Politics - why all the corruption?

[karl]

It is astounding to me that Christians -especially Adventist Christians - can believe in the goodness of government by men. The faith I've seen expressed in government here on this thread is nothing short of remarkable. You would think these elected people were gods on earth. Benevolent angels of mercy with Nirvana in their back pockets to dispense to the unwashed masses. Gonna save us all. NOT.

I think our founders had it right. They were suspicious of even the most well-intentioned elected officials. Their attitude was "chain them down with the constitution." They knew that their lives and property were at risk when these men were passing legislation and spending money. These days our government seems to have lost the connection between earning money and spending it. A billion dollars spent - if you earned $50 per hour and never spent a dime - it would take you 1200 years to pay that debt. If you figure the average worker at about a 30yr work span, that is forty (40) $83,000 per year lifetimes totally wasted. Imagine all your acquaintances working their entire lives for some slimeball politician's porkbarrel spending.

Incidentally, there is virtually nothing government can do that cannot be done more efficiently and economically by private individuals and organizations. Government is helpful for planning, but executing is best left to private hands.

[Gerr]

Gov'ts are divinely appointed institutions. I am even more astounded about the remarks made by Christians about the poor.

I am less suspicious of gov't than I am of industry and Wall st. robber barons. There is little or nothing private citizens can do about what industry and wall st. robber barons do, whereas voters can at least kick out gov't officials that they finally get fed up with.

You still have not addressed the issues I brought up - civil rights, transportation, national security, regulation for minimum standards for many professions, who will take care of the truly unfortunate poor? Did you hear about the despicable remarks made by that filthy rich Russ Limbaugh about giving aid to the earthquake victims in Haiti?

[Dr. Shane]

I heard Rush say to give money through a church or private charity and not through the government. Was there something else he said?

[Neil D]

Both are heartless and unprincipled. Government doesn't care about you as an individual. Corporations don't care about you as an individual. BUT, corporations want to sell you something and therefore they are into win-win situations. "You get the product you want if we get the cash we want." Government doesn't have to turn a profit and therefore can force you into a corner with "we win, you lose." Government can take your money and give you absolutely nothing in return.

Would you rather have "heartless and unprincipled" associated with the freedom to choose, or without it?

Those are the choices.

[Guest]

Yeah ok.

[Guest]

It is astounding to me that Christians -especially Adventist Christians - can believe in the goodness of government by men. The faith I've seen expressed in government here on this thread is nothing short of remarkable. You would think these elected people were gods on earth. Benevolent angels of mercy with Nirvana in their back pockets to dispense to the unwashed masses. Gonna save us all. NOT.

I think our founders had it right. They were suspicious of even the most well-intentioned elected officials. Their attitude was "chain them down with the constitution." They knew that their lives and property were at risk when these men were passing legislation and spending money. These days our government seems to have lost the connection between earning money and spending it. A billion dollars spent - if you earned $50 per hour and never spent a dime - it would take you 1200 years to pay that debt. If you figure the average worker at about a 30yr work span, that is forty (40) $83,000 per year lifetimes totally wasted. Imagine all your acquaintances working their entire lives for some slimeball politician's porkbarrel spending.

Incidentally, there is virtually nothing government can do that cannot be done more efficiently and economically by private individuals and organizations. Government is helpful for planning, but executing is best left to private hands.

Amen karl. As usual you hit the nail right on the head.

[karl]

We now have a government which is trying to limit the influence of Christianity; this is because Christianity condemns the current "morality" in government.

One thing that must be understood very clearly, true Christianity brings freedom. The United States and its Declaration and Constitution were the ultimate result of the Reformation. As Christianity grows and as its principles are followed, freedom is the natural result. Satan is doing everything he can to limit Christianity's influence in order to carry forward his agenda of enslavement. As I observe the current direction of the government, I see a rebellion against the principles of God, and the result will be subjugation to the central government with the government determining the rights of the individual. The rights will no longer be guaranteed as given by God, rather, sinful man will determine the rights as he perceives them.

Right on the mark, Searcher.

And remember, if we percieve our rights as granted by government, those "rights" are received at the whim of bureaucrats. If we percieve our rights as inalienably granted by God, we will hold the government to the protection of those rights.

The first and foremost of rights is to be secure in our persons and our property. Folks, we are NOT secure in our property and we will soon not be secure in our persons unless WE THE PEOPLE take seriously our DUTY to elect representatives that are truly CONSERVATIVE.

Liberal politicians in both the Republican and the Democratic parties have so changed our lives that we no longer own our property - we just rent it from the government. IF we don't pay our rent (taxes, regulatory fees, etc) our property will be forfeited to the "benevolent dictators" who believe we need them to save us from ourselves.

Wake up, folks, before it is too late. The fact that some socialist countries have not yet collapsed and returned to capitalism is no recommendation for us to procede farther down the slippery slope of adopting socialist principles of government.

Socialism is based on the abrogation of our right to be secure in our persons and in our property. Is that really what you want? Do you believe the tripe peddled by politicians that you are incapable of managing your own affairs?

[Gerr]

I heard Rush say to give money through a church or private charity and not through the government. Was there something else he said?

What I heard was that he wasn't going to give any because the US gov't was already giving millions to Haiti and he already pays taxes.

[karl]

Who told you that corporations want the "win-win"scenerio? When PG&E pumped toxins into the water table and poisoning the residents of the area, who decided that PG&E was in the wrong? Goverment. Who passed laws so that it was illegal to prevent poisoning the water table that local inhabitants drank? Goverment...

So, when you got big robber Barrons stepping on to the little guy, who's gonna protect the little guy? Goverment is all you got, baby...

[Gerr]

Quote:

The first and foremost of rights is to be secure in our persons and our property.

Who secured the rights of Blacks to vote and made their property safe? Who gave ALL races the right to marry whomever they wished?

Quote:

Socialism is based on the abrogation of our right to be secure in our persons and in our property. Is that really what you want? Do you believe the tripe peddled by politicians that you are incapable of managing your own affairs?

Many countries of the world have recognized that both the extreme forms of socialism and capitalism are toxic, and so they have adopted what they deem to be the best principles in both. Most of the countries of Western Europe use varying degrees of this combination. There is not a country in Western Europe that I know of that does not allow private ownership of property. With the possible exception of N. Korea and Cuba, all the former communist states have/are adopting some of the principles of capitalism.

Yes, there are certain affairs that I can't manage myself and best done by the gov't. Since you either ignored them or did not see them, allow me to reiterate.

1. Protection of my civil rights from bigots and zealots.

2. My security from crazy people like the KKK, terrorist zealots like Bin Laden, countries ruled by the likes of Hitler & Stalin. I can't build my own submarine or aircraft carrier.

3. I can't build roads and bridges so I can travel better.

4. I don't have the power to protect myself from all the poisons that industry release into the air I breathe, the water I drink, the food I eat, the medications I take, etc. etc.

5. No way I can manage my finances with the greed of Wall St. without some protection from the gov't.

6. Without gov't, the insurance companies would swallow me alive.

7. Without gov't regulation, I would have no guarantee that the house built for me is safe, ditto the cars I buy, or any equipment for that matter.

If you think you can manage all these and more without gov't involvement, let's hear it

You are also raising a strawman. NOBODY in the USA that I know of is advocating total socialism, whereas there are those that would like to see unbridled capitalism.

[Woody]

I heard Rush say to give money through a church or private charity and not through the government. Was there something else he said?

I would trust what Rush has to say. He is a very loving, wise and generous man.

[karl]

The first and foremost of rights is to be secure in our persons and our property.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I heard Rush say to give money through a church or private charity and not through the government. Was there something else he said?

What I heard was that he wasn't going to give any because the US gov't was already giving millions to Haiti and he already pays taxes.

What I heard him say was that President Obama set up some government organization that people could send donations to. I do not know if that is true. I haven't seen that reported in other news outlets. Rush then went on to say he wouldn't send money to the government for Haiti because he already pays taxes. However he is contributing to private charities and encourages others to send their contributions through private charities and not the government.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

What I heard was that he wasn't going to give any because the US gov't was already giving millions to Haiti and he already pays taxes.

What I heard him say was that President Obama set up some government organization that people could send donations to. I do not know if that is true. I haven't seen that reported in other news outlets. Rush then went on to say he wouldn't send money to the government for Haiti because he already pays taxes. However he is contributing to private charities and encourages others to send their contributions through private charities and not the government.

Thank you, Shane. It is helpful when you report what actually happened. This helps to counteract the deliberate smears of conservatives. Not that Rush hasn't made himself a target. But it's nice to give him what he deserves rather than what he doesn't.

It is in keeping with Rush's conservative emphasis on smaller government for him not to run charity through the thieves in Washington DC. Private organizations are much more efficient at helping in any disaster. Smaller is generally better. Lean.

[The Searcher]

Dear Friends,

Governments are established by God, but never to exceed their authority or to countermand his commands. God will hold every government responsible for all the evil which comes from exceeding their authority and for not securing the rights of the people. I do not fear wall street nor the big corporations. They do not make the moral laws or have the capacity to change the moral landscape. They are limited by the very commerce which they work within; and they are held responsible by God and by the boards and owners which head them. Government does have the capacity, and who oversees and regulates it. You fear that which does not have the power as does the government to affect the moral climate in which we must live. Will it be wall street and big corporations who will bring on Sunday laws? No! It will be government which brings about these changes putting its people under a threat of arrest and/or death.

As a Christian, there is only one government I do not fear: God's government. All others are headed by sinners. Sinners have a problem with power; it corrupts them. And sinners are enslaved to sin.

The real cure for our government is term-limits so that men cannot be kept in a place where power can have its sway. Then the men and women who pass the laws will also have to live under the same laws they pass.

As for those who do not have family and have need; that is part of the work of the Church. God has commanded us to take care of the orphan, the poor, the sick, the afflicted. As Christ declares to the sheep and the goats, "In as much as you have done it unto the least of these, my brothers, you have done it unto me." What have you done to help those in need in your community? Have you visited anyone in prison? Have helped the widows and orphans including those within your local church? Government was never designed to take your place. The command is to you not to government. What have you done to meet the clarion call by Christ for those in need within your ability to help? Or do government social programs release you from your responsibility. The government should never be the safety net; you are their safety net. In the judgment day will you say to God, The government took care of the needs of the poor, the afflicted, the widow, and the orphan.

For instance in Seattle, there is a church pastored by an ex-football great from the Dallas Cowboys. They run an adoption agency from the church with very little or no cost for those who want to adopt. They teach people how to be adoptive parents, supply what courses are needed in order to be adoptive parents, etc. Have you done that in your church? I know of a church where the men in the church help the widows and divorced with help around the house such as changing oil in the car, providing plumbing and repair, etc. Have you done anything similar? How about taking care of the children so that single-parents can go to work without paying the costs of daycare and still know their children are safe. There is so much we could do, if we just let God lead us. And there is one thing we can offer which government can never give: Compassion. God delights in compassion.

So don't tell me that there isn't resources to handle these cases; God commands us to be the safety net.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[Gerr]

Quote:

You are also raising a strawman. NOBODY in the USA that I know of is advocating total socialism, whereas there are those that would like to see unbridled capitalism.

We'll take your objections one at a time. You maintain that socialism is good when not allowed to proceed past a certain point. Which point would you like, Gerry? Jefferson told us rightly that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. I believe we are way past the "maximum socialism tolerable" point in the US. And once you elect a liberal (socialist) to power you are at his mercy until you can get rid of him. Best not to elect him at all.

1.) Protection of our civil rights is a legitimate function of a constitutional republic form of government.

2.) Ditto #1

3.) Planning of interstate roads and rights-of-way is the legitimate function of a constitutional republic form of government.

Aha! So there are legitimate reasons for having gov'ts! The only difference we have then is the EXTENT/BOUNDARIES of its sphere of function.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution lists six functions of government:

1. To form a more perfect Union

2. To establish justice

3. To insure domestic tranquility

4. To provide for the common defense

5. To promote the general welfare

6. To secure the blessings of liberty

Do you have any objections to any of these? If you compare the list of legitimate areas in which I think gov'ts should function with the above six, I believe you will see that none of them fall outside these six.

Quote:

4.) Here you raise an emotionally charged political football under which globalists plan to enslave the entire planet.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Another conspiracy?

Quote:

You have far more power, Gerry, to protect yourself from pollution than you are admitting here. When pollution is affecting the persons and property of others it is a legitimate function of a constitutional republic form of government to protect those persons and property. But it must be proven that there is actual damage to others, it cannot be just some kind of mindless fear such as Gorebal warming.

And by the time the evidence becomes incontrovertible to convince even the most vehement skeptic like the rain falling in Noah's day, it will be TOO LATE!!!

5.) Do you think it is a proper Christian aspiration to strive for a government which will help you get your hand in someone else's wallet once you discover you are unable to manage your own?

I have no desire to put my hand in your pocket nor yours in mine. However, as I have stated before, there are way too many people who, for many and various reasons, cannot take care or provide enough for themselves. If the gov't waits for corporations and Christians to do all that, it will not happen. That's an indictment against the capitalist Christians.

Quote:

6.) The insurance companies are being limited by government from giving you better alternatives.

Do you REALLY believe that? Even with the regulations already in place, how many insurance companies really do what they promise to do without gov't intervention?

Quote:

The socialism we currently have in our government provides a fertile field for favoritism.

And favoritism is an exclusive patent of socialism?

Quote:

Government often passes laws which benefit insurance companies and shields them from competition. The ONLY thing that brings Americans good prices (which we still have in many aspects of our lives) is competition. I was just in Europe, where they have much more socialism than we do here. Everything is just about twice as expensive there as it is here.

If you are poor and without insurance, try getting a CABG here. There are Americans retiring in France - yes, France!, Austria, & Italy, because their health care is much more affordable.

Quote:

7.) With or without government you have only the guarantee of the manufacturers that the products you buy are safe.

With gov't regulations, at least I can be relatively certain that what I buy meets certain minimum standards. When there are no standards, you get all kinds of junk and even dangerous products. Tainted milk and toxic building materials from China. Would you like drugs from China that do not pass US regulations also?

Quote:

Do you really think it is in a manufacturer's best interest to sell you an unsafe product? Really, Gerry, do you?

How did Detroit lose out to the Japanese auto industry? By making good dependable automobiles?

Quote:

You act like you are the perpetual victim of the business world. The business world WANTS to sell you reliable and safe products. It cannot do well unless its customers are happy with their products. There is no businees trying to foist bad products upon you unless it is a government protected business. Socialism can create this type of thing. Free market won't.

Business in general is in the business of making money. If they make you happy in the process, so much the better.

NOTE AGAIN - I AM NOT FOR TOTAL SOCIALISM. BUT NEITHER AM I FOR A TOTALLY UNREGULATED FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

Extremism whether on the right or on the left will both do us all in!

[Gerr]

Quote:

So don't tell me that there isn't resources to handle these cases; God commands us to be the safety net.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

There are not enough truly born again Christians to be the world's safety net.

[karl]

Quote:

So don't tell me that there isn't resources to handle these cases; God commands us to be the safety net.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

There are not enough truly born again Christians to be the world's safety net.

Your assertion above is a blatantly unsupportable opinion. How, exactly, would you even begin to substantiate it?

But that is not the question. The question is one of principle, not of whether there are enough Christians to solve all the world's problems.

You seem to be saying that if other countries have higher levels of socialsim (and thus have citizens who are less secure in their persons and in their property,) it is evil for people in the USA to resist the encroachments of socialism. I gotta tell you that your argument does not compute. It is like saying that because there are abject criminals, it is wrong for non-criminals to strive for higher moral standards.

Gerry, I don't know whether it is intentional, but your posts seem to be accusing conservatives of greediness for being opposed to the principles of socialism. Conservatives are not greedy. Conservatives are more liberal than liberals when it comes to charity. This is such a telling fact, let me urge you to seriously reconsider your position.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

In other words, the definition still holds true that liberals, in general, are people with the burning desire to solve some perceived societal ill.... with somebody else's money.

[Gerr]

Quote:

There are not enough truly born again Christians to be the world's safety net.

Your assertion above is a blatantly unsupportable opinion. How, exactly, would you even begin to substantiate it?

If there were, there wouldn't be so many unmet needs.

Quote:

You seem to be saying that if other countries have higher levels of socialsim (and thus have citizens who are less secure in their persons and in their property,)

Your strawman is showing again, Are people's properties in /Sweden, France, Italy, or Germany any less secure than in the USA?

Quote:

Gerry, I don't know whether it is intentional, but your posts seem to be accusing conservatives of greediness for being opposed to the principles of socialism. Conservatives are not greedy. Conservatives are more liberal than liberals when it comes to charity. This is such a telling fact, let me urge you to seriously reconsider your position.

Why don't you read my original post in this thread where I stated that the common chain that binds the right and left, and yes, even the moderates is greed?

Quote:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

In other words, the definition still holds true that liberals, in general, are people with the burning desire to solve some perceived societal ill.... with somebody else's money.

By your giving criterion I must be in the conservative camp! And, yes, until the last two years I had been a life-long Republican, a non-white Republican, no less. In 1995 they gained control of both houses in Congress. What did they do with that power? Scandals. Abuse of power. I became disillusioned. No matter who controlled Congress or the presidency, the US debt grew and grew, and grew. The conservatives talked about a good fiscal responsibility game, but it took a Democratic president to actually balance the budget and come up with a surplus. A Republican president goes to the white house and promptly gets the country back on the road to fiscal oblivion!

I am now a registered independent. I was so disillusioned I have not voted in the last two Nov elections.

[Woody]

Well ... This current president has done five times more damage than all the other presidents combined since you abandoned the Grand old Party.

[karl]

And, yes, until the last two years I had been a life-long Republican, a non-white Republican, no less. In 1995 they gained control of both houses in Congress. What did they do with that power? Scandals. Abuse of power. I became disillusioned. No matter who controlled Congress or the presidency, the US debt grew and grew, and grew. The conservatives talked about a good fiscal responsibility game, but it took a Democratic president to actually balance the budget and come up with a surplus. A Republican president goes to the white house and promptly gets the country back on the road to fiscal oblivion!

I am now a registered independent. I was so disillusioned I have not voted in the last two Nov elections.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. When Newt Gingrich sends me anything, I just fire back an email and tell him he has no resonance with conservatives after he completely blew the "conservative revolution" (he basically became a liberal.)

I, too, am independent, and it is the independents that are the impetus of the conservative movement today (not the republicans.)

[karl]

This letter below is kinda fun...

Dear Sirs,

I'm in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this. How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a cable t.v. item from them back in 1987, and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what

date.

For heaven's sakes, do you guys do this by hand? My birth date you have on my social security card, and it is on all the income tax forms I've filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver's license, on the last eight passports I've had (did you issue them?), on all those stupid customs declaration forms I've had to fill out before being allowed off the plane over the last 30 years, and those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother's name is Maryanne, my father's name is Robert and I'd be absolutely astounded if that changed between now and when I

die!!!!!!

I apologize, I'm really upset this morning. Between you an' me, I've had enough of this! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my address!

What is going on? Do you have a gang of Neanderthals working there! Why does that not surprise me?

Look at my picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don't want to dig up Yasser Arafat, I just want to go and park my hind end on a sandy beach.

Well, I have to go now, cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another copy of

my birth certificate, to the tune of $60. Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day?? Nooooo, that'd be too easy and maybe even make sense. You'd rather have us running all over the place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some idiot to confirm that it's really me on the picture - you know,the one where we're not allowed to smile?! Hey, you know why we can't smile? We're having to deal with your incompetence,

Signed - An Irate Citizen.

P.S..

Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it's me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776 ........ I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the yingyang..........However, I have to get someone 'important' to verify who I am - you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN INDIA !

Sincerely,

You Should Know Who I Am.

P.S.S. And you want to run our health care?!? Get real.

[Gerr]

That's funny!

I got a letter from the Nat'l Republican Committee with Newt's signature and endorsement. I wrote to him and told

him how he and his ilk have destroyed my faith in Washington.

If not for my faith in God, I'd be very depressed at the direction the country is going. No, I'm not blaming Obama.

Both parties have done a good job of destroying this great country.

[karl]

That's funny!

I got a letter from the Nat'l Republican Committee with Newt's signature and endorsement. I wrote to him and told

him how he and his ilk have destroyed my faith in Washington.

If not for my faith in God, I'd be very depressed at the direction the country is going. No, I'm not blaming Obama.

Both parties have done a good job of destroying this great country.

Agreed.

[phkrause]

That's funny!

I got a letter from the Nat'l Republican Committee with Newt's signature and endorsement. I wrote to him and told

him how he and his ilk have destroyed my faith in Washington.

If not for my faith in God, I'd be very depressed at the direction the country is going. No, I'm not blaming Obama.

Both parties have done a good job of destroying this great country.

Great post Gerry.

pk