W.R.: Treaties are the highest law of the land and that is a fact.
L.B.: On you're second paragraph Rich, it seems to me pre Clinton/ Bush , government regulations of Wall Street were pretty effective in limiting the influence. Instead of going a little further and keeping the lobbyist out of D.C., Clinton and B...ush start lifting regulations. Now the Watch Dogs are former board members of the super elite companies that lobby for less restrictions. The head of the FDA is a former board member of the second biggest poultry company in the country (don't get me started on that), and the list just went on and on. This is what needs to change and I hope President Obama is making steps to change this. I know in Indian country, under his administration, he's put key people in the right place and there has been movement and noticeable change for the better. This was never the case under any administration that I can remember for Indian country anyway. The key is getting rid of the lap dogs for the RICH and bringing back the Doberman to make sure they can't just play with people's hard earned retirements.See More
W.R.: Ok I guess what I am missing is what EXACTLY is it that you would like government to step out of? Would you like government to stop controlling crime? Would you like government to stop helping the less fortunate? Would you like government to stop protecting animals and the environment? Government needs to be more powerful to stop greed. If we had a society that had strong informal social control we wouldn't need our government to be so strong; but unfortunately we don't so we need strong government. We would like to believe that without government stepping in on things like affirmative action, everything would be hunky dory and minorities and poor people would still get into college. But the truth is that it did not happen until laws were passed to enforce it. Many churches and families fail to instill the type of social control their members children require to cause them to automatically want to do what is fair, right, and good. Instead, they perpetuate the individual "I" type thinking that allows them to feel justified when they step all over the poor and minority to take every job and then mock them for not being "hard-working" Americans.See More
W.R.: And I totally agree that money, lobbyists, and corporations have way too much power in government. So why are you so against Obama, who has tried to put the reins on some of that unbridled control by passing stricter laws on lobbying, elections, and has tried to put some controls on the take over of our government by Wall Street? I'm not saying he has succeeded but he has at least been trying to change these things. I don't really think you have adequately explained what it is about Obama and his policies or as you call it "Big Government"- as if we haven't had that all along with all the corporate welfare going on in the past administrations- why is it all of a sudden such a bad thing for the government to be involved? And for that matter, unless you are rich, why would you not be for the government putting more restrictions on the very corporations you rightly state have taken over government? I'm just kind of confused about your argument? I can't understand where you are coming from or going with your thinking any more than I can understand your Fox News cronies.
Me: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Article 4.
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Article 2, Section 2
Therefore, the Constitution CREATES the validity of treaties and elevates them to the highest law of the land.
Me: what lifted regulations are you referring to? Corporations, unions, and other monied interests have always held sway. The only thing limiting them has been the relative inability of government to pay them off with sweetheart deals.
Lobbyists are a symptom, not the problem. Lobbyists would have nothing to do if they could not pry dollars out of congress.
Me: The first time Obama's name came up was 6 minutes ago. I haven't commented on him.
Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, is part of the problem, part of the system. D.C. is only interested in its own perpetuation, creating new ways to scam money from the people.
Any faith in any of these people is unwarranted.
Me: Government does not need to be more powerful to stop greed. Greed is not a matter of law, it is a matter of the human heart. Or are you telling me you are in favor of legislating morality?
Me: Government cannot remedy a failing societal structure, especially with more control and more laws. Laws only restrain moral people, the immoral will break laws.
Your arguments lead us to the conclusion that government should be our daddy, our god, and our church. Taxes are the tithe, and all the good we as individuals should be doing is transferred to government as its obligation.
I don't buy it. That is not the world I want to live in.
Me: I don't watch Fox News.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Facebook conversation, continued
Note the seeming inability of L.B. to follow a train of thought and present cogent arguments that are on-topic. My frustration shows through.
However, there is a ray of hope. W.R. comes through with some pointed, intelligent comments. Finally, someone who is thinking it through and making a case for their perspective using logic and reason!
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1776, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The Constitution was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1789.
L.B.: Thanks for the correction.
Me: The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting.
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1789, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The constitution does not mention slavery, until the 13th amendment abolished it.
L.B.: See!!! That's what I'm saying, get off your damn High Horse now! You Christians these days are worse than the Pharisees that spit on Jesus. Don't even pretend like you know what I'm talking about. Hypocrites that try to pretend like America's past is squeaky clean and was formed by good religious people who were oppressed in Europe. And then you made this perfect country that had white picket fences and squeaky clean white churches.
Me: What??
L.B.: Yes you want to give me a history lesson yet you choose to ignore America's real past. The past you are longing to go back to. Pin point the exact time you want to go back to. Is it 2002, 1985, 1963, 1945, 1812, 1776 or maybe 1492? Work with me here.
Me: I'm not ignoring anything. There are some shameful things in America's past. If there is someone who has said different, I challenge you to provide the quote.
We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past.
You went off on some bizarre thing about Christians and Europe. Who knows what you're talking about?
L.B.: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/
L.B.: W.R., check out the link above to find out who we're arguing with. He actually defended Dr. Laura...lol. He's also posting his debates with us. He's going to make us famous!!!!
Me: You are kept anonymous on my blog. I note for the record that you have yet to address my remarks.
L.B.: OK, I'll address one of your points. You stated above..... " When the U.S. was discovered is a matter of history and evidence." So what is the evidence and history? Tell us.
Me: This is extremely frustrating. Do you even know what we have been discussing for the past 4 or 5 hours? Why are you jumping back to something from way back on Monday, something written in a completely different context and a on different topic?
Let me help you out. "The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting." Or how about, "We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past."
Do you have some comments about these kinds of things, or not?
L.C.B.: The Constitution gave the right to vote to all of its legal citizens. Negros were not given citizenship until the 1860s, Women sufferage came at the turn of the 20th Century, Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1921. The dates I gave are not precise but you get my point. Please give me the article where the Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and women from voting?
Me: Hi. L.C.B. Show me in the Constitution, prior to the amendments, where anyone is given the right to vote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Me: Please note that I am referring to the Constitution itself, and not the body of law that may have existed at the time.
L.C.B.: Jo your accusation of Christianity not facing up to our history is wrong. You are making this charge on an assumption, and it shows how little you know about your Dad had his minstry, and the people I associate with. Rich has been nothing but supportive and encouraging to me and was active in generational repentance, and reconciliation back when I was in Bozeman.
L.B.: Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, once said: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do."- Amen Brother, Amen! Got this one from your blog Rich
Me: L.C.B., I love you and your wife. You have been such a blessing in my life, and I am proud to call you "brother." May the God of our salvation pour out blessing upon you.
L.C.B.: The 14th Amendment, article two grants the right to vote, before that States had the power to regulate, voting seemed to be an implied right since they had to choose electors.
L.B.: Dad, I'm not trying to ruin your friendships and relationships. I'm simply engaged in a debate with Rich. He is trying to win the debate using exact literal definitions. He's defending the constitution as if it were written by God himself. I am attempting to point out to him that Beaver Cleaver is fiction as is the story of the Pilgrims. The history is what it is, no more, no less. He's blinded by right wing propaganda though.
Me: Exactly. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote at all, it is assumed. The 14th amendment had to codify the right to vote since states had discriminatory laws founded in racism.
Me: I'm pointing out what the Constitution says, L.B. You don't appear to know what it says. You also infer a whole lot of stuff I have never said.
I have challenged you repeatedly to address what I have said, but you persist in selecting random thoughts.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being blinded by ideology when all you seem able to spout is left wing ideology. I'm guessing that the real problem we have here is that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
L.B.: 19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.
Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).
L.B.: Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..., shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is essentially what gave Native Americans the right to vote. This is why the Town of Browning had white Mayors and a 90% Native population from 1919- 1964. Most Natives own another type of property that is held in trust by the U.S. Government and is not taxable to the State, County or any other municipality. If they lived on this type of property, they could not vote in State elections. This Amendment changed all that. Take that State of Montana!
S.G.: All human beings (men, women, any & all races) are born sinful & all cultures have some corruption so all governments of man are subject to this wicked nature until all of the people from the top on down are subject to Jesus. Yes even though many (not necessarily all) of the founders of the government did have christian roots. It's not much different than today in that just because someone says they are a christian doesn't make it so. Especially in politics where the candidate will often say whatever is popular to get the votes. When the whites did all of the wicked & terrible things that were done it was largely motivated by greed then too. There is nothing inherently wrong with the constitution just the people who ignore the parts they don't like & use it as they want to. The Bible is the perfect word of God, but many evils have been committed hiding behind religion (again sinful man using whatever is convenient to their sinful motives) But that is an whole other can of worms. : D
L.C.B.: Interesting, so we all learn something and read the Constitution to boot
W.R.: Rich...on the one hand u claim going back to the almighty original constitution is the answer...and we all know what and whom the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document. On the other hand u point out that in the face of people and their actions the Constitution is meaningless ...law and govt are social constructions defined by the people. The people starving during the Great Depression defined it and they got unions, workers rights, social security and welfare. The people of the civil rights era defined it and helped bring equality and protections for all of us. The protections these people fought for are exactly what most people who say they are against Big Govt are for while they so piously sit in church and pretend that they are for the poor and downtrodden from whose very children they wish to take food, healthcare, and education!
W.R.: At one point we had laissez fairre type government and where did it get us? Bush and clinton nearly brought down the economy with "less govt/more deregulation" thinking. Now that is a matter of history and fact...very recent history and... fact!
And if u really believe govt shouldn't regulate morality...let's start with abolishing laws against same sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and in fact any other crime ... Why is it ok to regulate those "sins" but not unbridled thievery and greed on Wall Street? Laws are passed to control those who can't live within the accepted rules of society.
What exactly IS your point...your goal in this debate Rich because YOU seem to get upset when the holes in your argument are pointed out.
W.R.: To correct my statement below... I meant to say that saying u r against Big Govt is code for "I don't want to help the poor and I don't think inequality should be addressed because me and mine are just fine." WWJD???
Me: W.R., Thank you for the insightful and provocative comments. Wow, I have been waiting for such a response. I'll try to address all of your points as I get time.
First, I did not claim that going back the ORIGINAL Constitution was the answer. I claimed that returning government to its constitutional limits was the answer. The problem: Government is too powerful and corruptible. Corporations and special interests want to influence that power. Solution: Remove the government's ability to give payoffs to its corporate cronies and powerful interests by removing its ability to exceed its constitutional authority.
Second, the Constitution is only as meaningful as any other law, to the extent it is obeyed. The Constutition is the highest law of the land. It creates, defines, and limits government. It must be obeyed, or if it is found wanting, it must be amended. It cannot be ignored.
Me: Again, the Constitution is about government. It only mentions the rights of the people in passing as it describes the limits of government, i.e., "Congress shall make no law..." This amendment does not grant us free speech or freedom of assembly, it tells government what it cannot do!
Our rights pre-exist government. The Declaration says they are unalienable (cannot be separated), endowed by our creator. Government's job is to "secure" our rights (make them safe).
So, the injustices perpetrated over the course of the history of this country are in direct violation of its founding principles and founding documents.
However, there is a ray of hope. W.R. comes through with some pointed, intelligent comments. Finally, someone who is thinking it through and making a case for their perspective using logic and reason!
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1776, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The Constitution was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1789.
L.B.: Thanks for the correction.
Me: The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting.
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1789, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The constitution does not mention slavery, until the 13th amendment abolished it.
L.B.: See!!! That's what I'm saying, get off your damn High Horse now! You Christians these days are worse than the Pharisees that spit on Jesus. Don't even pretend like you know what I'm talking about. Hypocrites that try to pretend like America's past is squeaky clean and was formed by good religious people who were oppressed in Europe. And then you made this perfect country that had white picket fences and squeaky clean white churches.
Me: What??
L.B.: Yes you want to give me a history lesson yet you choose to ignore America's real past. The past you are longing to go back to. Pin point the exact time you want to go back to. Is it 2002, 1985, 1963, 1945, 1812, 1776 or maybe 1492? Work with me here.
Me: I'm not ignoring anything. There are some shameful things in America's past. If there is someone who has said different, I challenge you to provide the quote.
We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past.
You went off on some bizarre thing about Christians and Europe. Who knows what you're talking about?
L.B.: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/
L.B.: W.R., check out the link above to find out who we're arguing with. He actually defended Dr. Laura...lol. He's also posting his debates with us. He's going to make us famous!!!!
Me: You are kept anonymous on my blog. I note for the record that you have yet to address my remarks.
L.B.: OK, I'll address one of your points. You stated above..... " When the U.S. was discovered is a matter of history and evidence." So what is the evidence and history? Tell us.
Me: This is extremely frustrating. Do you even know what we have been discussing for the past 4 or 5 hours? Why are you jumping back to something from way back on Monday, something written in a completely different context and a on different topic?
Let me help you out. "The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting." Or how about, "We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past."
Do you have some comments about these kinds of things, or not?
L.C.B.: The Constitution gave the right to vote to all of its legal citizens. Negros were not given citizenship until the 1860s, Women sufferage came at the turn of the 20th Century, Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1921. The dates I gave are not precise but you get my point. Please give me the article where the Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and women from voting?
Me: Hi. L.C.B. Show me in the Constitution, prior to the amendments, where anyone is given the right to vote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Me: Please note that I am referring to the Constitution itself, and not the body of law that may have existed at the time.
L.C.B.: Jo your accusation of Christianity not facing up to our history is wrong. You are making this charge on an assumption, and it shows how little you know about your Dad had his minstry, and the people I associate with. Rich has been nothing but supportive and encouraging to me and was active in generational repentance, and reconciliation back when I was in Bozeman.
L.B.: Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, once said: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do."- Amen Brother, Amen! Got this one from your blog Rich
Me: L.C.B., I love you and your wife. You have been such a blessing in my life, and I am proud to call you "brother." May the God of our salvation pour out blessing upon you.
L.C.B.: The 14th Amendment, article two grants the right to vote, before that States had the power to regulate, voting seemed to be an implied right since they had to choose electors.
L.B.: Dad, I'm not trying to ruin your friendships and relationships. I'm simply engaged in a debate with Rich. He is trying to win the debate using exact literal definitions. He's defending the constitution as if it were written by God himself. I am attempting to point out to him that Beaver Cleaver is fiction as is the story of the Pilgrims. The history is what it is, no more, no less. He's blinded by right wing propaganda though.
Me: Exactly. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote at all, it is assumed. The 14th amendment had to codify the right to vote since states had discriminatory laws founded in racism.
Me: I'm pointing out what the Constitution says, L.B. You don't appear to know what it says. You also infer a whole lot of stuff I have never said.
I have challenged you repeatedly to address what I have said, but you persist in selecting random thoughts.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being blinded by ideology when all you seem able to spout is left wing ideology. I'm guessing that the real problem we have here is that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
L.B.: 19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.
Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).
L.B.: Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..., shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is essentially what gave Native Americans the right to vote. This is why the Town of Browning had white Mayors and a 90% Native population from 1919- 1964. Most Natives own another type of property that is held in trust by the U.S. Government and is not taxable to the State, County or any other municipality. If they lived on this type of property, they could not vote in State elections. This Amendment changed all that. Take that State of Montana!
S.G.: All human beings (men, women, any & all races) are born sinful & all cultures have some corruption so all governments of man are subject to this wicked nature until all of the people from the top on down are subject to Jesus. Yes even though many (not necessarily all) of the founders of the government did have christian roots. It's not much different than today in that just because someone says they are a christian doesn't make it so. Especially in politics where the candidate will often say whatever is popular to get the votes. When the whites did all of the wicked & terrible things that were done it was largely motivated by greed then too. There is nothing inherently wrong with the constitution just the people who ignore the parts they don't like & use it as they want to. The Bible is the perfect word of God, but many evils have been committed hiding behind religion (again sinful man using whatever is convenient to their sinful motives) But that is an whole other can of worms. : D
L.C.B.: Interesting, so we all learn something and read the Constitution to boot
W.R.: Rich...on the one hand u claim going back to the almighty original constitution is the answer...and we all know what and whom the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document. On the other hand u point out that in the face of people and their actions the Constitution is meaningless ...law and govt are social constructions defined by the people. The people starving during the Great Depression defined it and they got unions, workers rights, social security and welfare. The people of the civil rights era defined it and helped bring equality and protections for all of us. The protections these people fought for are exactly what most people who say they are against Big Govt are for while they so piously sit in church and pretend that they are for the poor and downtrodden from whose very children they wish to take food, healthcare, and education!
W.R.: At one point we had laissez fairre type government and where did it get us? Bush and clinton nearly brought down the economy with "less govt/more deregulation" thinking. Now that is a matter of history and fact...very recent history and... fact!
And if u really believe govt shouldn't regulate morality...let's start with abolishing laws against same sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and in fact any other crime ... Why is it ok to regulate those "sins" but not unbridled thievery and greed on Wall Street? Laws are passed to control those who can't live within the accepted rules of society.
What exactly IS your point...your goal in this debate Rich because YOU seem to get upset when the holes in your argument are pointed out.
W.R.: To correct my statement below... I meant to say that saying u r against Big Govt is code for "I don't want to help the poor and I don't think inequality should be addressed because me and mine are just fine." WWJD???
Me: W.R., Thank you for the insightful and provocative comments. Wow, I have been waiting for such a response. I'll try to address all of your points as I get time.
First, I did not claim that going back the ORIGINAL Constitution was the answer. I claimed that returning government to its constitutional limits was the answer. The problem: Government is too powerful and corruptible. Corporations and special interests want to influence that power. Solution: Remove the government's ability to give payoffs to its corporate cronies and powerful interests by removing its ability to exceed its constitutional authority.
Second, the Constitution is only as meaningful as any other law, to the extent it is obeyed. The Constutition is the highest law of the land. It creates, defines, and limits government. It must be obeyed, or if it is found wanting, it must be amended. It cannot be ignored.
Me: Again, the Constitution is about government. It only mentions the rights of the people in passing as it describes the limits of government, i.e., "Congress shall make no law..." This amendment does not grant us free speech or freedom of assembly, it tells government what it cannot do!
Our rights pre-exist government. The Declaration says they are unalienable (cannot be separated), endowed by our creator. Government's job is to "secure" our rights (make them safe).
So, the injustices perpetrated over the course of the history of this country are in direct violation of its founding principles and founding documents.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The "Broken Window Fallacy" Via Walter E. Williams
French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) explained, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
Bastiat elaborated further in his "Broken Window Fallacy" parable where a vandal smashes a shopkeeper's window. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the shopkeeper. Soon, someone in the crowd suggests that instead of a tragedy, there might be a silver lining. Instead of the boy being a vandal, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. Fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler and so forth.
Bastiat says that's what's seen. What is not seen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been smashed. He might have purchased a suit from the tailor. Therefore, an act that created a job for the glazier destroyed a job for the tailor. On top of that, had the property destruction not occurred, the shopkeeper would have had a suit and a window. Now he has just a window and as a result, he is poorer.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278217#ixzz1HR8j3JN2
Bastiat elaborated further in his "Broken Window Fallacy" parable where a vandal smashes a shopkeeper's window. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the shopkeeper. Soon, someone in the crowd suggests that instead of a tragedy, there might be a silver lining. Instead of the boy being a vandal, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. Fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler and so forth.
Bastiat says that's what's seen. What is not seen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been smashed. He might have purchased a suit from the tailor. Therefore, an act that created a job for the glazier destroyed a job for the tailor. On top of that, had the property destruction not occurred, the shopkeeper would have had a suit and a window. Now he has just a window and as a result, he is poorer.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278217#ixzz1HR8j3JN2
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Charlie Sykes - Piggybank
This guy says it better than I could:
My 401K is down 40%, my employer just cut the match; and it looks like I may have work until I’m 70 years old. I also pay for pensions to public employees who retired in their 50s.
I don’t have enough money to go on vacation this year, but I paid my share of the federal government’s $2.6 million grant to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I pay for bridges to nowhere.
I drive a 1997 Honda Accord, but I had to pay for my neighbor’s $41,000 electric car. I also bailed out the United Auto Workers.
I contribute to my children’s 529 college savings plan, but since I don’t qualify for financial aid I pay for other people’s kids to go to school as well. I also pay for the sociology classes where I am sneered at for my lack of social conscience and denounced as the very essence of greed, racism and environmental insensitivity.
I exercise regularly, watch my cholesterol, and pay for my own health insurance as well as copays and deductibles. I also pay for Other People’s tonsillectomies, appendectomies and occasional rhinoplasties. I pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and for various medical programs for poor children and now I will get to subsidize the health care of several million more non-elderly, non-impoverished Americans.
My small business just lost its line of credit, but I paid to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, whose executives get bonuses bigger than my entire net worth.
I pay my mortgage, but I also pay to bail out banks who made risky loans and yuppies, who have trouble paying $700,000 mortgages on their McMansions they bought with no-down payment, adjustable rate deals.
I pay for groceries for my family, but also pay millionaire farmers not grow stuff like rice. I buy dinner for more than 41 million food stamp recipients (although, they now call it Food Shares.). I also pay for school lunches. And breakfasts, since others parents apparently can’t be expected to feed their kids. I get to have red meat once a week, but I get to pay for urban hipsters to buy organic salmon at Whole Foods.
I pay my electricity and gas bills, but I also pay for other people’s air conditioning, cell phones, digital televisions, new windows, subsidized rent, and remodeling,
I pay for my daughter’s ballet lessons, but also pay for universities to develop computerized choreography programs that will help develop “interactive dance performances with real-time audience interactions.” I probably won’t be able to make the show, since I’ll be working.
I’m trying to save enough money in case I lose my job, but I pay for more than 70 different means-tested poverty programs
Because I work hard and am successful, I am in the 10% of Americans, who now pay more than 71 percent of the total federal income tax burden. The top 50 percent of earners pay 97.11 percent. In others words, the bottom half of American earners– theoretically 50 percent of the electorate – pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. I pay for them.
I pay property taxes, sales, excise taxes, taxes on my phone, my cable, my water; state income taxes, Social security and Medicare taxes. I also help pay the bills for the nearly half of households who no longer pay any federal income tax. I also pay the bills for the 60 to 70 percent of households who receive more from the government than they pay in.
I expect no gratitude for any of this; it has been years since the term “provider” was a matter of societal respect and personal pride. I understand that the transfer of wealth from makers to takers is seen as morally purer than the efforts of those who created wealth in the first place.
I know my role.
I am the piggybank.
Copyright 2011 Charles J. Sykes, from my upcoming book, A Nation of Moochers, from St. Martin’s Press.
My 401K is down 40%, my employer just cut the match; and it looks like I may have work until I’m 70 years old. I also pay for pensions to public employees who retired in their 50s.
I don’t have enough money to go on vacation this year, but I paid my share of the federal government’s $2.6 million grant to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I pay for bridges to nowhere.
I drive a 1997 Honda Accord, but I had to pay for my neighbor’s $41,000 electric car. I also bailed out the United Auto Workers.
I contribute to my children’s 529 college savings plan, but since I don’t qualify for financial aid I pay for other people’s kids to go to school as well. I also pay for the sociology classes where I am sneered at for my lack of social conscience and denounced as the very essence of greed, racism and environmental insensitivity.
I exercise regularly, watch my cholesterol, and pay for my own health insurance as well as copays and deductibles. I also pay for Other People’s tonsillectomies, appendectomies and occasional rhinoplasties. I pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and for various medical programs for poor children and now I will get to subsidize the health care of several million more non-elderly, non-impoverished Americans.
My small business just lost its line of credit, but I paid to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, whose executives get bonuses bigger than my entire net worth.
I pay my mortgage, but I also pay to bail out banks who made risky loans and yuppies, who have trouble paying $700,000 mortgages on their McMansions they bought with no-down payment, adjustable rate deals.
I pay for groceries for my family, but also pay millionaire farmers not grow stuff like rice. I buy dinner for more than 41 million food stamp recipients (although, they now call it Food Shares.). I also pay for school lunches. And breakfasts, since others parents apparently can’t be expected to feed their kids. I get to have red meat once a week, but I get to pay for urban hipsters to buy organic salmon at Whole Foods.
I pay my electricity and gas bills, but I also pay for other people’s air conditioning, cell phones, digital televisions, new windows, subsidized rent, and remodeling,
I pay for my daughter’s ballet lessons, but also pay for universities to develop computerized choreography programs that will help develop “interactive dance performances with real-time audience interactions.” I probably won’t be able to make the show, since I’ll be working.
I’m trying to save enough money in case I lose my job, but I pay for more than 70 different means-tested poverty programs
Because I work hard and am successful, I am in the 10% of Americans, who now pay more than 71 percent of the total federal income tax burden. The top 50 percent of earners pay 97.11 percent. In others words, the bottom half of American earners– theoretically 50 percent of the electorate – pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. I pay for them.
I pay property taxes, sales, excise taxes, taxes on my phone, my cable, my water; state income taxes, Social security and Medicare taxes. I also help pay the bills for the nearly half of households who no longer pay any federal income tax. I also pay the bills for the 60 to 70 percent of households who receive more from the government than they pay in.
I expect no gratitude for any of this; it has been years since the term “provider” was a matter of societal respect and personal pride. I understand that the transfer of wealth from makers to takers is seen as morally purer than the efforts of those who created wealth in the first place.
I know my role.
I am the piggybank.
Copyright 2011 Charles J. Sykes, from my upcoming book, A Nation of Moochers, from St. Martin’s Press.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Editorial, problems in the church
I have been very critical of government in my columns. Government is a target-rich environment and deserves scrutiny. It is a juggernaut, and we tend to think we can’t do anything about it. So, my columns give voice to those who are reluctant to speak up and risk the vociferous attacks from the political left.
In my last column I discussed the problem of the government church. Today I want to share some random thoughts regarding problems in the Christian Church. However, I won’t pile onto the hostile caricatures created by the irreligious. We know how kooky and bizarre some of the criticisms tend to be. No, I’m going to write about the Church as a believer.
Don’t be surprised. I have already criticized the Church for being tax-exempt. A few months ago I wrote, “Churches should drop their tax-exempt status -- they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff.” Churches should throw off the government yoke and speak freely about sin and redemption.
In the past I have complained that government has stolen our individual obligation for charity by inserting itself into the compassion equation. I hereby retract this. Actually, the Church ceded its obligations and allowed government to take them over. The Church said nothing when the government became a competitor. And now their silence is enforced via tax law. Talk about a deal with the devil!
Recently I learned that a local pastor makes good money in a relatively small church. I wonder how this congregation justifies a salary that is double the average income of its parishioners. I also wonder if there is much money left for looking after “…orphans and widows in their distress…” This is one of the primary missions of the Church, but so many pastors take the lion’s share of their church’s money.
I’ve noticed that some local churches have built beautiful new facilities. I’m sure that these were undertaken in good faith by well-meaning congregations. But would it be impolite to ask what percentage of their budgets are devoted to the poor? I’m hoping it is a substantial number, but I’ve been on more than one church board in my life and know that this is not always the case.
A local church just sold its building. Good people there. But what if they decided to take their building fund and minister to the disadvantaged instead? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Another local church had its pastor retire. Again, all top notch people. But are they absolutely sure that they need to hire a replacement, or is it in the realm of possibility that they don't need a professional, that the talent and gifts already in the congregation are sufficient to meet every need?
One last thing bothers me: Democracy in the Church. We all know that the Founders of our country regarded democracy as an undesirable form of government akin to tyranny, so why would the Church want to be democratic? The early church made its decisions with prayer and fasting in the counsel of the elders. There is no biblical mention of the Church voting on anything.
None of this is intended as condemnation. I have been to many, many churches in the valley, and the caliber of people is remarkable in each and every one. All I'm suggesting is perhaps there are alternatives to doing church business as usual.
If the Church truly wants to be a moving force in society, it needs to embrace its call to be salt and light. If it wants to make a difference, let it be a voice of righteousness and purity. The Church has hid inside its buildings for too long. It is fact that when the church is active in the world, the world is a better place.
In my last column I discussed the problem of the government church. Today I want to share some random thoughts regarding problems in the Christian Church. However, I won’t pile onto the hostile caricatures created by the irreligious. We know how kooky and bizarre some of the criticisms tend to be. No, I’m going to write about the Church as a believer.
Don’t be surprised. I have already criticized the Church for being tax-exempt. A few months ago I wrote, “Churches should drop their tax-exempt status -- they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff.” Churches should throw off the government yoke and speak freely about sin and redemption.
In the past I have complained that government has stolen our individual obligation for charity by inserting itself into the compassion equation. I hereby retract this. Actually, the Church ceded its obligations and allowed government to take them over. The Church said nothing when the government became a competitor. And now their silence is enforced via tax law. Talk about a deal with the devil!
Recently I learned that a local pastor makes good money in a relatively small church. I wonder how this congregation justifies a salary that is double the average income of its parishioners. I also wonder if there is much money left for looking after “…orphans and widows in their distress…” This is one of the primary missions of the Church, but so many pastors take the lion’s share of their church’s money.
I’ve noticed that some local churches have built beautiful new facilities. I’m sure that these were undertaken in good faith by well-meaning congregations. But would it be impolite to ask what percentage of their budgets are devoted to the poor? I’m hoping it is a substantial number, but I’ve been on more than one church board in my life and know that this is not always the case.
A local church just sold its building. Good people there. But what if they decided to take their building fund and minister to the disadvantaged instead? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Another local church had its pastor retire. Again, all top notch people. But are they absolutely sure that they need to hire a replacement, or is it in the realm of possibility that they don't need a professional, that the talent and gifts already in the congregation are sufficient to meet every need?
One last thing bothers me: Democracy in the Church. We all know that the Founders of our country regarded democracy as an undesirable form of government akin to tyranny, so why would the Church want to be democratic? The early church made its decisions with prayer and fasting in the counsel of the elders. There is no biblical mention of the Church voting on anything.
None of this is intended as condemnation. I have been to many, many churches in the valley, and the caliber of people is remarkable in each and every one. All I'm suggesting is perhaps there are alternatives to doing church business as usual.
If the Church truly wants to be a moving force in society, it needs to embrace its call to be salt and light. If it wants to make a difference, let it be a voice of righteousness and purity. The Church has hid inside its buildings for too long. It is fact that when the church is active in the world, the world is a better place.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Bad worship songs - For Your Glory
From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.
With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.
What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?
We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:
With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.
What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?
We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:
- A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
- A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
- A focus on God, not us
- Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
- A certain amount of profundity
- A singable, interesting melody
- Allusions to Scripture
- Doctrinal soundness
- Not excessively metaphorical
- Not excessively repetitive
- Jesus is not your boyfriend
It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit.
Here are the words to a song we did recently in church. I sent the following analysis to the leadership, since I wasn't quite sure about the song's message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)