Just so everyone knows, if I’m ever sarcastic to you it does not mean that I hate you. I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ and I’m actually quite optimistic and accepting of others to an extreme degree. Ask Holly.
Do politics sometimes cause un-Christian attitudes and behavior, and lead it irrational and oversimplified thoughts? Does affiliating yourself with a party or certain person tempt you to defend their every policy, even if it's unethical? And also tempt you to be unethical to the opposition? All politicians lie and mislead and use unethical tactics. Shouldn't politics be considered worldliness, and therefore, in the interest of being in the world but not of it, wouldn't it be wise for Christians to limit their involvement? Just wondering what everyone thinks.
That was the philosophy of many restorationist preachers, David Lipscomb being one. Christians should have no involvement with government. The late Homer Hailey believed that if we preached the gospel causing the lost to be converted this would take care of the nation's needs, not government. Government/politicians is/are not my savior but I live in a land where I do, by law, have a say and I say it. However, it is the soul of this people, not the government that will determine the fate of this nation. When the hearts of the people turn to evil so will the government. The people will get the government they deserve. Due to moral state of this nation we can't expect to deserve a good government. McCain will not solve our problems but Obama will be our Rehoboam and "chastise us with scorpions".
Politics is about government, and government IS the people. As Arsenal so very well pointed out, the hearts of people determine what kind of government we have. The solution is to change hearts by converting souls to Jesus. The kind of leader our nation has may determine our freedom to serve and worship God, so I believe it's acceptable for Christians to support a candidate (if there ever is one) who will help preserve tha freedom. However, everything we do should be done morally and ethically.
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13:1). The government exists by God's authority.
it's wayyy more fun if you look at politics like sports. in my opinion, no christian can be a packers fan or a white sox fan. Simply cannot. Yet it's important to get all huffed up about my love of the Bears and Cubs, and when the Bears and the Cubs win every single super bowl and world series, then jesus comes for his 1000 year reign and/or everyone becomes a bears/cubs fan.
i know the answers to all your questions though: yes. Unfortunately you did not define the terms 'irrational and oversimplified thoughts', 'unethical', and 'limit their involvement'- so a "liberal"(haha) amount of subjectivism has played a part in all responses. except mine, of course.
Saving souls is a Christian's predominate goal; however, that does not mean a Christian cannot "try to reform governmental systems." One does not exclude the other. One method of "reforming" government is by voting, and there is nothing unscriptural about doing so.
good point on don't vote don't complain, but my response is that as a christian i should not be complaining a whole lot about the government anyway, so i don't feel like i am giving up a huge right by not being able to complain through my subsequent lack of voting
factcheck.org points out lies of both Obama and McCain, and their running mates, and all political advertising. Does anyone know a better source for non-partisan factchecking? Or should I believe all advertising, rumors, e-mail forwards, and politicians words as the truth? I'm serious here. I want to vote and I need help.
Aaron, I don't have one source for checking out facts. I research what both sides are saying, as well as other information on the Net. For example, if you want to know if Obama's "spread the wealth" idea is Socialist or not, look up what Socialism is all about. That settles the argument.
Thanks for the info, Sonja. I've tried my best to factcheck factcheck.org and they seem to be impartial. They're pretty hard on Obama so I can't imagine them being in cahoots or anything. I've been trying to figure out who the most moral and intelligent candidate is. In the primaries I concluded it was Ron Paul and voted for him. Unfortunately he was laughed out of the race for daring to suggest that America cannot afford to be an empire anymore. I know Obama is more intelligent than McCain but I think they're equally immoral. I'm leaning towards Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution party candidate.
Factcheck is wrong. Got it. It stinks not being omniscient, eh? How do I know that factcheck's factcheckers aren’t wrong or biased? Everythings connected eventually. And we can never know everything about anything or anyone. Which is why elections are weird times. I was wrong to say that McCain is as immoral as Obama. Not that I think that’s impossible, tho. What I should have said is that I’m not voting for either because I think they’re both too immoral for me to vote for (McCain is an adulturer, supports an unjust war (matter of opinion, I know. I deal with everyone elses, too), probably only changed his rhetoric on abortion to get votes, ran a dirtier campaign, and it can be argued that Obama wanting to help the poor is a good moral thing (unless he has a sinister reason for doing so, but how do we know? blah)) Anyways, I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin, so chill. I leave it up to you to find out that he’s a serial killer. Just remember to check yer fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s facts.
United States House of Representatives
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008
Madame Speaker, only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent. It was most unfortunate that this monstrosity of a bill, loaded up with even more pork, was able to pass.
The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails.
One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place.
With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption.
The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt.
As usual, Congress has show itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed.
........
My next post will be about something different. Promise.
I am "Marvel", too. Right now I am reading "House of M." I have to say Wolverine is my overall favorite, followed by Cap (the dead one). I am wondering if they'll bring him back? Bucky just isn't the same... : ) Don't worry about the story review; I'm anxious to hear your comments, but really don't stress about it. My idea for the conflict is still evolving, so further work has been a little slow and subject to massive revision!
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 25, 2008
From shying away from even mentioning such terms as “recession,” “unemployment” or “bank failures,” Bush, Bernanke and Paulson are now vigorously invoking the fear of financial meltdown as part of a campaign of economic terror to blackmail the American people into accepting the power-grabbing “bailout,” while John McCain, who last week said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, is now all but threatening to cancel the election should the proposal not receive swift passage.
Bush’s speech last night was a throwback to his March 2003 stump before the invasion of Iraq - replace words like “weapons of mass destruction” with “financial panic” and the tone of the two is not dissimilar.
Bush rammed home the fear by appealing to people’s personal anxieties.
“More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically,” barked the President.
“And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs.”
Bernanke and Paulson spewed similar rhetoric during Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee meeting. Compare their dire proclamations with their outright refusal to even entertain the notion of a recession as little as seven months ago.
Now Paulson tells us that people “should be scared” and that the only solution is for taxpayers to foot the bill to the tune of $700 billion dollars - a number we now learn was simply pulled out of thin air by the Treasury - while the Federal Reserve swallows up all manner of new regulation powers.
It seems that almost overnight these three stooges have gone from behaving like sedated zombies to end-times doomsayers.
Furthermore, John McCain, the man who as recently as last week proclaimed that “the fundamentals of the economy are sound,” is now canceling presidential debates, and some fear greasing the skids for the postponement of the presidential election itself, by insisting he and Obama “return to Washington” in order to put their weight behind the bailout.
As the George Washington Blog notes, McCain is basically implying, “Vote for the bailout or I’ll pull out of the election”.
The financial terrorism being perpetrated by Bush, McCain, Bernanke, Paulson and the rest of these criminals in threatening Americans with unbridled chaos unless they acquiesce to political demands, and the coordinated ferocity with which it is being delivered, is necessary for the crooks because they are desperate to get the bailout passed before Congress really has a chance to digest exactly what it stands for.
This is what’s called the “shock doctrine,” the accelerated passage of what is essentially dictatorial legislation without proper scrutiny by means of exploiting a temporary state of fear.
This is not just about $700 billion of taxpayers’ money and the continued sacking of the dollar, it’s about the imposition of a giant new infrastructure of control and regulation on behalf of the private, run for profit, Federal Reserve.
Bush even alluded to it last night, stating that Paulson’s bailout would mean the “Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum.”
But this is merely scratching the surface. As Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said, “This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it’s un-American.” In fact properly defined, one could label it “national socialism,” otherwise known as fascism.
As professor of economics at New York University Nouriel Roubini framed it, welcome to the United Socialist States of America and “the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades”.
The plan was drawn up months ago, lying in wait for the right crisis to see it enacted, just as the Patriot Act was prepared well in advance of 9/11.
The Treasury’s fact sheet about the bailout states, “The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.”
This gives the government and the Federal Reserve carte blanche to do whatever they want to as long as it is done in the name of stabilizing financial markets, they can nationalize any company or industry and use taxpayer money, above and beyond the initial $700 billion, for whatever purpose is deemed necessary, without any oversight. Paulson’s bailout plan is also unreviewable by any court, it will remain in perpetuity.
Paulson’s draft bailout plan says: “The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.”
As Chris Martenson writes, “This means that $700 billion is NOT the cost of this dangerous legislation, it is only the amount that can be outstanding at any one time. After, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are disposed of, another $100 billion can be bought. In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling.”
“The bill would bar courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority,” reports Bloomberg.
The Bush administration seeks “dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis,” said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. “We are taking a huge leap of faith.”
“It sounds like Paulson is asking to be a financial dictator, for a limited period of time,” said historian John Steele Gordon.
Reporter Larisa Alexandrovna calls it “the final stages of the coup,” noting, “This manufactured crisis is now to be remedied, if the fiscal fascists get their way, with the total transfer of Congressional powers (the few that still remain) to the Executive Branch and the total transfer of public funds into corporate (via government as intermediary) hands.”
The legislation would provide billions to foreign central banks in addition to private foreign banks.
The proposed move represents a total shift of U.S. taxpayers’ funds into the hands of powerful private interests, some of which do not even represent American companies.
The bailout bill represents the most fascist centralization of power in America since 9/11 and the Patriot Act - and many would argue that it even trumps that. The fiscal terrorists hope to ram through their agenda by appealing to people’s fears about the economy, their jobs, their houses and their pensions. But the temporary pain brought on by a Wall Street crash and a severe recession would be nothing compared to the long term death knell that the bailout bill would mean to the free market and economic liberty in America.
This is scary. I guess that's what they want to do. All year the media has been crying that there is a bad economy. I don;'t see it. I work at Walmart, and we're alwaays busy. People always have money to spend--and not always on necessities, but wasteful things. Restaurants and movie theaters are always full. Despite the high gas prices I really haven't noticed fewer cars on the road. All of this tells me that most people are doing ok. Then these financial institutions start to fail and they tell us if we let them fail it will be major economic meltdown. I guess it's becoming more real.
Obviously I know nothing about macro economics and politics, but from my layman's point of view I don't see how the country can afford these massive bailouts. Maybe someone can explain that to me? Also to me it seems like if a company exhibits bad business habits and fails, then it should fail just like any other company. I don't know, I guess that's why I'm a graphic designer and not a politician...
i think failure is a part of life, and if we told more kindergartners that when it is obvious they will become failures the US would be a better place.
Josh and I were just talking about this - obviously things are more expensive, but most people we know are doing okay, even if their 401K's are suffering some. We were wondering if the verbage used by the media and candidates is part of the panic?
Most of those people are probably also in debt up to their eyeballs. Most people we know who are living below their means are not buying a ton of extra stuff right now.
I'm glad to see Republicans and conservatives finally being able to wrap their heads around the concept of disagreeing with Bush. Now if we could just get a handle on the bombing and torturing...
