Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #31 
You say "outside of the stimulus bill and unemployment extensions" as if those were insignificant. Unfortunately, you have to count them too and they add up to about a TRILLION dollars!!
Then you act as if the status quo of 6.5% increase each year is not only acceptable, it is necessary! So you don't think there is any duplicity in programs, or any unnecessary spending?
I would like to have the budget tied to a % of the GDP. Each year we say, ok here is last years GDP, so here is what you have to spend, now go fight over it. Not only would that minimize corrupt politicians buying votes with their worthless programs, but I would bet that they would come up with some more business friendly legislation which would increase employment and raise GDP.

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Anyway, I still don't understand why with all of your tedious research, you can't answer 


  
Wannabe, you never change......regardless of your handle you hold true to old habits,  "Answer me, Answer me, Answer me" 

Perhaps your queries don't deserve an answer.......perhaps you're just being contrary.   

Something to consider....... 

IMO
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #33 
Whats that smell?
Oh hey (POV)!

Dewey here is more info on your beloved Obamacare. Looks like they cooked the books to get the numbers they wanted. Here is another 500 BILLION that they double counted and you can watch Kathlene Sebilious admit it on tape!
 So between this and the 500 BILLION doc fix that they left out and put into another bill that is 1 TRILLION dollars more that Obamacare will cost than stated by the CBO.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/republican-lawmaker-accuses-hhs-secretar


__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #34 

I imagine by now I've exasperated this subject.  I tried to make a simple point but not sure I succeeded.  One President follows another and inherits a Government whose spending grows by a little over six percent a year.  Why?  Many reasons.  More babies born, inflation, more people retiring, health care costs rising, Medicare, Medicaid, more elderly taking advantage of drug program, and compound interest on accumulated debt to name a few.  I'm not sure if this is a proper level of increase, (in fact I'm pretty sure we need to eventually get this down), but it is what it is right now.  A new President takes over and, not surprisingly, growth continues at same rate, ($1 trillion for stimulus and UE aside).  However, some people are now coming unglued.  Unfortunately, revenue crashed, due to an economic collapse and a segment of society that forced tax revenues down, and now our debt is growing rapidly.  That's sad but how does that change our expense obligations other than maybe increase them?   

The President is told to stimulate the economy and we'll surely debate for years whether this saved us a much greater devastation down the road or not.  What we know for a fact is that many out of work folk were helped out with these monies and some lives may have been saved by giving States money to keep cops and firemen on the streets.  What we don't know is how a President is supposed to take a spending budget growing at 6% yearly and reduce it to 0, 2, or 4 percent.


No, this President didn't get us into this mess but he's obligated to find the way out.  In the meantime, all the negative economic numbers will be laid, and totally exaggerated, on the President in order to promote a change of Party to lead this Country.  That would be disastrous and all I can do is spell out the facts the best I can. I know I know...there are very few listening around here but hey, it's my only soapbox. 


PS:  I know how one cuts a million dollar budget to nine hundred thousand.  That's a different debate.  The debate is once you cut to nine hundred thousand, how do you keep it from going up a percentage each year?  At least that's the debate I'm trying to have.  Did anyone truly expect this President to come in and cut the federal budget lower than years past? 


JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #35 
Dewey you keep sweeping the porkulus bill under the rug as if it shouldn't count. That is quite an elephant in the room.
Just look at the debt and deficit he inherited and look at where he raised it to. I am still waiting for you to show those numbers. I could do it , but the only way I am sure that it sinks in is for it to come from your key board.
Here is the difference between you (a lib) and me (a conservative). I don't believe that you can spend your way out of debt.

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #36 

JD - Two things.  You tend to avoid the point and, secondly, my comments are not directed specifically to you but to our readers.  I'm simply saying necessary federal spending continues on at the same levels as usual and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #37 
Dewey what you seem to continue to miss is the fact that we have hundreds of billions of UNNECESSARY spending that needs to be cut. You continue to imply that the federal budget is all necessary.
Get rid of funding for the Cowboys Poets Society, Endowment for the Arts and crap like that then we can talk about what is left on the debt. If I remember correctly, there was even a government funded study done to find out why college kids drink on spring break.
Is funding NPR necessary?
Is funding of PBS necessary?
How about all the money the feds give to ACORN or Planned Parenthood?


__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #38 
http://www.thedailysound.com/opinion/
I like this one here in The Daily Sound, This guy is right on.

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #39 
Terry - Good thing I hadn't read this horribly slanted editorial piece before I decided where I stood about the Wisconsin situation.  I see a meld of greedy management and greedy labor that I believe has caused much of our fiscal crisis.  Of course, this is an attack on the supposed "greed" of the lower middle class and the working poor, but it completely eliminates, in its vicious perspective, the role of the upper middle class and the upper class.  It delivers the message of the Robber Barons that only a few deserve the benefits of our national society at the detriment and on the backs of the working class. This is exactly what Karl Marx raved about in Das Capital.  The owners of the mean of production lording their power over the worker to gain the profit motive of capitalism.  If, indeed, capitalism has become our government, and rants against socialism are regarded as truth, then this blatantly slanted editorial is worthy of reading beyond disdain.  Yikes !!  
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #40 
Good day Mr. Bolton,

I note where you said: "I see a meld of greedy management and greedy labor that I believe has caused much of our fiscal crisis.  Of course, this is an attack on the supposed "greed" of the lower middle class and the working poor, but it completely eliminates, in its vicious perspective, the role of the upper middle class and the upper class.  It delivers the message of the Robber Barons that only a few deserve the benefits of our national society at the detriment and on the backs of the working class."

 Are you suggesting that the government of Wisconsin is "greedy management"?  Wherein lies it's greed when the state is approaching a 3.8 B deficit?  How do these managers profit from the greed you attribute to them?  Are you really equating the Wisconsin Governor and Legislators to "Robber Barons"?  If so, what about the Federal Government that does not permit any collective bargaining?  Me thinks you have really stretched on this one sir.  If as you suggest, capitalism has become our Government, please explain how it profits.  By the way, what is wrong with a slanted editorial?  I believe that is the very nature of an editorial, it is opinion, not reporting.




















JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #41 
slideby 7 - Per usual, your questions are right on without being nasty.  From my perspective, a terribly slanted editorial has the same effect that Goebbels had on the German people,  It has them beating their chests and repeating "We are absolutely right and those who oppose us are fools and dangerous".  There is no understanding of  an opposing intellectual view.  I assign that danger to both far right and far left editorials which distort the middle ground.  I do not feel stretched in the areas that are important to the citizens (all of them) of the USA, only in those that extol the debatable virtues of laissez faire capitalism or only condemn its faults.                         

If we want a nation in which the wealthy blame the working poor for their lack of only three mansions and one yacht profit or their unbalanced budget which favors the wealthy, then your perspective bears fruit. If we want a nation in which labor uses its limited power only to create a slanted distribution of the profit motive, then we've skewed the balance of distribution of profit to the detriment of entrepreneurship. If we understand and entertain the perspectives of both groups, then we succeed in intelligent compromise.   If we take a perspective that all the citizens of our nation deserve equal concern, then either of two absolute perspectives does not apply.                                                                                  

Capitalism has its own values system and favors only the few at the top of the financial spectrum, but a capitalistic government can rein in the pure capitalistic values, especially entrepreneurism and benefit to those who own "the means of production"  if some socialism (especially in theory) is incorporated into the pure capitalistic profit motive which is often given as an absolute good, and if labor has a voice in working conditions and distribution of profit in the form of wages.  

In the case of Wisconsin, profit cannot be measured purely in dollars, but rather exists in theories about whether labor has any rights at all, whether it be in federal or state employ or in the private sector. Greed is noted in the power principle, not dollars especially.  Unions served their purpose when the whip of management became too heavy and the Robber Barons of which you speak garnered the very, very huge majority of the profit of industry under a 19th century laissez faire capitalistic system fed with cheap labor.  I would hope that we have reached a point in history where neither management nor labor, learning from the lessons of history, of excessive greed, have learned that their interdependency is more important than their petty bickering, and where they can perceive too heavy a whip in either direction in their demands that contribute to the detriment of national concerns.      

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #42 
Mr. Bolton,

Note you say from "your perspective"  Exactly, that is what an editorial is:
editorial

noun an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor,  or editors.

With all due respect, to compare a column/editorial to the propaganda campaign of Goebbels is a little disingenuous.  The purpose of an editorial is for the author to express an opinion, his or hers.  If you or anyone else doesn't agree, you are free to do so..and write a letter to the editor expressing your opinion.  To say the least, that was frowned upon in Nazi Germany.  Most of the "chest beating" and other disturbing behavior is from the Union  and it's thugs.  If editorials present what you describe as "middle ground". I don't believe they would be editorials.  I find that you constantly refer to laissez faire capitalism and to say the least, condemn it.  While carried to its extreme, obviously it is a problem, however, the capitalist economy we have to day is miles from what you describe.  Much of what good Unions contributed in the past is now covered by the protection of law.  Further, I ask that you keep in mind, that you have jumped from Public Employee Unions in Wisconsin, to Unions in general and picked up the rant they constantly use about the "middle class" etc., etc., etc.

Do you think it is fair that one is forced to join a Union if he/she want a particular job?  Do you think it appropriate that the government collect the Union dues and distribute them back to the Union and the Union in turn contributes to the reelection campaigns of those very politicians?  "Give me a break."   So you say now we have a nation of wealthy that blames the working poor for their lack of only three mansions and one yacht profit or their unbalanced budget.  Do we want a nation that riots in the street like Greece?  Look what happens when the entitlements people are used to are threatened.  See Wisconsin.

Where do you suggest Wisconsin get the money to eliminate it's deficit and continue the outlandish entitlements of their public sector unions?  Higher taxes to drive more business out of the state?  Capitalism has served this country well.  I am far, far from rich, whatever that means, and I wouldn't for on moment want a different system.

oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #43 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
Terry - Good thing I hadn't read this horribly slanted editorial piece before I decided where I stood about the Wisconsin situation.  I see a meld of greedy management and greedy labor that I believe has caused much of our fiscal crisis.  Of course, this is an attack on the supposed "greed" of the lower middle class and the working poor, but it completely eliminates, in its vicious perspective, the role of the upper middle class and the upper class.  It delivers the message of the Robber Barons that only a few deserve the benefits of our national society at the detriment and on the backs of the working class. This is exactly what Karl Marx raved about in Das Capital.  The owners of the mean of production lording their power over the worker to gain the profit motive of capitalism.  If, indeed, capitalism has become our government, and rants against socialism are regarded as truth, then this blatantly slanted editorial is worthy of reading beyond disdain.  Yikes !!  
JG-Didn't say it wasn't slanted,just that I liked it.

To me one of the key points is all the money we pour into education & a great part of it never reaches the classroom or the students.


__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #44 
JD - I can't begin to know which spending programs deserve to be cut and which ones don't.  That's the job of those we elect to research.  Maybe you know these answers but I suspect it's a lot deeper than you may realize.

In any event, you've changed tracks again.  If you're now making your argument to our readers as saying Obama should be out there cutting many of the programs that have been funded during the last decade or so, under two different Presidents, then make it.  That's a fair stance.  What I'm countering is the daily barrage of folks like you who wrongly suggest President Obama entered office and spent trillions of our dollars.  Many on the right continue to say this is a tax and spend President.  Other than a couple far reaching and minuscule examples, there have been no tax increases and, outside of the $1 Trillion stimulus and safety net spending I conceded earlier, the spending budget continues on the same 6% growth cycle it's been on since 2002. 

President Bush spent trillions to fight terrorism and dethrone Hussein, while President Obama spent a trillion to avoid a depression and support so many folks in need.  People will debate the wisdom of these decisions for years to come but I do know Bush made no attempt to pay for his spending decisions while Obama at least tried to pay for his by reinstating the estate tax and letting the top tax rate expire.  Unfortunately, he failed and our revenue continues to suffer.   
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #45 
Dewey, at this juncture in our country's history, it does not matter who spent how much. What remains to be seen, is which party has the intestinal fortitude to enact the spending cuts across the board that will stop us from being a nation in financial default. Which party do you see doing the dirty work? Will the Dems step forward and support the massive cuts in entitlement programs that are necessary? Will the Dems put forth a budget proposal cutting Government employment and the massive cost of housing Government employees in office buildings? Want to guess which party will be screaming when the Government shutdown looms? If you think Wisconsin is interesting, wait till the Public Employee Unions are faced with twenty percent furloughs. What will we do when the first eliminated are police and fire department employees as usual? Can we survive with only two librarians instead of three? Can we survive without a subsidized rail system? My guess is we can do just fine. Care to guess which party will be crucified in the press and on the campaign trail for the budget cuts that are coming? 
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #46 

woody - Like others here, you're misinterpreting the point I'm focusing on.  Yes, President Bush made a major investment to fight terrorism after 9/11.  He made another expenditure to go into Iraq and a third one to provide a drug program for the elderly.  Many of us understand two and have doubts about the third.  But that's a whole different debate.  President Obama made a major investment to avoid a depression and help those in need.  Again, we'll debate that elsewhere.  I'm simply trying to understand what the growth in Government spending should actually be, once we get an appropriate budget, and to make certain everyone knows this President isn't driving the rate up further.

Assuming expenditures are at a point this Country will accept, what annual increase would one expect?  Inflation will drive up expenses.  Wonder drugs, modern medical testing, and longer life expectancy will add a burden on the budget too.  Baby boomers and population growth has its impact as well.  Finally, as long as revenue is lower than expenses, debt will climb which leads to growing interest payments.  With all this in mind, nobody with any sense can expect a government spending budget to stay at the same number year after year.

During the 90's, spending went up 3.5% annually and from 2002 through 2008, this climbed to over 6% per year.  Maybe with all the factors I just mentioned, this is an appropriate growth.  I don't really know but I think we must find out.  I'm not here to blame Bush for the growth in spending but I do hold him responsible for his attack on revenue, via tax cuts.  When we had a balanced budget, revenue was growing about 5% while spending grew at 3.5%  We were on the right track and then he came in and attacked revenue.  In my eyes, that was the beginning of the return to deficits, a return to a growing debt, which results in interest payments growing again.  That's my hangup with the last Administration, outside of Iraq.

Chastise President Obama all you want for his one time trillion dollar "save the day" investment that some have doubts about but don't try to hold him responsible for a spending budget that still grows at this same 6% per year, (I've posted spending for each year elsewhere and you can do the math).  Stop with the false claims that he's spending like no other President has.  Lack of revenue is mostly driving these deficits, not spending.  Tag him with $1 trillion of our $14 trillion debt if you don't believe it actually saved us from worse but stop with all the other misinformation.  I simply used the Bush years of growth as a history lesson that 6% growth is where we are and expecting Obama to magically change that is ridiculous.

If we assume 6% spending growth is not to be expected, and I hope 3-4% is possible again, then I'm all for focusing on that.  Of course, I want SS means testing and health care reform aimed at addressing Medicare and Medicaid costs to be part of the solution.  Obama has already started the latter.

More importantly, should we get spending growth back to 4% per year and revenue growth continues at only 3%, we're still doomed long term, even if we start the total Government spending at a level we can agree on.  I continue to believe Republicans know this and are trying to keep revenue growth below spending growth so they can rid our Country of these safety net programs that they dislike so much.  By emphasizing the deficit and ignoring the fact spending isn't growing at a greater rate than it has the last ten years, they hope to convince the public that we're broke and we're spending wildly to the point we can't afford our social programs anymore.  Unfortunately, the economic collapse that slashed Government revenue opened the door wide open and helped Republicans to make their case.  And now the fight is on.  More revenue?  Less spending?  I say both but the Tea Party says otherwise. 


LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #47 
Here's a scary number I came across today.  Currently, when you include government employees, retired government employees, those on social security and those on welfare, 35% of all Americans get their primary source of income from the government.

Within 10 years it will be over 50%.  This is something that we can't sustain.  It will collapse before long.




woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #48 
When the number of those dependent on Government for a paycheck exceeds those in the private sector that pay into the system that provides that paycheck, we will have become a Socialist State.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #49 
Fellas - I suppose after "Katrina" we could have written that well over 90% of New Orleans citizens were dependent upon Government assistance.  Do you understand we are digging ourselves out of a crisis?  Did you ever hear about the baby boomers? 

While we wait for the economy to grow more significantly, what should we do with the unemployed?  Are you against extending benefits because you believe these people can go to work and there are enough jobs available out there?  If you think they are legitimately out of work and we just can't afford the cost any more, then did you still think returning the top tax rate to what the law called for, which would have offset some of these costs, was wrong because it was a form of income redistribution?  Twelve years since a balanced budget and many still look for charts/proof that blame the average Joe/Jane for where we are today.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #50 
We have extended UE benefits again and again. How long will this current economic downturn last? Dewey, how many years would you say that we continue to extend benefits? Is there a limit in your eyes? Is 5-10 years enough?? I think there are Katrina victims still living in FEMA trailers and getting Federal benefits over 5 years later.You can buy a barely used FEMA trailer at auction for less than $3900. Most are winding up on deer leases or used as campers on lake lots as a getaway home. At what point are people made to fend for themselves and stop being recipients? Many people on UE benefits don't want to work at a job that pays the equivalent of their UE benefits. I hope they can find a high paying job in the future, but in the meantime, I would hope they would work at some other job until that occurs instead of taking the check. Do you think they will? My original statement about cutting Government employees did not even mention those people receiving UE checks. 50% producing benefits and 50% receiving them wont last long.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #51 

There is an auction for FEMA trailers that I know about once a month every month and this will last for a long, long time....There are thouands upon thousands of trailers stacked on property waiting to be auctioned....This is gonna go on for years to come....

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #52 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody

We have extended UE benefits again and again.  Dewey, how many years would you say that we continue to extend benefits?


woody - Years ago, we temporarily lowered some of our citizens tax bill from $1 million to about $880,000.  How long should we continue that?

bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
How long should we continue that?


We should not continue with this sort of thing....We should lower those taxes even more...And, everybody else's taxes, also...They're too high!
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #54 
Dewey unlike you, I will answer the question. The Federal Government should not raise taxes, especially in an economic downturn. The Federal Government might take an outrageous stance and cut spending instead of growing and adding more employees and Government programs. Will you answer my original question please?

Dewey, how many years would you say that we continue to extend benefits? Is there a limit in your eyes? Is 5-10 years enough??

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #55 
Now please answer the second question.

Many people on UE benefits don't want to work at a job that pays the equivalent of their UE benefits. I hope they can find a high paying job in the future, but in the meantime, I would hope they would work at some other job until that occurs instead of taking the check. Do you think they will?



__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #56 
Woody - Would a Socialist state have as many millionaires and billionaires as the USA has?  How about as many socio economic upper and upper middle class folks as exist currently under our capitalistic government?  I hear all this worry about a Socialist state, but aren't we really talking about a debatable "fair share" taxation situation which is a combination of capitalism and socialism?                             

Each time our graduated tax situation is discussed, I hear those with the big time standards of living whine "socialism" as though they are going to be, in the words of Mrs. Ken Lay, "Penniless" with only one mansion left, using the word "socialism"in the ancient Cold War sense.  With our current federal debt incurred during the past 15 years, we must look at federal and state income and outlay seriously.  Thus far, I see union busting and reduction to perceived "entitlement" programs as the governmental answer without interrupting the lavish lifestyle of the rich and famous through taxation.  Of course the rich and famous now have new power in government, so it is understandable that the middle class and the working poor will take a bigger hit than those with more ability to help the deficit situation without serious lifestyle depravation.  Those who argue that Socialism will never work because the human being is naturally too greedy might have a valid point.    

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #57 
JG the Millionaires and Billionaires in Socialist Nations are typically those that are more equal than others. The leadership, the leaderships family, friends, and business partners.  
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #58 
woody - I know - "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others".  But is this just?  "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally 'property').  Do we put this aside when it is inconvenient?  A true conservative would not.   Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #59 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
woody - I know - "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others".  But is this just?  "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally 'property').  Do we put this aside when it is inconvenient?  A true conservative would not.   Frank


Frank,

There are some that, when convenient, put aside the language that refers to "our creator" and the numerous mentions of God.  Are you suggesting that we must be "all in" and, if so, what about those that don't buy into the creator or God references?

It's very clear in the writing by these men that they believed in God just as much as they believed in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but there are those that like to take their words literally yet throw out the pieces that don't suit them personally like the founders' belief in God.  Yes, it's their right to do so but if we open that door don't we open the door to throw out other parts like liberty, or pursuit of happiness? 

It's not always simple, is it? 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #60 
LMUFan - Sure, it's simple, but we make it complicated and dangerous when connected with government.  The god of nature (there are many such gods ranging from pantheistic to monolithic to multi purpose) existed for the founding fathers.  As you probably know, I am a Secular Humanist, and thus these "gods" to me are mythic symbols of attempts to explain that not known. Read Joseph Campbell's "Myth and Man" because he does a better job of explaining than I could ever do.   Where we run afoul of some agreement is when absolutists cling absolutely to a particular form of a god and god worship and refuse to understand or consider any other.  The founding fathers, according to my readings, spoke of a "god of nature" in keeping with their Deism, and I'm sure each "father" differed slightly from the others, hence "creator" and not "God". 

 I'm sure also that the anthropomorphic god of Christianity had few detractors in the 1700s in a Western European setting where Roman Catholicism (Christian) had reigned supreme during the Medieval Period and where the Renaissance and Reformation brought more Christian sects into being.  Enlightened men of that period, however, shunned a theocracy in writing our fundamental documents.  In 1954 our nation began writing "In God We Trust" all over the place, assuming that, of course "our god is the only real and true god".  I shudder at this move toward a theocracy.  Check out what has become of Islam and their one true and only god.   
Wise men those founding fathers.    

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.