Current Events

[summer007]

Definitly Take-Action. Plan the trip now, unless you want to sail around the world in your fifty's or sixty's, of course your probibly physically fit now, but who knows in ten years. Besides you probibly have a nice life insurance policy for the family if you don't make it back.( Here-in lies the madness!)   summer.

[summer007]

p.s. If you do "get over it" a very wonderful thing can happen. Your children will be grown, and be more independent. I can't believe how nice it is to not have to drive kids around all day. Mine are both driving and both have jobs after school, so I'm no longer a walking ATM/Taxi. Its also wonderful that my daughter will start college in the fall and my son will graduate and turn 18 next year. This does free me up to pursue some of the things I've had to put on hold for close to 20 years. They still remain a great blesssing in my life, even more so now. summer.

[Oscar]

Brent,

You said,

"I'm shocked at this statement.  Not only do I believe that 10-11 percent of the population can provide the charitable resources for the entire nation, but this is exactly, precisely what has been going on for decades!  Have you ever looked at the breakdown of who pays taxes?  The vast majority of federal revenue comes from the about 10% of the population.  These are the same people who give charitable donations as well.  So your statement above is totally wrong.  It's not a matter of "if" they could provide the resource....cause they already are, and have been for a long time."

This statement has some problems.  I am familiar with the figures you give.  I hear them quite frequently on conservative talk radio shows when someone calls in and advocates taxing the "rich".  "Rich" btw, seems to start at about what most people call "middle class".

But the 10% figure is not accurate for all taxation.  It applies to the Federal Income Tax, and is accurate as far as that goes.   But it doesn't take into account all the money that comes from corporate income taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, (FDIC and Medicare), tariffs and import/export licences, grazing leases, sale of oil leases on federal lands, user fees, on and on.

 We all pay many of these taxes.  The guy with a 1983 Impala probably pays as much federal excise tax on his gas as the guy with a Lexus.  And there are a lot more working stiffs than rich guys.

In addition, the folks that pay the majority of the income taxes do so because of compulsion...not out of benevolence.  Actually, only a little less than 30% of Americans make charitable donations at all!  (This, btw, is a higher percentage than the Canadians who donate)

Folks that make over $100,000 annually gave 2.7% of their income to charities.  Folks who made under $25,000 gave an average of 4.2%. (In 2000).

So, the reality is very different from what you described.

It seems to me that folks who think all the needs can be met by personal charity are as naive about human goodness are Leftists are about human evil.

Of course, we could just abandon the genuinely needy to whatever folks wish to give.  Seems to me that that is what was done for most of human history.  I can't really say it seems to have worked very well. 

More later.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

It seems to me that folks who think all the needs can be met by personal charity are as naive about human goodness are Leftists are about human evil.

Of course, we could just abandon the genuinely needy to whatever folks wish to give.  Seems to me that that is what was done for most of human history.  I can't really say it seems to have worked very well. 

More later.

Thomas Maddux

I guess you're right Tom.  Humans are selfish and won't meet all the needs.  We need government to do that for us, as government isn't plagued by selfish humans.  It's the only thing that works, because for most of human history, there have been people with needs.

I'm going to think about this before I teach my kids,  "Kids, work hard.  There are a lot of needy people out there who are counting on you to help them."

I have enjoyed our conversation, but I don't think we are on the same page at all. 

Brent

[al Hartman]

This, received today in an e-mail, could have gone on a couple of different threads, but "Current Events" seems appropriate:

al


                   America the Beautiful,
                     or so you used to be.
                   Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
                     I'm glad they'll never see.

                   Babies piled in dumpsters,
                     Abortion on demand,
                   Oh, sweet land of liberty;
                     your house is on the sand.

                   Our children wander aimlessly
                     poisoned by cocaine,
                   Choosing to indulge their lusts,
                     when God has said abstain.

                   >From sea to shining sea,
                     our Nation turns away
                   >From the teaching of God's love
                     and a need to always pray.

                   We've kept God in our temples,
                     how callous we have grown.
                   When earth is but His footstool,
                     and Heaven is His throne.

                   We've voted in a government
                     that's rotting at the core,
                   Appointing Godless Judges
                     who throw reason out the door,

                   Too soft to place a killer
                     in a well deserved tomb,
                   But brave enough to kill a baby
                     before he leaves the womb.

                   You think that God's not angry,
                     that our land's a moral slum?
                   How much longer will He wait
                     before His judgment comes?

                   How are we to face our God,
                     from Whom we cannot hide?
                   What then is left for us to do,
                     but stem this evil tide?

                   If we who are His children,
                     will humbly turn and pray;
                   Seek His holy face
                     and mend our evil way:

                   Then God will hear from Heaven
                     and forgive us of our sins,
                   He'll heal our sickly land
                     and those who live within.

                   But, America the Beautiful,
                     if you don't - then you will see,
                   A sad but Holy God
                      withdraw His hand from Thee.

                   ~Judge Roy Moore

  Judge Moore was recently sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and is presently threatened with the loss of his right to practice law in Alabama.

[Oscar]

Tom,

Ayn Rand is a libertarian icon, to be sure.  However, what you are quoting from is her ideas on Objectivism, which is her secular philosophy set forth in her writings.  As a Christian, I reject her atheism.  However, she makes some excellent points about governments, hypocritical religious thinking, socialism and the like.

That being said, not all libertarians are Ayn Rand clones, in the same way that not all Republicans are clones of Jerry Falwell.  Mind you, Libs like to pretend that all republicans are right-wing-fundamentalist-christian-tonguetalking-wifebeating-gayhating-holier-than-thou hypocrits...but is this really fair?

Brent,

Your complaint about guilt by association is well taken.  However, there is an old proverb that goes: "If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas."

You have quite a few "fleas" that find their basis is Rand's Objectivism.  That was her attempt to create a system of moral values based on atheist premises.  I don't think anyone takes it seriously any longer, unless it would be her disciple and "heir", Leonard Peikoff.  But I'm not sure he even believes it.

But that is the basis for the Libertarian idea of "freedom" meaning the total moral autonomy of man.  But Libertarians truth claims tend to collapse under scrutiny.  For example, they are always claiming that "every man owns himself and therefore owns the product of his labor."

I always ask them, "How do you know that's true?"   They usually to dodge the bullet by asking something like, "Well, how do you know that it isn't true?"

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion, not the person questioning it.

If we examine a handful of prominent republican leaders who are hypocrites, can we conclude that every member of the party is like that? 

In the same way, you can't project a couple paragraphs from Ayn Rand onto the whole of Libertarianism and make the claims you do...although I understand why you would.  You don't like it, because you have decided to be a republican, regardless of whether or not they actually do what they say.

Amazing Brent.   You can actually read my mind and discern the thoughts and intents of my heart all the way from San Luis Obispo!   

A better idea, (and more reliable in the long run), would be to ask me why I am a Republican.

Also, let's just say that they weren't doing so.  Is it your contention that we should make people give by force?  If our citizens don't want to help the poor, and we have a representational government....are you suggesting that we should force people to take care of the poor?  This is pretty much what Karl Marx wanted, is it not?

Not even God does that, He prefers a willing giver.  But your argument has been set forth by plenty of socialists, and do-gooders over the years.  You all believe that government is the solution and the protection for "the Little guy."  Actually, if one tries this theorey out, as has been done in communist/socialist nations over the last century....it doesn't work too well, and actually creates "little guys," who loot and mooch off of honest, productive people because the socialist world view rewards the needy with greater rights. Those who enforce the rights of the needy are the politburo types, whose job is to live high on the hog and keep the needy alive and in need.  Why in the world would you want to adopt this faulty reasoning here in the US?

Man, talk about guilt by association. 

First of all, a few posts back, you said you would call the city officials if a guy opened a whorehouse next door to your house, and complain about the traffic, noise, trash, and so on.

All those laws are based on force.  In fact, all law is based on force.  God set it up that way.

Romans 13: 4-6 says, " For he is God's servant to do you good, But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.  That is also why you pay taxes...".

Government was instituted by God for the restraint of evil.  Defacing the image of God is evil, so Christian influenced societies made laws against prostitution, drug use and so on.

Allowing children to starve is evil as well.  That's why they passed public wellfare laws.

Now, because of the pollyanna attitude Liberals have about human evil, they have allowed the public wellfare systems to be corrupted.  They have abandoned the ideas of personal responsibility and self reliance, so wellfare has become an entitlement in many folk's minds.

Libertarians have a Pollyana attitude about human good.  We are commanded to "love our neighbor as ourselves".  But we just don't quite find it in us to actually do that.  We are much more concerned that our kids eat, than the kids of some down and out person.   So, in Christian influenced societies, they passed public wellfare laws.

Regarding your attempt to paint public wellfare laws as Marxist/Socialist schemes. Socialism is an economic theory about the ownership of the means of production by the people. 

The wellfare state actually was invented by capitalist/imperialist Germany in the days of the chancellorship of Otto Von Bismark. Socialists like the wellfare state idea, but they learned it from capitalists.

Again, I am shocked by your thinking and reasoning.  Tom, do you remember 911?  Weren't those guys religious zealots, doing and justifying their murder in God's name?  What about the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition?  History is rife with religiously based wars, killing and murder.  People love to exercise power over others in God's name.  That is what Ayn Rand is talking about.  Are you are so threatened by the idea of freedom that you worry that you won't be able to be a Christian anymore, if we don't have welfare, taxation, and hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations?  Do you only think that Islam does horror in God's name?  I shudder to think at what would happen if the likes of Jerry Fallwell were able to exercise power over this nation. 

This one has been thrown at me many times over the years.  You, however, are the first Christian to send this particular "flea" my way.  This usually comes from atheists.

1. You are equating the moral influence of Christianity upon a society with total religious domination and theocracy.  Nonsense.

2. You are equating Chrisitan moral influence with "religion", which includes Medieval Catholicism and Islam.  Nonsense.  When atheists throw this one at me,(the crusades, the inquisition), I just ask them, "Which of Jesus' teachings were they implementing?"   It is a long, long way from "do unto others" to the Spanish inquisition.

BTW, the first anti-slavery lawsuit in North America was brought in the 1680's in the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania by a Moravian immigrant.  His argument was, "since you believe in Christianity, you shouldn't have slaves unless you wish to become one yourself."   

Now, does that look like an attempt at theocracy to you?

3. The real danger to humanity is not religion.  It is atheism allied with the modern technological/industrial state.  In the 20th century that alliance killed hundreds of millions of people.  All the religious wars in history don't even count as a warm-up compared to what atheism has accomplished.
 

However, your attachement to these programs notwithstanding, what you are basically stating is that we need a certain amount of socialism and wealth redistribution in order to be a "christian" nation.  I reject that notion in toto.  Christians are free to give when they are free.  If my money is taken from me by force, I am not free to exercise giving with it, am I?

Could you please point out to me where I have argued that we need socialism and wealth redistribution to be a Christian nation?   I must have typed that one in my sleep.

As a Christian, my values are based on freedom.  I pity the poor nation that attempts a "christian" theocracy.

Brent

I will post some thoughts on Christian moral reasoning later.  In the mean time, let me ask you a question:

What is freedom, and why should we have it?

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

What is freedom, and why should we have it?

Thomas Maddux

Wow, great question.

The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English fredom, from Old English frodm : fro, free; see free + -dm, -dom.]
Synonyms: freedom, liberty, license
These nouns refer to the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. Freedom is the most general term: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free” (Abraham Lincoln). Liberty stresses the power of free choice: “liberty, perfect liberty, to think, feel, do just as one pleases” (William Hazlitt). License sometimes denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect: poetic license. Frequently, though, it denotes undue freedom: “the intolerable license with which the newspapers break... the rules of decorum” (Edmund Burke).

and, in the Biblical sense: 

1) liberty to do or to omit things having no relationship to salvation

2) fancied liberty

a) licence, the liberty to do as one pleases

3) true liberty is living as we should not as we please

In the context we are talking about, freedom a right that we all have.   Why do we all have it?  Because our founders thought it was a good idea, and I agree with them.  They were greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics, which is where our definition of freedom comes from.

In a nutshell, freedom means I can live where I choose, worship in the say I see fit, and generally conduct my own affairs according to my judgement.

Freedom, as a universal right, means that my freedom cannot infringe on anothers.  For example, if you own a beachfront home, and I decide that I like it, I don't have the freedom to take it from you by force.  The government doesn't have this freedom either, which is why the concept of private property lies at the heart of freedom and liberty in our constitution. 

If I operate in an environment of freedom and liberty, there must be laws that protect my freedom and that of others.  Our constitution was designed with this end in mind.  The founders also understood that governments tend to grow in power and reach, and naturally begin to oppress the citizens they rule over.  That is why the constitution is a document that limits government, and places power as close to the individual citizens as is possible.

The things that I am talking about that limit my freedom are many:

1.)taxes---the type that re-distribute wealth.
2.)overbearing environmental regulation
3.)"hate" crimes legislation
4.)extra-local control of public education
5.)many, many others

So, for me, freedom is simply the ability to enjoy the fruit of my labor, a labor which I choose to do for my own reasons.

Why should we have it?  Because it seems like a good idea.  Sure, the bible talks all about it...but in a free society people aren't forced to base their views on the bible.

I can't help but be influenced by the ideas I see in scripture, and I can't help but see that they are good for believers and non-believers alike. 

In the final analysis, it is God's will that we were born Americans, where we are free.  Freedom is worth fighting for, in my opinion.  Had we been born in China, we would not be free, but perhaps we might decide to fight for freedom.  All humans crave freedom, but unfortunately, they also crave power over others. 

We basically have a serious mess here on earth, and we both know it won't be sorted out until we have a Divine Monarchy.

In the meantime, I choose freedom as the best way to live, given the option.

As to my charge of socialism, I stand by it.  Public healthcare is socialism, pure and simple.  Welfare is socialism, pure and simple.  Public education is socialism, pure and simple.  The question is how much socialism is good, and when does it become oppressive?  I maintain that we have long ago crossed the line from good to oppressive.

If you want to see where I am coming from read the stuff put out by the Cato institute.   They are a far cry from your "hippie, whacko" libertarian stereotype.

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

You said:

"In the context we are talking about, freedom a right that we all have.   Why do we all have it?  Because our founders thought it was a good idea, and I agree with them.  They were greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics, which is where our definition of freedom comes from.

In a nutshell, freedom means I can live where I choose, worship in the say I see fit, and generally conduct my own affairs according to my judgement.

Freedom, as a universal right, means that my freedom cannot infringe on anothers.  For example, if you own a beachfront home, and I decide that I like it, I don't have the freedom to take it from you by force.  The government doesn't have this freedom either, which is why the concept of private property lies at the heart of freedom and liberty in our constitution. 

If I operate in an environment of freedom and liberty, there must be laws that protect my freedom and that of others.  Our constitution was designed with this end in mind.  The founders also understood that governments tend to grow in power and reach, and naturally begin to oppress the citizens they rule over.  That is why the constitution is a document that limits government, and places power as close to the individual citizens as is possible."

An important consideration is, "Why did the founders think freedom was a good idea."

Here, for example, is Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...".

Notice where, according to Jefferson, the rights come from.  The Creator.  Freedom, Brent, is a religious idea.  It is also a very rare idea.  In all of history it has rarely been advocated.  Although there were repuplics before ours, ours was the first on based on the enlightenment view of freedom.

Notice also that Life is listed as one of the rights bestowed by the Creator, along with the statement that governments exist in order to secure these rights.

That is one of the ideas behind public welfare systems.  Helping the truly helpless, such as orphans, widows, the blind, the crippled and so on is derived by moral reasoning from the right to life.

Moral reasoning?  Take a look at this:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"

Notice that Jefferson begins with what the Creator has done, and then develops the idea as to its application.  That is moral reasoning.  He says that since the mind is designed by God not to be able to be coerced, it follows that governments should not attempt to coerce belief by force.  Then he extends this idea into forcing people to pay for the propagation of religions with which they disagree.

However, the fact that the mind cannot be coerced does not mean that what men DO cannot be coerced.  Laws designed to promote public order and public welfare use coercion, and all the FF's recognized this.

Should religion be considered in the making of laws?  Here is John Adams, the second president:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

These guys were not in the dark about atheism.  Their understanding of logic and reasoning far exceeded the standards of today.  That is why the first congress appropriated funds to send Christian missionaries among the Indians.  They understood that the only basis for law is morality.  They also understood that the only basis for morality, (beyond the level of personal preference), was religion.

That is why Thomas Jefferson, when he set up the University of Virginia, offered all the religious groups land on the campus where they could build centers for the propagation of thier views.  It is also the reason that when he was president he allowed churches to meet on sundays in the newly built chambers of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.  He also ordered the US Army band to play at their services, at government expense.

Now, btw, what does, "our holy religion" tell us about "welfare".

It tells us a whole bunch.  But, here is an example:  Psalm 82: 1-4 and 8.

"God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods, (which are understood to be government officials btw),
How long will you defend the unjust, and show partiality to the wicked?  Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.  Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Now,does this just refer to Israel? 

Verse 8 says, "Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Israel had a covenant relationship with God that differed from other nations.  But God's laws of justice and mercy are universal, and all nations will be judged by them. 

One other thing,

Since both public education and the welfare state were instituted before Socialism existed, just how do they constitute socialism?

I would be interested to see how the logic of that works. 

BTW, in North America, the first public education laws were passed in, I believe, 1638 in Massachussetts colony. (However, 1643 keeps surfacing in my mind.)
In Europe, the earliest public education system I can think of as I sit here typing was that of ancient Sparta, 5th century BC.  Seems to me that Socialism came along in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

You said:
An important consideration is, "Why did the founders think freedom was a good idea."

Here, for example, is Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...".

Notice where, according to Jefferson, the rights come from.  The Creator.  Freedom, Brent, is a religious idea.  It is also a very rare idea.  In all of history it has rarely been advocated.  Although there were repuplics before ours, ours was the first on based on the enlightenment view of freedom.

Notice also that Life is listed as one of the rights bestowed by the Creator, along with the statement that governments exist in order to secure these rights.

That is one of the ideas behind public welfare systems.  Helping the truly helpless, such as orphans, widows, the blind, the crippled and so on is derived by moral reasoning from the right to life.

Moral reasoning?  Take a look at this:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"

Notice that Jefferson begins with what the Creator has done, and then develops the idea as to its application.  That is moral reasoning.  He says that since the mind is designed by God not to be able to be coerced, it follows that governments should not attempt to coerce belief by force.  Then he extends this idea into forcing people to pay for the propagation of religions with which they disagree.

However, the fact that the mind cannot be coerced does not mean that what men DO cannot be coerced.  Laws designed to promote public order and public welfare use coercion, and all the FF's recognized this.

Should religion be considered in the making of laws?  Here is John Adams, the second president:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

These guys were not in the dark about atheism.  Their understanding of logic and reasoning far exceeded the standards of today.  That is why the first congress appropriated funds to send Christian missionaries among the Indians.  They understood that the only basis for law is morality.  They also understood that the only basis for morality, (beyond the level of personal preference), was religion.

That is why Thomas Jefferson, when he set up the University of Virginia, offered all the religious groups land on the campus where they could build centers for the propagation of thier views.  It is also the reason that when he was president he allowed churches to meet on sundays in the newly built chambers of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.  He also ordered the US Army band to play at their services, at government expense.

Now, btw, what does, "our holy religion" tell us about "welfare".

It tells us a whole bunch.  But, here is an example:  Psalm 82: 1-4 and 8.

"God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods, (which are understood to be government officials btw),
How long will you defend the unjust, and show partiality to the wicked?  Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.  Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Now,does this just refer to Israel? 

Verse 8 says, "Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Israel had a covenant relationship with God that differed from other nations.  But God's laws of justice and mercy are universal, and all nations will be judged by them. 

One other thing,

Since both public education and the welfare state were instituted before Socialism existed, just how do they constitute socialism?

I would be interested to see how the logic of that works. 

BTW, in North America, the first public education laws were passed in, I believe, 1638 in Massachussetts colony. (However, 1643 keeps surfacing in my mind.)
In Europe, the earliest public education system I can think of as I sit here typing was that of ancient Sparta, 5th century BC.  Seems to me that Socialism came along in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

I am not going to disagree with Jefferson.  Wouldn't dream of it, except in the area of his deism and slave ownership.  His idea on government as superb and I find myself in total agreement with them.

I could not agree more with the idea that freedom is a right given to us by God.  I thought I made that clear.  It is sort of a basic assumption for me, like gravity.  Yes, freedom is a religious idea, and it was set forth by men who had all sorts of idea about religion.  Certainly you wouldn't want to emulate jefferson's faith! I'd vote for him in a second though.

If welfare is so good, why didn't we have it until FDR and Lyndon Johnson?  Same with Medicare.

One other thing,

Since both public education and the welfare state were instituted before Socialism existed, just how do they constitute socialism?

I would be interested to see how the logic of that works. 

Socialistic ideas were around before the politcal movement known as Socialism.  Nevertheless, let's be perfectly clear about this; what we know as public education today is a mutant monster compared to what we had 100, or even 50 years ago.  I am in possession of an 4th grade reader from the late 19th century, and it is so far beyond what the kids are learning today it's not even funny.  I also have an 8th grade history final from the same time period and it is truly amazing. 

I totally reject the idea that the founders had our current mess in mind when the set up the government.  They didn't have cabinet postitions, or huge departments and regulatory bodies, etc.

So, what we have today, in the areas of pubic education and healthcare is a state owned and operated system, which is almost completely out of the control of the local districts.  That is socialism, and it came about as a result of socialistic thought.

Do you see it differently?

Brent

[vernecarty]

The United States of America is soaking up 80% of the world's capitilzation resources to service our national debt and perennial budget deficits. The trade deficit last month hit an all time high of well over sixty billion dollars. How long can we keep this up? What if China stops buying our treasury notes?
Worse what if they decide to unload them??!
Many countries have already reduced their dollar exposure and I expect it to only get worse.
The so-called experts keep telling us that the economy is in essentially good shape and now untold millions of Americans have been treating their homes like ATM machines and squandering the equity they built up, some over decades. The new mantra of consumerism is the "interest-only loan"; it supposedly allows you to plant the money you would have paid toward principal elsewhere and achieve a much better ROI. Oh, really?
What if the real estate marke collapses and you are left holding a note twice the property's saleable worth?
This has in fact happend to some folk!
In anticipation of the inevitalbe flood of bankruptcies on the horizon, the business community have been quietly getting congress to make it virtually impossible to avoid your debt obligations even after declaring bankruptcy.
We have become a nation of absolute fiscal recklessnesss and there is going to be hell to pay down the road.
I feel terrible about what we are leaving to our children.
I have been watching the market now for some time and some time back  set 10,500 as my reinvestment strike point and put in a ton of dough late last year. I pulled it all out three weeks ago.
 So many folk I know have moved into 300 and 400 thousand dollar homes to take andvantage of the low interest and I must say we were at times solely tempted to move up as well. We decided to stay put and debt free.
Where will this all end??!!!!
I for one am very pessimistic about where we are headed.
Paul Kennedy's book about the rise and fall of great nations is starting to look prophetic.
I always knew that the moral failings of the nation would ultimately result in God's intervention.
I never expected it to be coupled with the kinds of obvious economic repercussions that now seem inevitable.
Any thoughts?
Verne

[editor]

The United States of America is soaking up 80% of the world's capitilzation resources to service our national debt and perennial budget deficits. The trade deficit last month hit an all time high of well over sixty billion dollars. How long can we keep this up? What if China stops buying our treasury notes?
Worse what if they decide to unload them??!

Count on it.  This is exactly what they are going to do.

I for one am very pessimistic about where we are headed.
Paul Kennedy's book about the rise and fall of great nations is starting to look prophetic.
I always knew that the moral failings of the nation would ultimately result in God's intervention.
I never expected it to be coupled with the kinds of obvious economic repercussions that now seem inevitable.
Any thoughts?

I am pessimistic in the short term, but actually have hope in the long term...if we limit the discussion to the secular realm.  The whole thing takes on a different flavor if we bring end-times thinking into it.  Another thread perhaps.

In the short term, I hope to see a total collapse of government, with all the precious programs bankrupt and defunct. 

I don't think that our nation can ever be defeated solely by global electronic fiat currency economic means.  The reason is that we grow plenty of food, and have all the natural resources we need right here at home.  We can easily go it alone...but we don't do so now for a variety of reasons, most of them perpetrated by government.

Moral failings are going to be our demise, not economic ones.  Ceratainly the two are linked, but sometimes harship brings out the best in people, and they all buck-up and start doing the basic, important things again.  A country like Japan has much, much more to fear than we do, because they must import virtually all of their resources.

Seriously, if everything totally collapsed, what would life be like?  I would have a really nice vegetable garden, and would have some chickens.  Some of my patients are ranchers, and I could barter spinal correction for beef.  Also, I could trade spinal correction for other sevices, like getting a well drilled.  Entrepenuers would step in and local farmers' markets would spring up, even as they do now.  Driving everywhere wouldn't be much of an option, but riding a bike would.  Might that help our national obesity problem? 

The purchase of PS/2's, hip-hop CD's, and Plasma screen TV's wouldn't be as important as they are now, but families would sure appreciate having a meal together at dinner time.  It would do wonders for us  in many ways. 

People would also reflect on how it all happened, and might even re-learn the idea that ownership and responsibility are the cornerstones of freedom....not a bloated federal government that wastes and spends the product of it's indentured servants.

What of the police and firemen, what of basic services?  Well, that would be awkward and scary for some, no doubt.  Neighbors would have to join together, and the second ammendment would take on a whole new meaning, in light of the looting that would go on.  People would be forced to fight for their freedom, which is how America got started  in the first place.

LIfe would be hell in big cities.  That wouldn't be much fun at all.  They would have the most to lose, and would suffer greatly.

Militarily, our options would be few.  We simply couldn't outfit an invasion force to go overseas...but we could defend our soil.  The President would just have to inform the world that during our time of crisis, until we got things worked out, our policy towards foreign invasion would be Nuke first, ask questions later.  China would think twice before they tried to invade us  with this type of policy.  Kind of like MAD during the Soviet era.

The funny thing is I know people who have basically made this happen on purpose.  They are cruisers, who live on sailboats, homeschool their kids at sea and in exotic foreign ports, who work when they can, and eat fresh sashimi when they catch a blue-fin.

On such guy found himself being boarded by pirates near Indonesia.  He and his son had it all worked out.  His son hid in a locker at the bottom of the companion way, and when the pirate came below to threaten them with a gun and steal everything in sight, his son tazed him from behind.  Then they beat his skull in with a "priest" [for dispatching large fish] and took his gun, and shot the other pirate by firing through a porthole.  (The pirates boat was tied up alongside).  After dragging the other guy back to the pirates boat, they scuttled it, and it sank to the bottom with the miserable crew on board.

No government or courts were there to help them. Certainly there was no socail security safety net or welfare to give them a lift.  They had to defend their freedom with their own wits.  I have no reason to believe that this isn't a true story, but I am relating second hand info here.

My point in saying all this is that this will happen.  Hopefully sooner, rather than later, but if we continue on in our current manner we will go totally bankrupt, just like every other socialistic country has.  Government can't own and control everything, neither can they take producer's money from them forever.  Sooner of later, more people will decide to be on the receiving end, and the producers will grow fewer and fewer.  It's inevitable.

We are already totally upside down, and as Verne pointed out, it's only a matter of time until we can't finance our debt any longer.

If you have a leaky ship, you can go on as long as you have adequate bilge pumps.  Increase the amount of water coming on board (spending more) or decrease the capacity of the pumps (taxing more) and soon enough the ship will begin to sink.

Passengers who expect to be entertained and tucked in at night may not understand this, but any sailor worth his salt has this exact scenario at the top of his list every single day.

I don't know how long this will take...and it could be turned around, although no one is really trying to do so at this time.

Brent

[moonflower2]

Count on it.  This is exactly what they are going to do.

Driving everywhere wouldn't be much of an option, but riding a bike would.  Might that help our national obesity problem? 

I for one (45 minute car trip) would not be able to bicycle to work or to carpool with someone else who did; no one from my area is there.

Taking public transportion, I would probably be gone from 6 am to 10 pm each day, if I could get a seat. And this would only be possible if BUSH doesn't remove federal aid from the Amtrak coffers.

I wouldn't be the only one with the problem here.

LIfe would be hell in big cities.  That wouldn't be much fun at all.  They would have the most to lose, and would suffer greatly.

And you think these city-dwellers would remain within their city limits?  Notice your empty vines in the morning? They will find a way....or else the "government-in-uniform" will. Guaranteed you will be sharing your spacious home with someone else, as well as your water and your land.

Brent

[editor]

I for one (45 minute car trip) would not be able to bicycle to work or to carpool with someone else who did; no one from my area is there.

Taking public transportion, I would probably be gone from 6 am to 10 pm each day, if I could get a seat. And this would only be possible if BUSH doesn't remove federal aid from the Amtrak coffers.

I wouldn't be the only one with the problem here.And you think these city-dwellers would remain within their city limits?  Notice your empty vines in the morning? They will find a way....or else the "government-in-uniform" will. Guaranteed you will be sharing your spacious home with someone else, as well as your water and your land.

First of all, I doubt you would even have a job if everything collapsed, a la 1929.  If that happened, it would be even worse today, because we rely far more on the government than we did then.  So riding to work would be a moot point. Nevertheless, I think you would find that motorcycles make more sense in that case.

Amtrak is a loser, year after year.  Although it's super fun to ride the Coastal Starlighter through some of the most beautiful California coastline, the simple fact is that not enough people ride Amtrak in order to make it profitable.  It should go away.

As for sharing my home with someone else...I've done it before, and I'd do it again, but only by choice.  There is no way someone is going to take my home away from me by force if there is something I can do about it.  My neighbors would help me fight too.

I know the scenario is bleak.  I'm sure I don't have it all figured out, however the basic premise that someday our federal system will collapse is not conjecture...it is inevitable.

Think about what is happening here.  American's birthrate is negative, while immigrants are multiplying.  America's jobs are going offshore, because companies can't/don't want to afford the high cost of labor here.  Our kids are dumber than those of many developing economies, like India and Malaysia.  There is no more debate about the role of government and the morality of wealth redistribution and socialism....the only debate is how much is good for right now, and how much it should be expanded next year.  That can't go on forever....it's simply not possible.

Here's an interesting example, from what Verne brought up.  We bought a house in 2000, for 450K.  We sold it in 2003 for 699k.  The same house, a few doors down, just sold for 1.2 million.   These were upscale, nice looking track houses, very close together and not all that well made....for a million bucks!!!  That's crazy.

All this money has been loaned out, and meanwhile, people have been spending the equity in their homes to finance their lifestyles, or to move up to bigger and better.  Interest rates will go up, people will default on loans, and who will buy the houses?  Poof!  It's all gone.

Is it possible that we could see an Enron type thing in the mortage industry?  The bursting of the housing bubble is going to be really interesting, to say the least.

If we handled the situation by going to a Mexican style currency, we wouldn't be able to afford imported products, and the dollar would lose to the Euro....shoot the Egyptian pound would probably be worth more.  (I don't know if they use the pound)  We would still have food, water, timber, oil, natural gas, gold and strategic metals and a strong manufacturing base.  We could bounce back and actually get stronger as a result, but we just wouldn't be able to meet all the obligations of the bloated government.  We would have to start over, which would be a good thing.

This isn't a far-fetched nightmare at all, the makings of it are in place. As always, people who provide goods and services will be OK, while people like lawyers, many accountants, government workers, park rangers, Hip-hop artists, and professional athletes might not fare so well.  People would still want the distraction and escape provided by movies and sports, but the players would be willing to play for much less money, like the old days.

Farmer, ranchers, miners, timber companies and oil companies would rise to the top, as would manufacturing.  People would want to work so bad that they would take jobs that require hard work for fair pay, and wouldn't care if there was worker's comp, 401k's or stock options.  You might even find that American teens actually enjoyed picking strawberries.

Eventually we are going to get back to an ownership society, it's just a question of when and how.

Brent

[summer007]

Brent, Interesting. In my neighborhood the trend is tear-downs. You buy the land with an old 60+ year beach cottage for say 1m, you re-build a mansion on it and sell for 2 or 3m. You pay the builder his 500k or whatever costs and you profit 1 to 2m easily. These usually sell before their built in a multiple bidding war the best financing usually wins. Its not un-common to have loans go for 5 and 10% down verses the usual 20 to 25% down. Although if your  looking at a 3 to 4m loan the lender may want 30% down. They say the bubble will burst, but no one claims to know when.  Summer p.s. My bike is freshly tuned up with new tires and brakes. he,he.

[editor]

Brent, Interesting. In my neighborhood the trend is tear-downs. You buy the land with an old 60+ year beach cottage for say 1m, you re-build a mansion on it and sell for 2 or 3m. You pay the builder his 500k or whatever costs and you profit 1 to 2m easily. These usually sell before their built in a multiple bidding war the best financing usually wins. Its not un-common to have loans go for 5 and 10% down verses the usual 20 to 25% down. Although if your  looking at a 3 to 4m loan the lender may want 30% down. They say the bubble will burst, but no one claims to know when.  Summer p.s. My bike is freshly tuned up with new tires and brakes. he,he.

Same kind of thing is going on everywhere.  Don't get me wrong, I really like that fact that I've made money on my houses, and that my current one is going way up.  It's just that it can't keep going.  Everyone knows it.....but when?