then, by exercising the right to fire your gun, you just denied someone's right to live. Likewise with company owners, when they exercised their right to close the plant down, they adversely affected the livelihoods of their workers and negatively impacted the welfare of entire communities.

***"We don't know what happened"***

No, but *I* have a pretty good idea. I'll probably won't show it all because it's a royal pain in the arse to do so, it has been well- documented in the area newspapers.

***"Maybe the strike cause some internal company problems"***

There was no strike. I repeat, THERE WAS NO STRIKE. When contract talks came around, the company simply said "Take this, or we'll shut down".

They didn't say that because of financial problems, they said it with the implication of "We don't need you. You're expendable. You do as we say or your job is history."

***"God takes care of the people on the earth, and people who are let go out of factories usually find a way to get by and feed their kids until they find something."***

It's true so far in the US, but what if the situation changes? God didn't seem to care for the millions who starved in the African Famines. BTW, from what I could tell, these people COULD HAVE FED THEMSELVES if they were not forced from their lands and their farms.

Actually, the truth is that God DOES provide, but all too often, greedy individuals deny others access to those provisions.

***"The whole idea behind trickle-down economics is that those who are on the top and making more money will be more inclined to increase the wages of those under them, and give more in charity to those who have not."***

That idea works in theory, but not in practice. If that was true, the worker's wages should've swelled hugely over the past 10 years, during the stock market's unprecedented boom. The truth is, THEY HAVE NOT. The only ones to benefit from the boom were the investors and company executives. Laisezze-faire (sp?) - trickle down economic policies were encouraged back in the 1920's by the Republican admistrations such as Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I'm almost sure that those policies eventually led to the Great Depression of the 1930's. They didn't work then. Is there any reason why they should work now?

***"But that is an imperative for the individual and Church body, not the gov't."***

I always thought that the Gov't was supposed to serve an extension of the will of the people (it certainly seems implied in the Constitution) as well as to protect the people. If that is not it's purpose, then why the hell do we have it at all? Social Security and programs like it were devised because the people who were capable of giving enough to make a difference were not doing so. The very existence of the need for programs like Medicare, Social Security, and other forms of Welfare just shows to display of the corruption of our society. If the Haves were not so d*** greedy and stingy, there would be NO NEED for programs such as these.

***"But the taxes or tithes for landowners seem to ahve been on a percentage basis, and not designed in such a way that the wealthy had to give away 50% of their income each year."***

Where did you get that idea from? The wealthy are not giving away half their income to the government. Maybe half of their TAXABLE income, but in most cases, the vast majority of their wealth is stowed away in shelters and loopholes where Uncle Sam cannot lay finger on it. That what they hire accountants for. A flat tax could work, but only if there were no loopholes and escape hatches for the wilely to exploit.

Ideally, there should be a system that encourages Free Enterprise, yet at the same times, curbs its excesses. Republican policies appears to advccate the idea of an economic "Law of the Jungle", where anything goes. In such a system, people with conscience and morals are automatically placed at a disadvantage, simply because said conscience and morals put restrictions on their own actions while the immoral and unjust folks are free to do as they please.

Boundaries are neccessary in order to keep people from harming other, and themselves. God created the Ten Commandments with that purpose in mind. Too many boundaries are oppressive and can cause needless hardship, on the other hand, no boundaries at all automatically favor the Strong and the Ruthless. For example, no one would want to be arrested for something as trivial as chewing gum at the wrong time of day, or painting one's house the wrong color (unless there is a VERY good reason not to do either). On the other hand, imagine living in a community with no laws whatsoever, one in which thieves, rapists and murderers are allowed to roam freely and with impunity!

Should there not be bounds to Economic behavior, as well as Social? A system in which smaller businesses and laborers can operate within and benefit from while keeping the Big Boys from running roughshod over everyone?

In a sin-filled world such as this, anarchy (economic or social) only offers a brief illusion of freedom. All too often, it degenerates into Tyranny by the Strong.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Anon

I wish you would disclose your identity. We all know that John Wilson is Batman! :)

But I say a hearty AMEN to everything you have said.

Link when you say:

***"The whole idea behind trickle-down economics is that those who are on the top and making more money will be more inclined to increase the wages of those under them, and give more in charity to those who have not."***

WRONG--That is not true. Those who advocate trickle down economics want people to THINK that is the idea, but the real idea is to keep themselves rich and the poor poor. In reality those who espouse trickle down economics do not give a D--- about the poor. Let's call a spade a spade. The fact is that "those who are on the top and making more money" are not every inclined to increase wages unless they have to for competitive reasons because when they increase wages they make less money.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Link

I am sorry, you did not say what I quoted you as saying. Batman himself did. I apologize and did not mean to offend.

But the point I was making is still absolutely correct.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

CG wrote:

Those who advocate trickle down economics want people to THINK that is the idea, but the real idea is to keep themselves rich and the poor poor. In reality those who espouse trickle down economics do not give a D--- about the poor.

I was merely quoting what trickle-down economists themselves have said. This is an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack against them. Who are you to say what their "real intentions" were? Are you God, knowing the hearts of men?

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Danny;

I ... am ... BATMAN!

;-)

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

John wrote:

I was merely quoting what trickle-down economists themselves have said. This is an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack against them. Who are you to say what their "real intentions" were? Are you God, knowing the hearts of men? -----------

No, but Jesus said we shall know them by their fruits, and without variation what I wrote is what happens when supply-side or trickle down economics is implemented, and history has demonstrated this. ERGO, knowing what the result will be, it is a fair charge to say this is their intent.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Danny;

Oops, my bad! I was responding to CG. :)

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

What's this world coming to when even the BAT can make a boo-boo!

:~)

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Ok......

Test your Political Taxing views against this litmus test and see where you end up:

SOCIALISM       You have two cows.   You keep one and       give one to your neighbor...

COMMUNISM       You have two cows.   The government       takes them both and provides you with milk.

FASCISM       You have two cows.   The government takes       them and sells you the milk.

BUREAUCRACY       You have two cows.   The government takes       them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays       you for the milk, and then pours it down the       drain.

CAPITALISM       You have two cows.   You sell one and buy a       bull.

CORPORATE       You have two cows.   You sell one, force the       other to produce the milk of four cows, and       then acts surprised when it drops dead....

DEMOCRACY       You have two cows.   The government taxes       you to the point that you must sell them both       in order to support a man in a foreign country       that has only one cow which was a gift from       your government.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Repost to comment:

***"The whole idea behind trickle-down economics is that those who are on the top and making more money will be more inclined to increase the wages of those under them, and give more in charity to those who have not."***

The fallacy in this thinking is that charitable giving and investment are both tax-deductable. The 70% marginal rate was intended to be an incentive to giving and investment, because it meant more tax write- offs. What Reagan did was take away that incentive and in the end people consumed more and gave less.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001