We've Returned to the Golden Calf: Money

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
There is no constitutional basis for a federal welfare program.

[/quote]

Eh… You’ll get a good fight from those who read the whole “provide for the general welfare” bit in that manner.

Jefferson doesn’t really help the cause here either:

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

sourced:

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

[/quote]

I have no source to back me up on this - so I’ll own it as outright opinion.

But, no where in that clause does it mention the word people - which the constitution is very clear to use when it is referring to the citizens of the US. Even in Jeffereson’s quote, he was quite specific in what he was referring to: the Union. If he were referring to Great Society-ish welfare programs, I make the assumption that he would have chosen the parlance of the constitution and used the words “the people”.

If we’re going to take his comments as literal, then he also mentioned paying the debts. I have about 272K I need Barry to take off my hands.

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
There is no constitutional basis for a federal welfare program.

[/quote]

Eh… You’ll get a good fight from those who read the whole “provide for the general welfare” bit in that manner.

Jefferson doesn’t really help the cause here either:

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

sourced:

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

[/quote]

I have no source to back me up on this - so I’ll own it as outright opinion.

But, no where in that clause does it mention the word people - which the constitution is very clear to use when it is referring to the citizens of the US. Even in Jeffereson’s quote, he was quite specific in what he was referring to: the Union. If he were referring to Great Society-ish welfare programs, I make the assumption that he would have chosen the parlance of the constitution and used the words “the people”.

If we’re going to take his comments as literal, then he also mentioned paying the debts. I have about 272K I need Barry to take off my hands.

[/quote]

haha, We’re on the same page on this one. I’ve had this argument before though…

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I think the comparison to Revelations

[/quote]

There is only one Revelation, not multiples. Maybe you should read it.
[/quote]

Wow.[/quote]

Wow that you did not know it was the Book of Revelation and not Revelations, or Wow that you should actually read it?
[/quote]

No, wow that I’m being called out for a typo.

[quote]Karado wrote:
Perspective…I think we’ve totally taken word out of the friggin’ vocabulary, especially with regards to
the first post…How wrong is that article? Let me count the ways.
[/quote]

Did you read the other half of the sentence? It says, “if we consider the advances made in various areas.” And what areas would this be? Health, education and communications.

Welcome to the turning point. In the perspective of economics: people can’t get health care, people can’t get education, and with the advance of communications this is a sad reality that this has not happened.

We are at the top of our game, yet there is tons of people in desperate need. And, well we’re in a pretty violent situation in the stretch of mankind. Abortion, cloning, sex trafficking, child abuse, children out of wedlock, IVF, &c. I don’t know what the total count, but if you look at abortion in America lone +50.0m that makes the Great Khan look like a chump, if you add in his sons and successors Triple-A ball at best.

Add in wars, starvation, preventable diseases, &c. the Great Khan will be sitting on the side lines for the rest of the season, him and his sons.

This is not even the economic violence that doesn’t kill, cloning, IVF (which does actually kill people but would be a total guess on anyone’s part), divorce, child abuse, &c.

My heart would break a million times if I wasn’t desensitized to the culture. Then there is just the complete lack of charity on everyone’s part (the one writing being the first of all).

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I think the comparison to Revelations

[/quote]

There is only one Revelation, not multiples. Maybe you should read it.
[/quote]

Dude studied under nuns, its a grammatical error (it’s actually an Americanization, most people call it Revelations). If you want to be technical it’s the Apocalypse of St. John the Evangelist. Who knew? The Pope. Same guy that lived with the poor folks of Aires. I’m sure the Jesuit knows something bout economics and poor. And, don’t mistake this man for someone who teaches liberation theology. He condemned liberation theology as a Cardinal.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most people call it Revelations).[/quote]

I agree with you on this point. With that said it does not make it correct.

And the ‘‘Revelations’’…no theologian on the face of the earth of ANY denomination agrees whether the ‘‘Beast’’ was Nero
already or some asshole or system that’s yet to appear on the world stage soon, a year from now, 5 years, or 5000 years from now.

I say let’s leave that book alone for the most part until one theologian nails it head and knows what the fuck he’s talkin’
about with Revelation…IDK Revelation 100%, You don’t know Revelation 100%, The Vatican doesn’t know Revelation, Luther considered
casting it out…Nobody knows it, and anybody who claims they do should be committed to the loony bin unless they’ve
cracked the code of Revelation…Nobody on Earth knows, that’s a hardcore truth at the moment…nobody knows and
can interpret it so all the eggheads are in lockstep unison with it in TOTAL agreement, which they are not and never have been.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

The words of Saint John Chrysostom were not for ‘everyone else’ to heed. They are for you to heed.
Give up your goods first, then ask others to do the same.[/quote]

I lead a pretty simple life, quite frankly. Yeah, I own some property and that sort of thing, but I also spend more time than virtually anyone I know who hasn’t taken a vow of celibacy working with the sort of people that Jesus implored upon us to help. I’m not perfect in this sense by any means but, yeah, I listen to those words of John Chrysostom. Do you?

I know Matt Ryan does, because he sure as shit gave away that NFC Championship Game. Quite commendable and charitable of him.[/quote]

Not that I consider him an authority anyway, but John Chrysostom’s words don’t fully apply here anyway unless you presuppose that our economic system functions the same way as those of the Roman empire, in which one literally did not get wealthy except by taking wealth away from others.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I think the comparison to Revelations

[/quote]

There is only one Revelation, not multiples. Maybe you should read it.
[/quote]

Wow.[/quote]

Wow that you did not know it was the Book of Revelation and not Revelations, or Wow that you should actually read it?
[/quote]

No, wow that I’m being called out for a typo.[/quote]

Yeah Dmad, that was unnecessary. It’s not like he was claiming to be a biblical scholar or pastor or even a believer.

[quote]Karado wrote:
The Pope seems like a good guy…but Africa, old ‘‘Burma’’, Afghanistan, etc. etc. have been hellholes and dens
of immorality WAY before it seemed to perspectively ‘creep’’ into the mainstream… ‘wonder if any full page Catholic "writings’’
on those, or the 1990’s horrific massacre, the biggest since the Jewish holocaust BTW, that was barely covered by U.S. media.

We can’t ‘pick and choose’ our “Revelations” and such…The world’s generally a shitty place…NOTHING new under the sun.
The article maybe mostly “truth”, but it was “true” 1000 years back as well,
and the “turning point” is horseshit TOO…WHAT “turning point”?
Mankind has ALWAYS been mean and nasty.
Truth in some points, but nothing new.[/quote]

Well said, Karado. There really is nothing new under the sun. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work for change, but I too have had enough of the ahistorical rhetoric.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Perfect display of a typical progressive tactic which tries to convince a person that, because conservatives believe in a small federal government with little or no taxation, they are naturally greedy little bastards who want only to hoard every penny they earn for themselves. Personally I think it is merely a projection of the progressive’s own greed and that they are in utter disbelief that there are those out there who actually do give to the poor of their own free will.

DB also displays another equally typical progressive tactic which proffers the lie that the only entity capable of taking care of the poor is an oversized and over reaching federal government.

And for the trifecta, Mr. Cooper calls on one of the lamest tactics of them all - bastardizing and/or completely obliterating the the context of religious leaders’ and scholars’ writings and using them as ‘proof’.

If it weren’t for christian conservatives, there would be decidedly less charitable giving in this country, and the rest of the world as well.

I would further suggest that DB wallows in the same hypocrisy he is so quick to point out in others.

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring mostly to the sorts of people who complain about their taxes going to lazy people living off of entitlement programs, most of which (based on my own anecdotal experiences) are both conservative and Christian. I think it’s hypocritical for those sorts of people to complain about the use of their money to help the poor and needy.
[/quote]

Hypocrisy is condemning an action of others that you practice yourself. In short, it is claiming to hold to a standard when one in fact does not. If Christians complained about lazy people living off entitlement programs and then were, in fact, living off entitlement programs, that would be hypocrisy. Once again, it is not that conservative Christians don’t believe in giving; rather, they are the most generous givers in the nation. However, they do not believe that the government should have the right to force them to give and to determine the recipients of those funds and the purposes for which those funds are allocated.

You pointed to the Pope’s John Chrysostom citation as indictment of conservative Christians whom you deem “hypocritical.” That’s what drunkpig is referring to.

That’s outstanding! I say that with complete seriousness.

The point the Pope is trying to make, which is applicable to those who whine about taxes and not having 20% more disposable income (lets be practical and leave political ideology at the door) is that you CAN help beyond monetary donations. Give through your actions not just your wallets. That money is useless without people committed to volunteering and giving their time to help other people out.

Not bashing conservatives here because I understand the argument about a smaller (more efficient) and less intrusive government.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most people call it Revelations).[/quote]

I agree with you on this point. With that said it does not make it correct.[/quote]

NOPE, YEP

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.
[/quote]

There’s nothing wrong with what you wrote but don’t mistakenly try to amalgamate Christianity with conservatism. There are many progressive Christians in the US (look at the polls) and I’d venture to say more Christians worldwide would identify themselves as more progressive than conservative.

Look, here’s the deal…people wonder what the REAL ‘‘turning point’’ is, that point where the Lord sez: ‘Enough is Enough’!!
I have tried several times to point this out, but was met with great resistance…the virtual repeat of Genesis 6.
We OBVIOUSLY have not come to that point yet, otherwise why hasn’t the Lord judged the Earth in post
ascension yet?..our current A.D. era?

Observe carefully below what our Good Lord has ‘‘put up with’’ WITHOUT judging the entire Earth yet, destroying it
by Fire… So get a clue on Genesis 6 people, get a clue on the The Book Of Enoch people, get a clue on Jubilees
Chapter 5 people, get a clue on the Book of Jasher people…in those books are the specific events just before the Lord sez :‘‘Enough!’’,
and that’s nothing compared to the A.D. atrocities listed below…Think Deeper about the Antediluvian world and how it must have
been WORSE than what’s listed below, because even with all that evil listed below, it must not have been be worse
than the Antediluvian World, otherwise the Lord would have put a stop to all this current and past evil, a long LONG time ago.

What’s listed here is a fraction of the past evil, this is not including Millions of Abortions, Millions more War casualties, Famine,
I could on and on and on Historically…still no judgment from our Lord yet…crickets chirping… because evil and mass genetic manipulation of humans, plants and animals has not reached Antediluvian levels…yet.

  1. Japan’s Savage Military: From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

(2) The Khmer Rouge Hell State: In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicize, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups. Most of these, a likely near 2,400,000, were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge.

(3) Turkey’s Ethnic Purges: The infamy of executing this century’s first full scale ethnic cleansing belongs to Turkey’s Young Turk government during World War I. In their highest councils Turkish leaders decided to exterminate every Armenian in the country, whether a front-line soldier or pregnant woman, famous professor or high bishop, important businessman or ardent patriot. All 2,000,000 of them.

(4) The Vietnamese War State: Perhaps of all countries, genocide in Vietnam and by Vietnamese is most difficult to unravel and assess. It is mixed in with six wars spanning 43 years (the Indochina War, Vietnam War, Cambodian War, subsequent guerrilla war in Cambodia, guerrilla war in Laos, and Sino-Vietnamese War), one of them involving the United States; a near twenty-one year formal division of the country into two sovereign North and South parts; the full communization of the North; occupation of neighboring countries by both North and South; defeat, absorption, and communization of the South; and the massive flight by sea of Vietnamese. As best as I can determine, through all this close to 3,800,000 Vietnamese lost their lives from political violence, or near one out of every ten men, women, and children.1 Of these, about 1,250,000, or near a third of those killed, were murdered.

(5) The Pakistani Cutthroat State: After a well-organized military buildup in East Pakistan, the military launched its campaign. No more than 267 days later they had succeeded in killing perhaps 1,500,000 people, created 10,000,000 refugees who had fled to India, provoked a war with India, incited a counter-genocide of 150,000 non-Bengalis, and lost East Pakistan.

(6) Orwellian North Korea: Perhaps from 710,000 to slightly over 3,500,000 people have been murdered, with a mid-estimate of almost 1,600,000. But these figures are little more than educated guesses. In this case, Kim’s thought control over all his people and their foreign and domestic communications has protected him and his party from nothing more than deep suspicion about having committed genocide so enormous as to be megamurder.

(7) Barbarous Mexico: Through its system of peonage and chattel slavery, terror, summary executions, and political terror, pre-revolutionary and revolutionary Mexican regimes committed murder on a massive scale, surely totaling at least hundreds of thousands of Indians, peons, innocent villagers, captured soldiers, and conscripts. From 1900 to 1920 total government genocide alone amounted to somewhere between some 600,000 to 3,3000,000 Mexicans, perhaps closer to 1,400,000 killed. Although these figures amount to little, more than informed guesses.

(8) Qin Dynasty: In the eight years that the Han Dynasty was being replaced by the Qin Dynasty 221-207B.C., the population of China decreased from 20 million to 10 million.

(9) Dong (Eastern) Han Dynasty 206B.C.-220A.D., the population of China was 50 million. After the transition of power to the Three Kingdom period 222-589, the population decreased to 7 million.

(10) At the end of the “Grand Guignol” inside Batavia, most sources agree, 10,000 city-Chinese lost their lives, but little is said about the many more who must have perished outside the city’s walls. Of the 80,000-odd Chinese in Batavia’s environs prior to the extermination, only around 3,000 survived.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing

Suspected
1,663,000 Orwellian North Korea
1,417,000 Barbarous Mexico
1,066,000 Feudal Russia

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.
[/quote]

I’m not talking about ALL Christian conservatives. I’m talking about the ones who rant and rave about taxes going to entitlement programs who don’t participate in charitable causes, like going to soup kitchens or working with the Big Brother program or volunteering at rest homes or donating clothing to the Salvation Army and that sort of thing. The same type who cite God as the driving force behind all of their hate-talk but never go to church and so forth.

Communism does not give the lazy as much as the hard-working, 8th Plank of the communist manifesto- Those who do NOT contribute to the collective good will not get the fruits of labor of the collective good.

In communism people work where the Central Government tells them to and then hands them their allotment of toilet paper for the month. There is no such thing as money in communism.

Read this:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’m not talking about ALL Christian conservatives. I’m talking about the ones who rant and rave about taxes going to entitlement programs who don’t participate in charitable causes, like going to soup kitchens or working with the Big Brother program or volunteering at rest homes or donating clothing to the Salvation Army and that sort of thing. The same type who cite God as the driving force behind all of their hate-talk but never go to church and so forth.[/quote]

Why is it any of your business what people do or don’t do? You think christian conservtives are the only possible group in the US who gripe about being forced to pay into a corrupt government system? Do you consider being a judgemental, class-envying ass among your charitable activities?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.
[/quote]

I’m not talking about ALL Christian conservatives. I’m talking about the ones who rant and rave about taxes going to entitlement programs who don’t participate in charitable causes, like going to soup kitchens or working with the Big Brother program or volunteering at rest homes or donating clothing to the Salvation Army and that sort of thing. The same type who cite God as the driving force behind all of their hate-talk but never go to church and so forth.[/quote]

there are plenty that do go to church , I personally like when the passage from the bible states that Jesus will drug test all people that he wants to help :slight_smile: