Neil D Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 David, why is it that anything that leans towards socialism, you are in favor of and I am opposed to? Because you run a business and all the profits go to you.....and you like that....and it makes you feel sucessful.... and any money that you are required to give up, you want something in return, and when you don't get it, you feel used. ...hey, you asked. Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 PS Flat tax must be the most fair because God instituted the same method in the support of His work. That's because God's method is based on our "increase." That's not how the flat tax works. It is pretty much based on wages, which rich people don't have a lot of. We should be focusing on making sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes instead of worrying about collecting from the poor people. Really, how much money are we going to get from poor people? It's just craziness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted February 22, 2009 Members Share Posted February 22, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen if we instituted the system that God had given to the Israelites. I'm talking about everything, not just monetary. I understand that a few years ago Israel was having a problem with growing things, so they went to the sabbatical system for growing there crops. In a rotating system. I understand that its been working very well. There's to much greed I think to do this monatarily in the world. pk Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I don't think tax is the answer. Today's problems have little to do with taxation. Although, taxation surely does not help... the debt and the financial "solidity" of the virtual currencies and virtual commodities are more of a problem than taxes. It amazes me that people think that there's easy way out of all of this. They think that we will not have to go through things people go through when they loose their assets and have to start over. As a nation, we are indebted by trillions of dollars... not that someone has to pay this debt off, because I doubt it will be paid off. The sad truth is that we now entering the stage of shuffling credit cards to get by. This is true for our financial system, for our governmental finances on both state and federal level, and in lives of citizens who are "asset owners". The Keynsian economics that we followed refused to look what happens in the long run. When this question was asked of Keyenes, he "reassured" us that "in the long run we are all dead". Now, when the exponential nature of the economy begins clashing with the natural limits of this world... people are scared. The truth is that growth is not always a good thing. I like to make allusions to cancer when I talked about the US economy of 80s-today. Instead of looking for efficiency... the excess becomes the way of life. We need to shop to keep things moving, not because we need it, but because it somehow turned into our patriotic duty "to go shopping" in Bush's words. Economy tends to equalize itself. The "stimuli" that we are pumping into it right now is an attempt to keep the things going, when the previous economic model of expansion via borrowing and spending failed miserably. We've hit all the limits we could in attempt to "grow". So here are solutions. And it's nothing that I just invented. These has been practiced successfully for centuries until now. 1) We need to re-think how we view ourselves in our current economic views. We need to ask... why do we need constant growth, and what are the implication and limits of such growth... i.e. environmental limit, financial limits, physical limits. What are the costs of our "prosperity" to the world around us, and to the future generations? 2) There is no way of stopping the natural equalization of the economy. If you connect two buckets with a tube and pour water into one, the water will be of equal amounts in both, unless you interfere with the laws of nature. US has been meddling with the laws of economy for a while, but now the pressure is so strong in the bucket, that balance will occur faster. We should stop meddling and keep up raising the pressure. We should let it go. Let people who make bad decisions fail, and let the new and solid entrepreneurs to take over. Sure, it will mean hardships, but there's no free lunch. 3) Go back to fundamentals of saving, and living within our means. That may be buying a used car, or buying a smaller house to begin with... but it will be real economy, and not the one spurred to growth by means of Fractional Reserve banking. 4) We need to once again teach the new generation about fundamentals of classic economic thought. You have to have prosperous individuals to make up prosperous countries. "Ask what you can do for your country" is a plagiarized Leninism recitation. We need to get back to building strong individuals and communities... and not weaken these communities by making them dependent on debt and cheap foreign imports. 5) And lastly, and most importantly, the Fractional Reserve banking will have to go. This is the system that ensures inflation. Inflation is inevitable with such system, therefore people have to risk their assets just to keep what they earn and avoid of loosing it through inflation. We need to go back to honest banking, where only money locked up in CDs (inaccessible to the depositors) should be loaned for use. This ensures REAL economic growth, and more careful oversight by those who would sustain potential losses by irresponsible borrowing/lending. I'm fairly pessimistic that above will be implemented for a positive change. Today, were people can not spend anymore, the government sees it being its responsibility to step in and spend on behalf of people. And it's ludicrous, and idiotic thing to do. The idiocy of this concept is unimaginable. You absolutely can not cure the problem with more problem. So, I don't see a good future for the US, and I've been saying it since my Econ college classes, when I was seen as a "class clown". Confidence in system will not solve current problem. We are hitting the NATURAL LIMITS, in an UNLIMITED Keynesian economic model. Future generations will suffer for it immensely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 pk - yes, and part of God's system was the Jubilee year: every 50 years all debts were cancelled and all land was returned to its original owners. An awesome system, but I think Australia and America would both be in big trouble under such a system! olger - I'm in favour of caring for the poor, sick and disabled in our society, and believe God is too. I like you a lot, but if you find yourself in the position of continually opposing moves to do that, maybe it's you who needs a rethink... Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Ultra-conservatives normally believe in helping the poor, they simply think it is a task for churches and individuals and not the government. I believe the government should play a role however do not tie it to religion. Jesus did not tell Rome that they should provide public housing or food stamps but He did tell the church to help the poor. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Shane, As soon as the gov't began providing welfare services for its citizens, churches and other orgs started reducing their role in helping. As a result, communities lost their personal stake in the well-being of their neighbors ('just let the gov't do it') and personal responsibilities of the recipient eroded (they no longer have local faces to be accountable to). Churches also added a moral condition to their assistance.. not encouraging nor rewarding single motherhood being a great example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 'the deserving poor' - not a Biblical concept Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Bravus, I'm not familiar with that term. Define, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Pretty much it means we help poor people whom we feel deserve to be helped. That's really not a biblical concept. On the other hand, sometimes it's a fine line between helping and enabling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I read more about the widows and fatherless than the generic 'poor' in the Bible. A widow is a no-longer married lady who lost her hubby who died. It is not a single mom that slept with different guys to make 3-6 kids. It is not a divorcee. You see, as long as a guy is alive, he's responsible for the care of his wife (no divorce permitted, remember?) and his family. There was a time, even in America, when a deadbeat dad was held responsible for his family obligations. If that were still so, we would be concerned with the fatherless who got that way because their dad was dead, not because he ran off with some new honey. Can you imagine how few really 'poor' people we would need to help if the churches, gov't, fathers/husbands and communities did what they were supposed to do? We are surrounded by the 'homeless' (I prefer 'bums') here in Key West (why not? It's a gorgeous place to live) and we have organizations that encourage this problem, including churches who keep feeding them (with no strings attached)! Based on your definition, carolaa, I would say they are not the deserving poor. They are alcoholics, druggies, and criminals, the vast majority are males, and surely appear able-bodied to me. Do we feed them all and hope we actually help the deserving somewhere in that mix? I truly want to (and do) help the needy, but I'm not about to help the bums. The logical question becomes, Who determines who the deserving poor are? We already see what the gov't's determination means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 None of us are! That's correct, CoAspen. I thank Him everyday for His love and care and express it by sharing the blessings I have received. His blessings don't come without conditions. Jesus didn't just forgive the sins of the harlot, He gave her a command... "go and sin no more". Jesus didn't come back each day to re-feed the 5000. That wasn't His ministry (the population sure would have wanted that). God directed the early church to establish deacons for the care of the (you already know...) widows and fatherless... in the church, by the way. This was to free-up the apostles for the more important (and eternal) ministry and to keep the church running efficiently. I dare say we have become bogged down with the less important things.. feed them all, no strings, no obligations. Our church wants to pass out sack lunches to the bums, once a week. Why would they want to do that? Here's their answer... because other churches are doing 'something' and we need to do 'something', too. Sounds real focused to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 The parents might have made bad decisions, but did the kids? The wife might have done all she could, but the husband ran off anyway. And so on. Once we start judging we start punishing someone for someone else's actions, which is unjust. To turn an old cliche on its head: "Help 'em all, let God sort 'em out". Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Quote: I'm in favour of caring for the poor, sick and disabled in our society, and believe God is too. Western aid to Africa has not only perpetuated poverty but also worsened it Perhaps it would be better to question methods than motives. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 (not responding to ichabod's foray off the point) 'Enabling' is a psychobabble concept nowhere found in the Bible. What does Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats) say? 'the least of these'. Not 'the deserving ones from among the least of these'. What does Jesus say in Matthew 5: if you have to go one mile, go two, if someone asks for your cloak, give your shirt too. In other words, give beyond what's sensible and reasonable. Model the overflowing abundance of God's giving, rather than figuring out reasons not to give. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted February 23, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 Loopholes encourage behavior that we want people to do. Donating money to charity, buying a house (thus writing off the interest), buying a hybrid car, etc. I am sure there are many loopholes that should be deducted but to say we should eliminate all loopholes is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The graduated tax is fair. For example, everyone's first $10k is tax free. Everyone's second $1k is tax at 5%. Everyone's third $10k is taxed at 7%. Fourth 10k at 9%. Fifth $10k at 12%. Sixth $10k at 15%... 20th $10k at 38%, etc. The same tax deductions, credits and shelters are available to everyone. And just who do these tax deductions and credits and shelters favor? The poor guy who has $50 to deduct or the guy who has $50k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted February 23, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 23, 2009 A lot of people would starve to death and freeze in the street if all the poor depended solely on church charity. If the majority do not pay tithe, how are they going to give enough for entire families to live on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 'Enabling', is not in the scripture either, just help those who are in need. In other words, we use senses, brains, etc, to make a decision. The Bible is about the situation not so much the person. 'Enabler' came into christian giving as a way to decide whom we should be helping based on who and what the person is. A subtle difference, but still a way to make some sort of judgement of the individual....not sure the Bible is encouraging that concept when it comes to giving help. I beg to differ. The term "enabling" may not be in scripture, but the principle is. "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." 2 Thes 3:10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 As always, there's a difference between 'willing' and 'able' that gets lost... Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Quote: (not responding to ichabod's foray off the point) I guess the poor in Africa don't count as poor to be helped, then. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 'Enabling' is a psychobabble concept nowhere found in the Bible. Pathfinders isn't in the Bible, either. Does that mean it's a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 If it stops us helping people who need help, then yeah. I object to it because it's presented as though it were a reason to not do something the Bible clearly tells us to do. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think Paul would say what he said to someone who is not able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Quote: the Bible clearly tells us to do. The Bible clearly tells us to keep the Sabbath, not to lie, and to honor parents. People don't do these things. Perhaps they should be forced to do those as well. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted February 25, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted February 25, 2009 'proponent' Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.