AssemblyBoard
November 01, 2024, 07:18:40 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Current Events  (Read 117500 times)
editor
Guest
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2005, 11:31:59 pm »

Quote
What is needed is a change from "either/or" thinking to  "what will actually work" thinking.

I forgot to comment on this one:

Tom, I concede to you that results are what really matter.  Either/or thinking never fed a hungy child.

So, what will actually work?  Is our present system working?

I think the Wright brothers were told something about it won't work, cause it hadn't been done before, etc.  I flew to Vegas last week....and it worked.  Whoda thunk it?

Welfare/socialism doesn't work, IMO.  Freedom used to work....I am willing to give it a try again. 

Of course, it's easy for me,  I have no government safety net...must buy my own insurance, my employee's insurance, my liability insurance, and my malpractice insurance, prepare my own taxes, fund my own retirement and pay for my office furniture.  It must be much harder for someone who has lived their entire life getting all this as perks.

So I guess it all depends on a person's point of view.  From where I am sitting, I buy breakfast and lunch for my five kids, as well as about 20 other kids I don't know, every weekday. 

The best situation would be where 90 percent of the population lives a life of leisure, with government healthcare, housing and welfare, whole 10 percent does all the work and pays the bills. 

We could call it a reasonable system of helping the poor.  In the past, it was called slavery.  The difference is that we used to enslave the poor, but now we can enslave the rich and productive!

Brent
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2005, 12:17:30 am »

I forgot to comment on this one:

Tom, I concede to you that results are what really matter.  Either/or thinking never fed a hungy child.

So, what will actually work?  Is our present system working?

I think the Wright brothers were told something about it won't work, cause it hadn't been done before, etc.  I flew to Vegas last week....and it worked.  Whoda thunk it?

Welfare/socialism doesn't work, IMO.  Freedom used to work....I am willing to give it a try again. 

Of course, it's easy for me,  I have no government safety net...must buy my own insurance, my employee's insurance, my liability insurance, and my malpractice insurance, prepare my own taxes, fund my own retirement and pay for my office furniture.  It must be much harder for someone who has lived their entire life getting all this as perks.
Brent

Boy did we get an education once we became small business owners. We were in a state of shock when we had to pay the taxes and insurance costs of the few folk we hired last Summer. We instantly realised that we had seriously underbid a few jobs.
Nonetheless, the country is dsigned for the entrepreneur. Anybody who has not figured out that you have got to get  beyond depending on employment for income is doomed to be an perpetual victim of  confiscatory taxing policy. It is really the only way the current system can sustain itself.
Sadly, not every one has the initiative, or more likely, was ever properly taught how the American system really works. I am not sure if there is any way we can premanently fix the current mess. I suspect that as soon as the younger generation begins to assume political power there are going to be some serious changes made...and rightly so...
Verne
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #62 on: April 08, 2005, 01:14:37 am »

Boy did we get an education once we became small business owners. We were in a state of shock when we had to pay the taxes and insurance costs of the few folk we hired last Summer. We instantly realised that we had seriously underbid a few jobs.
Nonetheless, the country is dsigned for the entrepreneur. Anybody who has not figured out that you have got to get  beyond depending on employment for income is doomed to be an perpetual victim of  confiscatory taxing policy. It is really the only way the current system can sustain itself.
Sadly, not every one has the initiative, or more likely, was ever properly taught how the American system really works. I am not sure if there is any way we can premanently fix the current mess. I suspect that as soon as the younger generation begins to assume political power there are going to be some serious changes made...and rightly so...
Verne

entrepreneurs take all the risk, and if they succeed, get all the reward, minus all the taxes they must pay.  Things are not nearly as designed for the entrepreneur as in the past, especially if the entrepreneur needs a few employees.  Labor, and the cost associated with it is incredibly expensive.

Generally speaking, Welfare types take absolutely no risk, and never know success or reward.  Living like this makes them feel bad about themselves, and they compensate by faulting others for their sorry state....namely "rich" achievers.  Are there exceptions?  Of course, but in the main what I say is spot on.

There is a way to fix the current mess.  It's simple, short, and painful for some.  You scrap it.   You get rid of the whole thing.  What do I mean by this?

eliminate worker's comp.  Owners don't have it.  I take a risk every day that I might get hurt at work, but I'm not covered by comp....cause I'm a business owner.  As such, I must be responsible for myself.  Employees, however, get to hold their employer responsible should they fall down at work.  In California, comp rates are between 30 and 150 cents per dollar payroll.  It's a complete rip-off.

Taxes: flat tax. Period.

Social Security: scrap it, and sell of government owned property in order to pay for those who are currently dependent on it for their living.  We must keep our obligations to those folks, over say 50 years old.

Healthcare:scrap medicare, do away with it.  Take the money in the system now, and use it to give people over 65 low interest loans for their healthcare expenses.  Those who haven't hit the magic number yet can keep their current health coverage after their birthday, instead of being forced onto Medicare.

Private pay worked in this country for years before Medicare and HMO's. 

Give people their money back, and let them be responsible for their own decisions.  Sure, this is going to hurt folks, but the current path is far worse.  It can be hard work trying to jibe the boat at night when it's raining, but if doing so keep you from running aground, it's worth it, even if it is uncomfortable for the short term.

Socialism doesn't work, and we are heading faster and faster down that path.

Democrats want really big government.
Republicans want slightly less big government.

Both are headed the wrong way, just that one will get there sooner than the other.  When the system finally does collapse, we'll be right back to simple capitalism anyways.

Brent


Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2005, 04:12:58 am »


Democrats want really big government.

They foster an atmosphere of dependency by the poor and disadvantaged, on the government

Quote
Republicans want slightly less big government

They foster an atmosphere of dependency by the well-off and privileged on the government.

Both employ the legislative process to achieve their self-centered ends.
Both groups are hogs swilling at the tax-payer's trough.

The conduct of Bush and Cheney disabused me of any notions I had that Republicans stood for the tax-payers' best interests.
Verne

« Last Edit: April 08, 2005, 04:15:19 am by VerneCarty » Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #64 on: April 08, 2005, 04:52:05 am »

They foster an atmosphere of dependency by the poor and disadvantaged, on the government

They foster an atmosphere of dependency by the well-off and privileged on the government.

Both employ the legislative process to achieve their self-centered ends.
Both groups are hogs swilling at the tax-payer's trough.

The conduct of Bush and Cheney disabused me of any notions I had that Republicans stood for the tax-payers' best interests.
Verne

Yep.  I agree.

wouldn't it be great not to feed the hogs anymore? 

since the topic is current events, what do you think the chances are that the brave, moral republicans will do something to get judges nominated and confirmed?  Do you think they have the stomach to say, "No" to the dems?"  (I am amazed that they had to think more than ten minutes over this, but they are worried that they may be treated badly when the dems get power back.  WIMPS and WEASELS!)

Brent
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2005, 06:52:21 am »


since the topic is current events, what do you think the chances are that the brave, moral republicans will do something to get judges nominated and confirmed?  Do you think they have the stomach to say, "No" to the dems?"  (I am amazed that they had to think more than ten minutes over this, but they are worried that they may be treated badly when the dems get power back.  WIMPS and WEASELS!)

Brent

On his appointments I have some mixed feelings. From what I know about Pickering for example, I must say I agreed with the Democrat's strong opposition of the man. He was reversed a remarkable fifteen times in ten years by the very conservative court Bush was seeking to appoint him to.
He decisions on civil rights and labor laws were clearly viewed as extreme by his coservative peers.
The record of Bush of appointment of Black judges in states where there is a high representation of African-Americans is not at all good.  I could give some interesting stats if anyone is interested; it happens to be an area I pay some attention to...
Verne
Logged
summer007
Guest


Email
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2005, 07:02:15 am »

Brent, You obviously have done somethings right. But I'm surprised that in your ideal world you think the church would foot the bill for the nation's distressed, sick, poor and other's such as homeless. Have you ever had a true need and been on the recieving end? God knows the Church would'nt do it, so he's set up Governments. (I'm not saying you would'nt do anything) Don't you remember anything from your assm days about human nature, money and power. You don't think the church would be bias to their own, and look down on the other religious or non religious. Please re-think what your saying. Their really going to take care of some old man who's burned through his resources such  as house savings other investments and he hates christians he's laying in a bed for 10 years or so, with round the clock nursing, daily doctors visits etc. This is just one how about thousands of baby boomers nearing retirement. Oh just send the bill to the church. right. Would if the church does'nt have enough $, then what? I think your coming from a perspective of being rich, increased with goods and having need of nothing. The church is not as generous as you make it out to be.  Summer.  P.S. While having coffe in Westwood the other day it looked as if several people lived right there on the side walk just outside starbucks. I did'nt see any church groups rushing over to take care of them. These people looked sick.
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2005, 08:51:37 am »

Brent, You obviously have done somethings right. But I'm surprised that in your ideal world you think the church would foot the bill for the nation's distressed, sick, poor and other's such as homeless. Have you ever had a true need and been on the recieving end? God knows the Church would'nt do it, so he's set up Governments. (I'm not saying you would'nt do anything) Don't you remember anything from your assm days about human nature, money and power. You don't think the church would be bias to their own, and look down on the other religious or non religious. Please re-think what your saying. Their really going to take care of some old man who's burned through his resources such  as house savings other investments and he hates christians he's laying in a bed for 10 years or so, with round the clock nursing, daily doctors visits etc. This is just one how about thousands of baby boomers nearing retirement. Oh just send the bill to the church. right. Would if the church does'nt have enough $, then what? I think your coming from a perspective of being rich, increased with goods and having need of nothing. The church is not as generous as you make it out to be.  Summer.  P.S. While having coffe in Westwood the other day it looked as if several people lived right there on the side walk just outside starbucks. I did'nt see any church groups rushing over to take care of them. These people looked sick.

Hi summer,

I think you misunderstand me.  I do not advocate that anyone be forced to care for the nations sick or distressed.  To the contrary, I think that any care, or giving should be done out of freewill, on an individual basis.  The thought of sending the bill to the Church is silly, insane and immoral.

In the same way, the idea that the taxpayors should be forced to foot the bill is also wrong.  Now, if the church WANTED to help, wouldn't that be wonderful?  However, the church would be biased, etc.

It is precisely these reasons why I say we should be allowed to keep what we earn and give as we see fit.  I believe there are more than enough generous people to see that the poor among us get some relief.  Also, if the government didn't purchase poor and homeless people in order to fill its programs, the needs would not be as great.

My "ideal" world is really pretty simple.  I like the US constitution, and the idea of limited government.  It seems pretty out of reach at present, but at one time we had it.

Brent
Logged
summer007
Guest


Email
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2005, 09:52:52 am »

Brent, I think I understood what you said. If your ever hit with a catastrphic disaster, do yourself a favor and don't count on the church to come to your rescue, you would be better off getting low % loans from the govt. And if your resouces were completly exhausted and you had to get medical aid from a govt program such as medicare for something like a feeding tube for 10-20 years, you and your family would be grateful (if you'd even be aware of it.) I jumped in this conversation because I'd been thinking of alot of these issues as I'm newly self-employed. So I appreciate your insights. Also I just watched a friend lose about 3m in real estate (a landslide) and all that was offered was fema a low % loan on top of about 16k mortgage, homeowners does'nt cover this type of disaster. No-one is going to feel to sorry for someone in this case or offer to help. Things happen in life that are considered acts of God, that we have no control over. Thank-God their are some Good Samaritans out there. Would'nt it be nice to have an "Angels of Mercy" center to help the poor, sick in society. Would be Wonderful to give,could be a donation run only center, but would most likely turn into a skid-row situation real quick.   Summer.
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2005, 10:44:55 am »

Brent, I think I understood what you said. If your ever hit with a catastrphic disaster, do yourself a favor and don't count on the church to come to your rescue, you would be better off getting low % loans from the govt. And if your resouces were completly exhausted and you had to get medical aid from a govt program such as medicare for something like a feeding tube for 10-20 years, you and your family would be grateful (if you'd even be aware of it.) I jumped in this conversation because I'd been thinking of alot of these issues as I'm newly self-employed. So I appreciate your insights. Also I just watched a friend lose about 3m in real estate (a landslide) and all that was offered was fema a low % loan on top of about 16k mortgage, homeowners does'nt cover this type of disaster. No-one is going to feel to sorry for someone in this case or offer to help. Things happen in life that are considered acts of God, that we have no control over. Thank-God their are some Good Samaritans out there. Would'nt it be nice to have an "Angels of Mercy" center to help the poor, sick in society. Would be Wonderful to give,could be a donation run only center, but would most likely turn into a skid-row situation real quick.   Summer.

Hi Summer,

I don't have a problem with a little help for true catastrophes.  However, that is a far cry from what we have now.  We are headed towards cradle to grave oversight by mama government.  Breakfast and lunch at school, doctor visits, housing, food, you name it.  That's a far cry from a feeding tube!

What bothers me so much is that the debate over this stuff is really over.  It used to be common knowledge that we were on our own, and that bad things can and do happen.  There were no guarantees, no safety net.  People didn't expect the government to bail them out if anything bad happened.

Now, the debate isn't over whether this is a legitimate roll for government, but over how much "help" should be given, and how much wealth should be redistributed in order to accomplish it.  If we follow this to its logical end, we end up right where we started, only totally impoverished.  Russia is a case study in this area.

Maybe I'm crazy, along with many of my friends, because I think it would be great to live on a sailboat and cruise around the world.  No control over the weather, no government to turn off and on the wind, or food stamps to re-provision.  I decide where I go, and take all the risks, as well as the rewards.  No safety, only adventure.  I'll do my best to be as safe as possible, but there are no guarantees on the ocean. 

Why does this sound so awesome?  Why do so many people want security?

Honestly, sometimes I can't decide if the world has gone mad, or if i have.

Bottom line, I don't go around asking the "church" for money.  I also don't count on them coming to my rescue.  Earthquakes, car accidents...they all happen.  It's part of life.  I'd rather face uncertainty as a free person, than as a ward of the state.

Brent

Logged
al Hartman
Guest


Email
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2005, 11:16:49 am »



What is needed is a change from "either/or" thinking to  "what will actually work" thinking.


Honestly, sometimes I can't decide if the world has gone mad, or if i have.


See, Brent...  There you go again with that "either/or" thinking!  Grin  Grin  Grin
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2005, 12:13:35 pm »




See, Brent...  There you go again with that "either/or" thinking!  Grin  Grin  Grin

Yup!  Cheesy

Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2005, 06:14:23 pm »

http://family.org/cforum/feature/a0036082.cfm
April 4, 2005

Pope Recalled as 'Voice of Conscience'
by Pete Winn, associate editor


Catholics and evangelicals alike remember the late pontiff as a commanding pro-family figure on the international stage.

Pope John Paul II, who died Saturday at age 84, was widely considered one of the most extraordinary leaders in the modern world. And you don't have to be Roman Catholic to be amazed at the legacy the pope built for 27 years — the second longest pontificate in history.

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a pro-family leader of the U.S. Senate, met the pontiff when he co-led the congressional delegation to Rome that presented John Paul II with the Congressional Gold Medal.

He lauded John Paul for his willingness to confront evil and to stand for the inherent dignity of the individual.

"He was raised up at a particular, unique point in time in history — confronted Nazism, confronted communism and then confronted the culture of death," Brownback said. "And in each case, (he) saw that when evil is confronted, it may take some time, but the evil will be defeated.

"What a lineup that came together at a unique point in time of history — of Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — to confront Communism. I'm old enough to remember that people just thought Communism was going to be there for a long time, even though it sucked life out of people. But that triumvirate confronted Communism, and it fell. An evil confronted will be an evil defeated, even though it may take time.

"He had a moral clarity and boldness that was a great gift to the rest of us."

Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson agreed.

"While we grieve the profound loss of this remarkable man, we celebrate his life, his ministry and his undeniable impact on the world," Dobson said. "During his time as leader of the Catholic Church, he embodied the belief that freedom is a gift from God that should not be infringed by any government; that all life is precious and should be protected; and that dying is part of living and should not be feared nor hastened artificially."

Those are just some of the reasons John Paul II will be remembered as the greatest pope of the last century, according to The Rev. Thomas Euteneur, president of Human Life International.

"His message and the power of his witness will never die," Euteneur said. "The pope has been a voice of conscience like no one else could be — or has been in all of the past century. He knew very clearly the difference between right and wrong. He was able to carry out a profound critique of the atheistic and anti-life ideologies of the 20th century and to bring that to us in a form which has been unsurpassed."

Euteneur added that the pontiff wrote 14 encyclicals — or authoritative papal declarations; made 104 trips around the world; gave more than 20,000 messages; spoke to dictators; and "did just about everything that a human being could possible do to appeal to the consciences of the world."

Embodiment of pro-life principles

Dr. Timothy O'Donnell, president of Christendom College in Virginia, said the pope stood for the dignity of life — a core Catholic teaching. But has also served as a visible embodiment of that principle, not only for Catholics, but for the world.

"Even in his illness, he showed us the fundamental dignity of the human person," O'Donnell said. "It's not what you have or what you do, but it's what you are that's the most important thing in life."

There has been no stronger voice for the family, according to O'Donnell, who is one of the few lay leaders appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Council on the Family.

"He made the defense of the family one of the principle keys throughout his pontificate," O'Donnell said. "One of his earliest documents that he issued, he called for a gathering of the synod of bishops to discuss the family, because he saw very clearly that the way to our future passes through the family — and that's part of God's providential design; that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, and emphasizing very clearly openness to life and that children really are a blessing — a way of sanctifying and making that marriage holy. This is something he saw as a point that really needs to be defended."

Above everything else, though, O'Donnell said the pope "wanted to proclaim Christ."

"From the first encyclical that he sent out, 'Redemptor Hominis,' The Redeemer of Men, he focused on Jesus Christ," O'Donnell said. "And he did that when he visited his native Poland, in front of Communist leaders, wherever he went — he preached the same message in season or out of season. And I think the greatest legacy for those who are not Catholics, but who would share a common Christian faith, would be (that the pope is) a great example of serving the truth in love."

The Rev. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., a Catholic theologian and teacher who hosts programs on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), agreed that Jesus was the core of John Paul II's theology.

"We have to come into union with God through Jesus Christ, and there is no other way to God except Jesus," Pacwa said. "He really highlighted that in everything he has written to us. And man cannot know who he is, apart from knowing Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one who has shown us what it means to be made in the image and the likeness of God."

The Rev. Robert Sirico, who heads the Acton Institute, said it is a misnomer to apply a political term like "conservative" to the pope. He was, instead, a traditionalist.

"I think what's unique about him was he articulated the vision in such an accessible way that everyone understood," Sirico said. "It was very hard for anyone to say that this was a mean man. What he spoke, he spoke with love; he spoke with profound respect, even for people who disagreed with him.

"He was a man of prayer, a man deeply committed to Jesus Christ. A man who respected them, regardless of our differences, a man for me as a priest is really the model of the priesthood, other than of course Jesus Christ Himself. But this man embodied the Gospel in a unique way."

Rita Marker, executive director of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, said she saw evidence of the pope's unique appeal at a conference on families at the Vatican, with her own family present.

"There's something about a person that children tend to sense, that sometimes adults don't," she said. "And as soon as the pope came into the room, (my son) Paul, who is the second to the youngest, the shy one, went running up to him, and put his arms around the pope, and the pope put his arms around Paul — it was just utterly incredible.

"It was so out of character for Paul, and yet it really wasn't because he could tell that this was someone really special who loved children."
Logged
summer007
Guest


Email
« Reply #73 on: April 09, 2005, 12:29:42 am »

Brent, You sound like a classic casse of mid-life crisis. The sailing around the world sounds so good to you because your caught in the middle. You could sell all and go at anytime, but your too responsible to do that. Your children and wife would probibly not want to live your dream. Yet maybe when their grown and you retire you could live your dream, or even go on a sailing trip for a few months taking all the risks the open sea has to offer. Funny I know someone who lives on a sail boat, his only saftey net is a fishing net he uses to catch dinner, he works on the yacht anchorage, gets to surf, sail, scuba and fish at will weather permitting. (Or you could run for office your so political, you have some great ideas,) Yet I suspect the real issue is the wasted assmebly years and reconciling that against our ego's of being so stupid to fall for GG.  summer
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #74 on: April 09, 2005, 01:04:14 am »

Brent, You sound like a classic casse of mid-life crisis. The sailing around the world sounds so good to you because your caught in the middle. You could sell all and go at anytime, but your too responsible to do that. Your children and wife would probibly not want to live your dream. Yet maybe when their grown and you retire you could live your dream, or even go on a sailing trip for a few months taking all the risks the open sea has to offer. Funny I know someone who lives on a sail boat, his only saftey net is a fishing net he uses to catch dinner, he works on the yacht anchorage, gets to surf, sail, scuba and fish at will weather permitting. (Or you could run for office your so political, you have some great ideas,) Yet I suspect the real issue is the wasted assmebly years and reconciling that against our ego's of being so stupid to fall for GG.  summer

You know something?  I think there is a lot of truth in what you say here.  Could it be that i really am in a mid-life crisis?  I bet your right.

So, when I "get over it" I can accept the rest of my life in comfort, knowing that I didn't pursue my dreams, and got over the idea of living passionately, choosing instead to compromise and live moderately.

Dang, that sounds so attractive..... Undecided

I probably am in a mid-life crisis of sorts.  My question is if this is bad, something to be squelched, or is it time to take action? 

Brent
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!