Can we pursue capitalism____

[bonnie]

That's the way I remember it too.

He caused a lot of disappointment. He seemed to have the right instincts at times but his ego seemed bigger than he was

[Guest]

BIIIIIIIG EGO!!!

[bonnie]

BIIIIIIIG EGO!!!

I would like to see someone elected governor with his backbone tho. Someone not afraid to call it exactly as it was.

Nor was he big on permanent welfare or having numerous children the state had to provide for

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

BIIIIIIIG EGO!!!

I would like to see someone elected governor with his backbone tho. Someone not afraid to call it exactly as it was.

Nor was he big on permanent welfare or having numerous children the state had to provide for

Yeah.....

I had to go make a BIG GIANT TACO w/ refried beans, and onions, and cheddar cheese, and jalapeno peppers, and sour cream etc.

[Robert]

Bet you can't guess why the "lower income" votes democrat?

In the end it doesn't make a difference.....All are self-seeking...all are out for themselves....We like to make it look righteous and say "we're just being responsible", but the fact is anything outside "agape" is sin. All self-seeking is categorically condemned by the law because "agape...is not self-seeking" & "agape is the fulfillment of the law." So it doesn't matter if you are lazy and milking the system or if you are rich because you have centered self so much you made millions...it's all bent-to-self....Hence, as the Bible states, "There is none righteous, no, not even one."

Tell me, how does Capitalism fit with EGW's statement?

"You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth." [DA 439]

Note, she didn't say, "love-self, get rich, then help others." She said you will have that love (agape) that doesn't seek its own wealth, but another's....

So any way you peel it sin is sin.....The Republicans don't have one leg up on the moral scale.....

[bonnie]

Quote:

In the end it doesn't make a difference.....All are self-seeking...all are out for themselves....We like to make it look righteous and say "we're just being responsible", but the fact is anything outside "agape" is sin. All self-seeking is categorically condemned by the law because "agape...is not self-seeking" & "agape is the fulfillment of the law." So it doesn't matter if you are lazy and milking the system or if you are rich because you have centered self so much you made millions...it's all bent-to-self....Hence, as the Bible states, "There is none righteous, no, not even one."

Quote:

Tell me, how does Capitalism fit with EGW's statement?

"You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth." [DA 439]

Note, she didn't say, "love-self, get rich, then help others." She said you will have that love (agape) that doesn't seek its own wealth, but another's....

So any way you peel it sin is sin.....The Republicans don't have one leg up on the moral scale.....

Just in case you have misread something,no one has declared anyone righteous.

No one has been called perfect.

As for EW,wonder how the work has progressed all these years?

It is not from the lazy miking the system.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

When we sin we are worshiping Satan. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All have worshiped Satan.

Including you...because you still sin...you are never living above sin....There's still selfishness in your life...

Indeed.

[Dr. Shane]

for now you have ties to Lucifer.... This world is under the control of the evil one. If you can't see that then there's no hope...

The devil only has the control allowed him by God. The story of Job shows how God is able to limit what the devil is allowed to do. God is in control. He allows the devil some control because of accusations the devil has made against Him. God is on trial.

[Dr. Shane]

Here's the bottom line: Taxes = socialism. If not, then tell me how high your taxes need to go before it becomes socialism. 40%...60%...90%....?

I am not sure that case can be completely made. In good governments tax dollars are used for the best of society. In past monarchies and in some current dictatorships much of the tax dollars just went right into the monarchs or dictators pockets. Using a wide-reaching definition of socialism one can argue that if tax dollars are used for societies good, such as for military, police, public schools, etc. than it is a form of socialism. However when the money is used to build the dictator castles, bunkers and fund his mistresses and exotic vacations, that is a bit harder to label socialistic.

[Dr. Shane]

There had been a protest on the capital steps. It was felt that the requirement to work was against the civil rights of the welfare queens.

That and wanting accessible daycare(free) for mothers that were students. One made the mistake of asking Jessie what he was going to do to help them as governor with the problem of education.

Jessie said,don't look at me,I didn't make you pregnant,how about asking the daddy to help you.

I think that demonstrates why so many people will not vote for such cold-hearted politicians. Od course they won't always be cold. The fires of hell will warm them up. I believe God has a special place in hell reserved for those that neglect the poor and downtrodden.

Obviously in order to get out of poverty one needs to acquire some marketable skills so they can get a job in the work place. When a single woman gets pregnant and the dead-beat dad takes off, the government needs to step in and help that girl get those skills. That same government also needs to go after the dead-beat dad and garnish his wages to pay for the expenses of the child, including the childcare.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I think that demonstrates why so many people will not vote for such cold-hearted politicians. Od course they won't always be cold. The fires of hell will warm them up. I believe God has a special place in hell reserved for those that neglect the poor and downtrodden.

Jessie was elected in part because of his stance against sucking off the government when it was not necessary.

We had the five year rule where the poor and downtrodden had a great chance to "GET" themselves out of the lifestyle they were in.

Whether it was job training or schooling they had five years to help themselves with very generous help from the state. People moved here just for our welfare benefits.

Once employed they had a year of free daycare,paid for by the state. Medical benefits till private insurance would kick on.

That was not well received. It was against their civil rights to demand they work. Never mind against the taxpayer and his rights.

We also have schools for pregnant unwed women.Transportation is provided as well. Of course there is no cost.Once the baby is born there is free daycare on site.

Once thru with high school there are grants and very low cost loans specifically for them for college. And day care.

Two of the schools are under utilized.Don't know the status of the others but these two have a problem staying open.

You seem to operate under the illusion that all is the responsibility of the taxpayer and that the tax payer kicks them to the curb

The dirty little secret is they cannot be forced and many do not want education and a job. Welfare does not give them a lavish lifestyle but it is security with no effort.

Quote:

Obviously in order to get out of poverty one needs to acquire some marketable skills so they can get a job in the work place. When a single woman gets pregnant and the dead-beat dad takes off, the government needs to step in and help that girl get those skills. That same government also needs to go after the dead-beat dad and garnish his wages to pay for the expenses of the child, including the childcare.

Obviously there is something missing in your solution. That is the motivation to help themselves with the help they are currently given

They do garnish wages here for deadbeat dads. Many simply leave the state and or work for cash.

Whether fair or not it is the young woman that ends up with the greater responsibility .She is the one pregnant for 9 months and usually cares for the child. Help is available but they need to want it and go after it.

Motivation is something that has to be within.

Welfare is not full of people that need a temporary hand up. Most feel entitled to what others have earned

PS. With the stimulus there is no limit to welfare because of Obama.

[Guest]

I think that demonstrates why so many people will not vote for such cold-hearted politicians. Od course they won't always be cold. The fires of hell will warm them up.

Well, I am glad to know that they will finally find a place where they can get warmed up.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well' date=' I am glad to know that they will finally find a place where they can get warmed up. [/quote']

Never ceases to amaze me how most liberal's accept the God given right to condemn others to hell. I am sure the awesome responsibility is reluctantly accepted.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Quote:

Well' date=' I am glad to know that they will finally find a place where they can get warmed up.

Never ceases to amaze me how most liberal's accept the God given right to condemn others to hell. I am sure the awesome responsibility is reluctantly accepted.

[/quote']

[phkrause]

"I think that demonstrates why so many people will not vote for such cold-hearted politicians. Od course they won't always be cold. The fires of hell will warm them up. I believe God has a special place in hell reserved for those that neglect the poor and downtrodden."

I don't think that show's cold-heartedness at all. He's saying to have the father take responsibility for what the two of them created. And not have the state pay for this. I'm having that problem right now. My grandson's father doesn't want to take any responsebility for his son. He thinks that 1 box of diapers every few weeks is enough. So I guess that I'm cold-hearted for wanting him to step up and support what he and my daughter brought into this world????????????

"Obviously in order to get out of poverty one needs to acquire some marketable skills so they can get a job in the work place. When a single woman gets pregnant and the dead-beat dad takes off, the government needs to step in and help that girl get those skills. That same government also needs to go after the dead-beat dad and garnish his wages to pay for the expenses of the child, including the childcare."

That's what Jesse Ventura was really saying with that statement above!!!!!!!

pk

[Guest]

I'm having that problem right now. My grandson's father doesn't want to take any responsebility for his son.

You want I should come up there and lean on the kid's daddy?

[phkrause]

LOL, no not at all Richard if I wanted to I could revert back to my younger years, enough said.

pk

[bonnie]

What is cold hearted and cruel is to keep people tied to welfare and the idea if it weren't for government they are stuck in poverty.Of course government keeps them in poverty but at least it keeps them in basics

They produce a child and then blame others for being cold hearted. Please don't try to tell me that a young couple today doesn't know where babies come from. It generally is the mother that bears the brunt of the responsibility in this after the fact.Give her the hand up she needs. Make sure it is understood "You will pay back what you can" once you are established in a job.

Jail the proud papa if he does not provide for the child.

It may surprise some but did you know that you can obtain a skill without government help. Grants and student loans are available.Many blue collar jobs with pretty decent salaries

usually are available to those wishing to learn a trade

For those that receive welfare I would like to see a payback. Once working,even if it is 5.00 a month no interest,something that they are responsible for. Something to reimbuse the taxpayer for carrying the load for them.

[Dr. Shane]

With the stimulus there is no limit to welfare because of Obama.

That is so cool. I didn't realize that before. I am glad to hear something good the stimulus has done because I have been very disappointed in it. This just proves that Obama is doing something good.

[Dr. Shane]

He's saying to have the father take responsibility for what the two of them created. And not have the state pay for this.

So if the father is a deadbeat dad we sentence the single mother and her child to poverty?

We need to keep things in perspective. Welfare programs are a very small percentage of the federal budget. We could eliminate food stamps and welfare tomorrow and it would hardly change the deficit.

Welfare is a government-spending stimulus. The government awards grants and subsidies to all sorts of corporations. Food stamps and welfare to the poor is no different. The money put into these programs is spent at grocery stores, gas stations and other such places. That money stimulates the economy. It is not a bad thing.

The reason for welfare reform in the 1990s was not to save the government money. It was to help the poor out of poverty. It really didn't do much. We did not see the percentage of the population in poverty change much after welfare reform.

In the US we have had between 13% and 17% in poverty for a very long time. The little bit of money the government is not a large portion of the federal government. The only thing that has been shown to work are educational programs for students. Providing free daycare for students is a program that works. That should be one of the last a politician thinks about cutting.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

With the stimulus there is no limit to welfare because of Obama.

That is so cool. I didn't realize that before. I am glad to hear something good the stimulus has done because I have been very disappointed in it. This just proves that Obama is doing something good.

I expected something very similar from you.

Sometimes it seems that there are those that delight in keeping people in circumstances they would not want their own children in

[bonnie]

Quote:

So if the father is a deadbeat dad we sentence the single mother and her child to poverty?

The single mother that keeps her child is the one to carry the burden.

The father that refuses to pay should be in jail.

Quote:

We need to keep things in perspective. Welfare programs are a very small percentage of the federal budget. We could eliminate food stamps and welfare tomorrow and it would hardly change the deficit.

Perhaps you need to realize that the perspective you seem to have of those around you is not the right one. You speak to everyone as if they are slightly to dim to get it.

When some of us speak of welfare reform the money saved is secondary. A plus to what it can do for the human spirit.

Maintaining a single mother and her children on welfare when there are other ways is child abuse.

Quote:

Welfare is a government-spending stimulus. The government awards grants and subsidies to all sorts of corporations. Food stamps and welfare to the poor is no different. The money put into these programs is spent at grocery stores, gas stations and other such places. That money stimulates the economy. It is not a bad thing.

Whether the money given to corporations is right or not,it is much different. Corporations are providing products and employment.

The welfare recipient does not do that. They receive money just for existing.

What a vicious cruel joke to give them money as part of a stimulus.

Quote:

The reason for welfare reform in the 1990s was not to save the government money. It was to help the poor out of poverty. It really didn't do much. We did not see the percentage of the population in poverty change much after welfare reform.

Really.It did wonders for those that were put into the work program and became self supporting.

Quote:

In the US we have had between 13% and 17% in poverty for a very long time. The little bit of money the government is not a large portion of the federal government. The only thing that has been shown to work are educational programs for students. Providing free daycare for students is a program that works. That should be one of the last a politician thinks about cutting.

Seems you would not want that to work.That is exactly what we had here in MN, work training and or education. Your political messiah says that was unfair. The welfare recipient had already determined it was against their civil rights to make them work and give a time limit as to how long they could sponge

You seem quite happy that now no one has to if they don't choose to. A great percentage choose not to.That should delight you.

Who needs an education when your check comes once a month for doing nothing except possibly having more kids. Subsidized housing,medical,food stamps and a check besides. Why do I need an education.

[bonnie]

Personally,I think I will take the word of those that have been on welfare and now are self supporting.

I took care of the children of a woman that was being forced off welfare. She did resent it at first.

After a time she could not even imagine going back to what she had been.

When I would pick up the children it was not uncommon to see toddlers in soggy diapers,bottle in one hand and cookies in another for breakfast.Their mothers drinking beer and smoking cigarettes as their children played on the sidewalk.

The other mothers would laugh when Karine would leave early for work,reminding her they had a couple of years yet.

To me it is cold hearted,cruel and unchristian to want to promote and back a lifestyle that does this to children. If they have to be forced to get training/education tough.Innocent children do deserve more than you seem to want them to have.

Karine finally had to move,she kept saying"I can't imagine I was ever like that.

One of our foster boys came back after some years. We were really sad to hear he had ended up in prison for a few years.

While he did not enjoy prison he said it did probably save his life.

Returning to his mother he went back to the whole welfare scene.Mama had a few more babies and seemed a little dense as to who the fathers may have been.

If he wanted something he stole it.If he didn't want to work he didn't.Education was a joke,there wasn't any reason to.

He would get rather angry talking about welfare and what it did to his life as a young boy. The wrong values it gave him.The insidiousness of just sitting there collecting money that belonged to others that actually worked for it.

I don't like to see anyone like that. For some it fills a need to keep people in a degrading life of welfare

[Ted Oplinger]

Taking care of the elderly, the infirm, and women /children having no support used to be the obligation of families and the church ministries. Nowhere do I read that it is Scriptural to tax ourselves and delegate those responsibilities to a central government in the name of "caring for the unfortunate".

When the sheep are separated from the goats, Christ won't be asking if anyone made greedy, unfair profits as capitalists, or how compassionate one was with tax dollars taken from others by force of criminal penalty. He will be saying we were individually and voluntarily responsible for the care of those within the sphere of our lives - and that this individual and voluntary application of time, money, and resources in accordance to God's will has determined our eternal destiny.

[bonnie]

Taking care of the elderly, the infirm, and women /children having no support used to be the obligation of families and the church ministries. Nowhere do I read that it is Scriptural to tax ourselves and delegate those responsibilities to a central government in the name of "caring for the unfortunate".