"The people of this country are suffering big time. We are all being ripped off bythe credit card companies, since most people do not read the small print. If
the I.Q. impaired individuals in Congress want to do something meaningful, pass
legislation that sets a maximum of 10% interest on all credit card for a year.
It does not make sense to bail out the banks while they subject us to what is
paramount to usury."
From our friend, Jay..... Mr and Mrs Z thought it was not a bad idea..........YOU?
z
125 comments:
Citi bank is really putting it to its'card holders....I mean up to 25% I believe......your Idea is makes too much sense to be looked at.....stay well...
Give up credit cards altogether. Living on credit is not right anyway.
I hate to admit that Mrs DaBlade and I have a few cards with large balances. It is AMAZING the way they crank up the interest rates on these. Ripped off is right! We have been able to get the rates lowered back down again by closing accounts and cutting up cards. I'd take the 10% cap.
In other words, price controls on interest rates? I think it's a terrible idea just as price controls on gasoline in the 70s were bad. I think this idea gained traction in the Democrat primaries, but the inner Mises-Hayak-Friedman-Sowell within me says No Deal.
Tio Bowser
Tapline...good to have you here. 25%!?
CJ...in a perfect world.
We have one and there's almost nothing on it, but sometimes, it's terribly necessary, sadly.
DaBlade.....glad you could get them down.
Tio....we're talking today's situation; I'm pretty sure you're not too big on the 'stimulus' package, either, right? Seems like a better idea than THAT, no?
What would you propose?
Credit cards are the work of the Devil! And, I have been tricked far too long, WHERE'S MY STIMULOUS RESCUE PACKAGE?
I'm sorry all, had to get that out. I'm back to me now.
Blessings.
I enjoy it when the far right decides to intervene in the free market(LMAO).
Maybe you folks will figure it out some day but in the mean time worship the "invisible hand" of the market while it chokes you.
By the way, Number 1 at servicing the credit card companies?
Joe Biden.
10%... hmmmm.
I'm not sure this is shari'a compliant enough. It probably needs to be a little lower before Middle Eatsern banks will be willing to take over the American Banking system.
10% seems darn high.
You can't live without credit cards. You can't buy on line, you can't book hotels or flights. It just can't be done.
Lots of people live without credit in THIS world. I have my Visa ATM card that the bank forced on me and I never have a balance on it. You can use it online or anywhere.
can I charge this comment?..heh
It's not the credit that is the problem it is the taxes. If they keep taking at an accelerated rate that the dems seem so high on you will never have any cash to pay those damn cards off.
Much as I hate the high interest rates, it is wrong to intervene in private companies.
Now, it either is or is not.
If you want to play in the credit game, then you pay the fiddler.
Wasn't congress responsible for fixing the prices of doing business at atm machines???
Yes....well, how did THAT work for you?
It is hypocritical of us to even talk this way.
The concept of having principles means you stand on them and do not shift for the sake of enriching yourself.
I may not like something, but if I don't , then I have to make sure I practice using credit more responisibly or using it less.
THAT is how you control the price of credit.
WVDOTTR
Our friend's well aware of the ridiculous elements in the stimulus package; his reason for even proposing something like this is in reaction to passing cash out to people; this is an alternate, wiser suggestion than that, surely.
Imagine anybody spending $3000 when their leader is telling them "Things will get worse before they get better, IF they get better ..we're not really sure this will work...and what we have now is a catastrophe" No, they (and I) will be saving. This isn't a stimulus.
KNowing our credit card bills, and I know some of you have large balances, might get some relief is a boost.
We almost only use our debit card... but, I know many of you have children with sudden expensive needs, house repairs suddenly occur, the car breaks down; I can totally understand that credit card balances can get out of hand.
Ro 13:8
Owe no man any thing . . .
I don't see any exceptions here.
Just to stir the proverbial pudding with you CJ. Would a Corporation be considered a man?
Blessings.
Why not, IHS? Men are behind it. Isn't the emphasis on not owing anything rather than to whom we owe it?
I suppose nobody would ever buy a home either CJ.
Maybe not, Elbro. Not Christians anyway, unless they do it without credit.
I was just reading some of the pre-Nicene church fathers recently, and it's interesting how they rebuke Christians for acquiring property in this world when our citizenship is elsewhere.
well if I could put a roof over my kids heads by waiting till I get to heaven then I'd do it.
and owning when I capable of making payments and investing in a home good stewardship vice renting and tossing my money away
I'm not arguing with your conviction that's between you and the Lord
Romans 13:6-8 (New International Version)
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all FELT our 'authorities' were God's servants!!?
I guess I'd say it's better to buy on credit than take something and stiff the person who sold it to you.
And, I don't believe there's any provision for how fast one pays a debt. just DO it.
I think Z has a point here...Romans 13 is about the obeying the government...paying taxes etc.
this verse in context seems to be saying that no Christian has any scriptural ground for refusing to pay taxes. Whether or not we can get away with it is immaterial. God commands us to submit, even in the area of taxes. Failure to do so is rebellion against God.
It's a matter of obedience, Elbro. We shouldn't reason our way out of what the scripture says. You don't have to buy property to put a roof over your head. If Christians had all along been obedient to this scripture instead of compromising with the world the economic system would be different anyway and we'd be saving to buy things outright if buying is really necessary.
We will not argue convictions here, no. Please.
A hefty discussion of differing opinions is one thing...bring it on!
I get great joy from my faith and the fact that I am forgiven...that all of us who ask are.... These days, I dwell more on that than ever. Praise be to Him.
I see. My conviction, eh? So your conviction doesn't bother about what scripture says?
"Let no debt remain outstanding,"
A little different spin on it than "Owe no man anything" -- must be one of the newer translations.
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all FELT our 'authorities' were God's servants!!?"
Scripture doesn't require us to feel it, scripture declares it.
"I guess I'd say it's better to buy on credit than take something and stiff the person who sold it to you."
Are we stuck with those options?
I don't have the conviction about the verse you use in Romans. The verse you used in Romans has nothing to do with owning a home or using credit. It's plain that the verse has to do with someone justifying not paying taxes.
"Owe NO man ANYTHING" Elbro. But I know Christians are good at finding reasons to make scripture mean what seems right to them.
really CJ....you are not my authority on what the Bible says
if you choose to misapply a scripture you're no better than the one who misinterprets.
I would agree that it is wise to live debt free…ask anyone who has creditors and collection agencies harassing them and disrupting their lives. I also see owning a home as an investment and being a wiser steward then if I rented.
"really CJ....you are not my authority on what the Bible says"
No, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, Elbro. I don't claim to be your authority.
"if you choose to misapply a scripture you're no better than the one who misinterprets."
The question of course is which of us is misinterpreting and misapplying. "Owe no many anything" really isn't ambiguous.
"I would agree that it is wise to live debt free…ask anyone who has creditors and collection agencies harassing them and disrupting their lives."
You are appealing to the world here and not to scripture.
"I also see owning a home as an investment and being a wiser steward then if I rented."
Yes, but whatever contradicts scripture is not good stewardship no matter how wise it seems, and again you are appealing to worldly wisdom rather than scripture.
The parable of the talents is about wise investment. So is owning a home.
Proverbs 13:22 "A good man leaves an inheritance to his childrens' children" indicating that God wants us to make a difference, financially, in our family tree.
2. Proverbs 21:20 "In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has." This gives us an idea of how God wants us to save for a rainy day, to set something back for safekeeping.
3. Proverbs 22:7 states that "The rich rule over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender."
I agree the Bible discourages debt and credit.
The question of course is which of us is misinterpreting and misapplying. "Owe no many anything" really isn't ambiguous.
applying it to the use of credit cards when it's clearly about paying taxes and obeying the authority of the government is a misapplication
sort of like applying turning the other cheek to foreign policy
"Would a Corporation be considered a man?"
---------------------
"Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company" 1986
Probably the most "activist" decision in SCOTUS history.
What most of you neglect is the fact that the world economy is structured on credit and depends on the American consumer (primarily) to go into debt to by junk exports and all kinds of assorted stuff the consumer doesn't need.
You rail against credit but embrace an economic system that collapses without massive amounts of just that.
"The parable of the talents is about wise investment. So is owning a home."
Well, but we can't pit scripture against scripture. Paul would not have said it so emphatically to owe NO man ANYTHING if it were only about taxes. It simply ALSO applies to paying taxes. He states the principle and applies it to taxes.
What do you think of what scripture says about oaths? This is another one I've been learning a lot about from the early Christian fathers. Jesus said "Do not swear at ALL" but then he goes on to say, Not by the temple and not by heaven and so on. So people do with that what you are doing with this subject -- since we don't swear by the temple or by heaven we're fine with the other oaths we take. Again I think Jesus declared the basic principle, not to swear at ALL, and used as examples the typical kinds of oaths taken in His day.
The kind of wise investment the Lord cares about is the laying up of treasure in heaven, not on this earth.
"Proverbs 13:22 "A good man leaves an inheritance to his childrens' children" indicating that God wants us to make a difference, financially, in our family tree."
Well, don't we have to decide whether that refers to a material inheritance or even applies in our day, if the New Testament contradicts it?
"2. Proverbs 21:20 "In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has." This gives us an idea of how God wants us to save for a rainy day, to set something back for safekeeping."
But what does the New Testament say? What did the early church do? Lay not up treasures on earth. . .
"3. Proverbs 22:7 states that "The rich rule over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender."
Yes? That's true enough.
"applying it to the use of credit cards when it's clearly about paying taxes and obeying the authority of the government is a misapplication"
I disagree.
"sort of like applying turning the other cheek to foreign policy"
Actually, under the tutelage of the early Christian fathers I may even be changing my view about this and regretting many things I've said before. It's still in the raw stage.
I can't get OK with the government setting caps on interest or anything else. And as proof Z, I offer Ducky's acceptance to it. You know if he agreed with you, it HAD to be a bad idea.
Credit cards were one of the MAIN reasons for the mess we are in now! Government debt, corporate debt, and individual debt got so damned out of control, that the friggin roof just plain caved in. We, the collective we, have to suck it up and repair what we did, and the answer IS NOT more trillions of dollars worth of debt!!! The answer is to STOP the insanity and start paying off the mountain of debt we have, including credit cards! Quit spending next week's (or worse, next years) paycheck today.
"2. Proverbs 21:20 "In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has." This gives us an idea of how God wants us to save for a rainy day, to set something back for safekeeping."
Actually I don't think there's a problem with having good stores available, only with going into debt to have stores available. And the Proverb is more about the foolish man who doesn't use his stores wisely than it is about creating the stores in the first place.
"You rail against credit but embrace an economic system that collapses without massive amounts of just that."
Shouldn't embrace that system, obviously. And the Christian obligation is certainly not to embrace it.
Average American is right. The whole nation has been living in violation of God's principles. And we're reaping the consequences.
The whole nation has been living in violation of God's principles. And we're reaping the consequences.
-----------------
In other words CJ, a Christian can't be a laissez-faire capitalist.
Thank you.
I don't think the problem is laissez faire capitalism; that can exist without going into debt. It really doesn't have to be run on credit. The solution is refusing to go into debt, period. Doesn't matter what kind of economic system we have.
maybe we could learn something from the early church fathers
and I agree with what you have to say about credit card debt...
I'm not sure why you would appear to discount the proverb because it's in the Old Testament
"I'm not sure why you would appear to discount the proverb because it's in the Old Testament"
Only if the New Testament contradicts it.
"maybe we could learn something from the early church fathers"
I'm glad you feel that way. It's been an eye-opener for me. They came right after the apostles after all, and in fact some of them knew them personally.
We seem to have lost the power of Jesus' teachings that so radically contradict the values of the world.
"and I agree with what you have to say about credit card debt..."
I'm glad we agree.
If I say travel 100 miles round trip to work...(which I do) and I own my car outright (which I do) I am still paying car insurance on a payment schedule...do you find that unacceptable?
If I find myself in need of open heart surgery and it's going to cost $45,000...do I forego the surgery until I can afford it or make payments?
"I see. My conviction, eh? So your conviction doesn't bother about what scripture says?"
___________________________________
"Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
___________________________________
No one has said to ignore scripture, but how do you understand scripture without the Spirit of God?
You can't live without oweing someone something. You have electricity? water? gas? Those bills are never paid off as long as you use the utilities, that's oweing isn't it?
The scripture is telling us to make sure we pay our debts.
Blessings.
well that's the way I understand it IHS
I don't think that's owing in the sense we're discussing it. But if you don't pay the bill on time then you'd be owing.
The main point here is going into debt intentionally I think, running your life on the principle of credit.
Lay not up treasures on earth.
I don't see owning a home storing up treasures here vice in heaven.
The early church fathers apparently saw it that way, Elbro. Or course they didn't get EVERYTHING right, I'm sure, but this one sounds to me like an echo of Jesus.
I'm trying to post between spurts of getting my work done but if you want me to I'll try to dig up the relevant quote -- later.
CJ, I'm sorry but everyones utilities are based off of credit, that's the way it goes. I understand what your trying to say but it's not in line with that scripture in Proverbs.
Blessings.
Well, here's a couple
Hermas: "If... you know your city in which you are to dwell, why do you here provide lands and make expensive preparations and accumulate dwellings and usenless buildings? ...As one living in a foreign land, make no further preparations for yourself except what is merely sufficient."
You could argue that a single family dwelling is merely sufficient and I would agree with that, but not with going into debt to have it.
Clement of Alexandria: "We have no country on earth. Therefore, we can disdain earthly possessions."
Here's the Ante-Nicene Fathers online for reference.
"The early church fathers apparently saw it that way, Elbro. Or course they didn't get EVERYTHING right, I'm sure, but this one sounds to me like an echo of Jesus."
___________________________________
CJ, what echo of Jesus? I don't recall Him saying not to own property. Help me here.
Blessings.
OK, you can always find exceptions. There's no other way to have utilities than on credit in that sense, but let's not let that justify credit that isn't necessary in the same sense.
There's ALWAYS a credit situation when the "goods" in question are really services and are time-based, as when someone does a job for you. That's not really credit as we are discussing it.
but let's not let that justify credit that isn't necessary in the same sense.
I suppose the definition of necessary would now come into question as well as scripture that would define what is, isn't necessary services that you can get on credit.
I stay focused through all this disagreement and my own opinions of biblical interpretations and different Christian groups with the FACT that we are forgiven if we believe.
I'm quite sure Jesus understands a father in America who'd like to buy his own home and have stability and something later to leave to his children. Very few men at the age of 28 with 2 little ones can pay cash for a $400K home.
I am not an ostrich who hides my head in the sand, I DO consider all that ALL of you are saying.......We all are different; We all believe. That, to me, is the most important thing.
I just defined it. Time-based services can only be paid when the service is done. Or in advance if you like but then the credit is on the side of the service, it's still a situation where you have to wait until one side of the contract is done for the other side to be done. In the parable of the field hands they all got paid at the end of the day. Only if they hadn't been paid then would it have been a situation of debt. Only if you don't pay your utilities on time is it debt. Or your contractor or whomever does a service for you.
Ducky said By the way, Number 1 at servicing the credit card companies?
Joe Biden.
Meh? In what way? Is this like a loaded lesbian/homo lifestyle question?
We are forgiven if we repent, Z, and if we are obedient to what we have light to obey. I can't believe anyone is saved who intentionally disobeys.
Or your contractor or whomever does a service for you.
Or the bank that services our home loan?
but where have you drawn that line from scripture CJ? If you think services and goods (a home)are different
"I'm quite sure Jesus understands a father in America who'd like to buy his own home and have stability and something later to leave to his children. "
"If you love Me you will obey Me."
The wisdom of this world is not God's wisdom.
We are to build on the rock of Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, otherwise we build on sand.
We are to "hate" our families if in any way our commitments to them overshadow our commitment to Him.
"Or the bank that services our home loan?"
Yes you have to pay the bank on time too, for whatever services they provide you. Only that doesn't have to be a loan.
"but where have you drawn that line from scripture CJ? If you think services and goods (a home)are different"
Many stories in scripture where payment is given at the end of the job. I believe there's a law or two or a proverb or two about withholding wages. They are to be paid on time. Same with any bill for services rendered.
It's not that GOODS are different as long as you pay for them outright -- most of the time that's at the point of purchase and a time gap isn't involved as it is with a service (if you order online you pay in advance, and THEY are in YOUR debt for a while). We're talking about DEBT, remember!
"I'm quite sure Jesus understands a father in America who'd like to buy his own home and have stability and something later to leave to his children. "
Just to be clear, I'm saying you can't base your actions on what you think Jesus "understands," you MUST base them on scripture. If you intentionally go into debt to provide for your family that's not being obedient. Depend on HIM to provide what you need and to provide it according to His laws. That's ALWAYS what Jesus wants of us. He doesn't want us following the ways of the world.
We are to "hate" our families if in any way our commitments to them overshadow our commitment to Him.
___________________________________
CJ, that scripture is not saying we are to hate our family members; it's saying we to PREFER Jesus obove all else.
And, again I ask; 'where did Jesus speak against us owning houses or getting a loan to purchase one?'
He didn't and there is no scripture for it. Even the Old Testament speaks about if a man can't pay back what is owed he should give himself as a servant until it's paid. The Old Testament also speaks about loaning money and not charging interest to those in the community.
Blessings.
He wants us to do HIS will, not OUR will. If we wait upon Him for it, He may or may not provide what WE think we want, but He will always provide what we need. He's promised that. But again, He wants us to depend upon HIM and not our own devices.
Listen people, the church is weak and foundering for lack of our obedience to this very basic teaching! Don't we want a strong church in these last days? How are we going to face up to the onslaughts that are coming if we go on aping the world. OUR POWER IS GOD'S POWER IF WE WILL SEEK IT.
Steve regarding Biden, the senior Senator from Delaware, the corporate headquarters of a variety of credit card companies, he was instrumental in passing the disgusting bankruptcy bill about five years back.
Research it. Get back to me after you clue up.
The Old Testament also speaks about loaning money and not charging interest to those in the community.
-----------------
That's sometimes called sharia banking. An absolute no-no here.
"He wants us to do HIS will, not OUR will. If we wait upon Him for it, He may or may not provide what WE think we want, but He will always provide what we need. He's promised that. But again, He wants us to depend upon HIM and not our own devices."
___________________________________
CJ, He gives US the power to get wealth. He expects us to go out and work by the sweat of our brow and we do this believing He will Bless our efforts.
I for one will not sit waiting to hear him say to me, get up and go to work.
Blessings.
Have to go for a while but I'll be back to follow up
Blessings.
I put "hate" in quotes for that reason, IHS, but sometimes Christians are in a position where they must choose and then it can almost feel like hating them. We MUST choose Christ even if the Muslims say they will behead our spouse and children if we do not submit to Allah or whatever!! You commit them to the Lord's care -- THAT's what really loving them is; but you NEVER try to save them if it involves compromising your allegiance to Christ. If you want to call that PREFERING Jesus, fine, but realize just how radical that preference can be when push comes to crunch.
"And, again I ask; 'where did Jesus speak against us owning houses or getting a loan to purchase one?'
He didn't and there is no scripture for it. Even the Old Testament speaks about if a man can't pay back what is owed he should give himself as a servant until it's paid."
Well, there you have it, IHS. Owing it and owing it is not tolerated; it must be paid one way or another. OWE NO MAN ANYTHING was said by Paul. Was Paul in tune with Jesus or not?
"The Old Testament also speaks about loaning money and not charging interest to those in the community."
Yes, and Jesus also commands us to give when asked and to lend when asked. WE do not have to demand payment. WE are to forgive our debtors and if they don't pay us back we don't demand it. But if we incur debt to someone else we owe it. If we are forgiven, great, but if it is forgiven that means it was owed. The power company doesn't very often forgive your way overdue bill, and the IRS NEVER forgives your unpaid taxes.
3 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
How come we think in terms of what we can get away with, or what Jesus will understand and forgive, instead of in terms of being as careful as possible to follow Him no matter what the cost?
We're supposedly not citizens of this world but we act like we are so maybe we really are.
I don't want the congress passing any legislation that puts a cap on credit card interest rates, or any other kind of price controls.
The less government the better. If we can't afford it, don't buy it. Yes 25% interest is outrageous, and this is when the government loves to step in and grab more power. Once they have it, they'll not give it up.
We would give up more freedom and a free market for a temporary relief?
The President has already announced a cap on CEO salaries. Yes, CEO's have abused their positions, but, a precedent has been set, and because it doesn't affect us, are we supposed to celebrate? After all CEO's are rich.
However, what if the congress decides salary caps are good for everybody? If we value freedom and the ability to achieve on our own merit, we should be appalled that a President has done this.
CJ, if perfection is the only way to heaven according to CJ, and if you CJ have reached that lofty goal, be prepared, Heaven will be a lonely place.
Pris
I have not claimed anything about perfection, I'm talking about obedience to obvious commands rather than rationalizing them away, and I fully confess to being in arrears myself and trying to get my act together, Pris.
The point is to confess them as sin and seek to correct them and not justify them as everybody else here is doing.
It is the credit card companies who PURPOSELY and CONTINUOUSLY TARGET those who have multiple cards and/or those who are sufficiently stupid to roll one debt over to a short-timed "lower" APR only to have it spring back UP in time.
BZ
CJ -- Proverbs 17 contains wisdom for you:
14 Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam;
so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.
27 A man of knowledge uses words with restraint,
and a man of understanding is even-tempered.
28 Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
and discerning if he holds his tongue.
I guess you're one step closer to having a relevant opinion this time. I do believe that you have actually seen and used money. Not like the last time you were foaming at the mouth about the Harry Potter books that you never even read.
It's funny that you think it is better to erase the words that came out of the overflow of your heart. The reason that your entire argument here is absolutely useless and has done a great deal of harm to the atmosphere that Z has created at her blog is that you have ignored I Corinthians 13 entirely. Until you can argue with this chapter as your base you do far more harm than good. The sooner you learn that the better atmosphere there will be here for those listening in.
I have not violated the law of love, Mr. Frank, if anyone has you have.
The atmosphere at Z's blog is very worldly at times, but I can leave you "Christians" to it since you don't want to be reminded of what's really required of us.
Here's the tit for tat again since you accuse me of mean motives in removing it:
==============================
"28 Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
and discerning if he holds his tongue."
You should have taken that advice yourself.
===============================
I never lost my temper, and nothing you quoted applies except that I no doubt am guilty of violating the pseudoChristian tone and sometimes out and out profane tone at this blog.
I hate to see the name of Christianity treated that way.
Sorry, Z. Goodbye.
I'm sure IHS can figure out why I'm not still here when he returns.
CJ, you've called my blog "WORLDLY" many times, either here or privately in emails and, frankly, that's what it is and I never painted it as anything less or more.
I wish you the best.
I know you're very, very sure of your opinions and I admire your research and studies, believe me...but everyone comes in their own time and their own way.
The one thing I KNOW is that HE LOVES US, our faith brings GREAT JOY and I hope we all find that.
Thank YOU.
Z, regarding the question about a 10% cap on credit cards being preferable to the exorbitant bail-out bill...Sure, it preferable (so far as I can tell), but just because rheumatism is preferable to getting eaten by a tiger doesn't mean that we should tout the benefits of rheumatism. And if there were to be a cap, 10% seems pretty low. Wasn't inflation ca. 1980 above 10%?
Regarding the passage from Romans, it sounds like Paul is saying to pay whatever debts you have. Don't say "Now that I'm a Christian, I don't have to pay debts, taxes, etc." But it looks like the dispute has run its course.
Re being able to feel that our leaders truely are put there by God...As much as the current administration scares me, we can't very well claim this to be extenuating circumstances given the setting in which it was written--a lot of dead Christians at the hands of the Roman government.
Tio Bowser
I'm not advocating taking on debt that you can't pay.
"I enjoy it when the far right decides to intervene in the free market(LMAO).
"Maybe you folks will figure it out some day but in the mean time worship the "invisible hand" of the market while it chokes you. (Duck...& cover)
<
<
Funny, I really enjoy it when Lefties can't figure out that the REGULATED market IS "Capitalism."
We've had the REGULATED market in America...the very SAME "mixed economy" that Sweden, France, Germany and Canada all have since around 1912.
You should read about it...Bernard Baruch and J P Morgan brought the regulated market to America as a "win-win" for everyone.
EVERY Libertarian believes in a labarynthine court system, intrusive police powers (crime is anti-freedom and worse still, it's dysgenic - dumb criminals tend to harm far more productive members of society), prisons (for warehousing thugs), and regulating the way people make exchanges and do business.
The only problem with regulation is the one you've noted from time to time (in your occasional "you can't trust government to..." rants) and that is precisely that those in government tend NOT to have as much knowledge or acumen as those they're trying to regulate (at least not in the given fields of the regulated).
And even when government tries to hire some folks from the banking industry, insurance, etc., they're left with the least of the bunch, as the best and brightest chase after the biggest paydays...and those are found in the private sector.
Worse still, as corrupt as business is, governmet is even more so...proving only that everything manmade is flawed.
Anarachism is NOT at all related to Libertarianism. In fact, anarchists tend to be lumped in with those other radicals (communists, socialists, fascists).
Anarchy is as much a fairy tale as is socialism....in fact NO ONE today advocates for either.
Name a noted anarchist...
Name a noted socialist...
In Sweden, 90% of the jobs are in the private sector! Volvo and Erickson are privately owned companies....NOWHERE has socialism (the eradication of private ownership) succeeded.
Mussolini came the closest to making some form of socialism work, but there was the ugliness of that political fascism that made it somewhat unpleasant.
Neither am I, EB.
Where's CJ?
Blessings.
I cut my interest rate down to zero with a pair of scissors.
Worse still, as corrupt as business is, government is even more so...proving only that everything man made is flawed.
--------------
Prove it. Got a little more random dogma you want to float?
If you've been paying attention, it isn't the leftists who don't realize that a Keynesian stimulus is state capitalism, is the far right tools that are calling it socialism.
The only problem with regulation is the one you've noted from time to time (in your occasional "you can't trust government to..." rants) and that is precisely that those in government tend NOT to have as much knowledge or acumen as those they're trying to regulate (at least not in the given fields of the regulated).
---------------------
Try again, bobo. If you were paying attention over the last few dismal years you may have realized that your precious private market was dealing in instruments that could NOT be properly risk rated in the equity markets.
The markets took a crap. Got it, Ayn?
And even when government tries to hire some folks from the banking industry, insurance, etc., they're left with the least of the bunch, as the best and brightest chase after the biggest paydays...and those are found in the private sector.
---------------------
Yeah, we don't want to lose the Captains of Wall Street who are up there begging Timmy Taxes for several hundred billion because they are INSOLVENT.
Your best and brightest ran the ship aground, bobo.
Kevin, you did the best thing.
Ducky. STOP.
It's NOT a blame you can blithely toss to Conservatives! STOP reading Huffington (even she's ticked at your side, by now, however) and KOS...
Did you EVER see the warnings of Bush and McCain about Freddie and Fannie? Do you not even BELIEVE that or can you not form arguments knowing your side screwed up and pandered so badly that now we have this huge mess?
Man.
Name a noted anarchist...
Name a noted socialist...
----------------------
Emma Goldman
Norman Thomas
In Sweden, 90% of the jobs are in the private sector! Volvo and Erickson are privately owned companies....NOWHERE has socialism (the eradication of private ownership) succeeded.
------------------------------
Sorry bobo, but the comrades have not relented on the idea of worker ownership.
So the fact that 90% of Swedes are working for private entities is misleading since unionism is strong in Sweden and does protect worker interests.
credit cards - can't live with 'em
can't live without 'em.
I don't like the way they offer spending when you don't have the money to back it up, but I do live the convenience they afford.
Sweden's coming to her senses...nuclear plant construction starting all over the place...
Liberality only can last so long.
z, a nuclear plant in Europe is no big deal. There's no way we deal with this energy problem without them.
"Yeah, we don't want to lose the Captains of Wall Street who are up there begging Timmy Taxes for several hundred billion because they are INSOLVENT.
"Your best and brightest ran the ship aground, bobo. (Lame Duck)
<
<
There not MY "best and brightest" nimrod, their OURS.
Chris Cox, a bright man...very bright for one in government service, admitted that he "couldn't understand the new CMOs," so he assumed, "they must know what they're doing."
Same with Arthur Levitt of Clinton's SEC - the Madoff malfeasance was reported to him, he claimed to have looked into it and said pretty much waht Cox said about CMOs.
In a representative democracy money buys votes, so it stands to reason that money and monied interests drive ALL politics.
That is NOT a systemic flaw, it is merely a human imperfection.
"Prove it. Got a little more random dogma you want to float?" (Lame Duck)
<
<
The history of government is 99.9999% tyrannies (every monarchy, every feudal state, EVERY socialist state, from Hitler's to Stalin's to Mao's) to a single experiment in individual liberty - the U.S.
EVERY single Theocracy is rooted in government perverting religion...NEVER the reverse, from the Borgia Popes through EVERY Muslin despot.
If there were ANY evidence....any evidence at all, that governments were somehow, some way LESS corruptible than privately owned industries, I dare someone such as myself would've come upon it earlier on and made that case.
You might be able to say, YOU "wish government and the people in government were less corruptible," but that's about it. I wish it rained root beer, but the evidence on that isn't there either.
JMK...Government seems to be on its way to perverting CHristianity, that's for sure..or at least trying desperately to squelch it..Our gov't, anyway. You can trace when that started with how badly things have gone in America, in my opinion.
Ducky; MY POINT is that Sweden led the charge years ago and the left all over Europe bought it "NO NUKE POWER... GO GREEN ..STOP NUCLEAR PLAN CONSTRUCTION"..FINALLY, they wake up from their liberal looniness.
Thankfully, Europe's getting the message, too; one only needs to see France's situation.
"If you've been paying attention, it isn't the leftists who don't realize that a Keynesian stimulus is state capitalism, is the far right tools that are calling it socialism." (Lame Duck)
<
<
I'm somewat further Right than most here and I never confused the two...neither have any of the folks I know.
Do people on both sides call Keynesian policies "socialism?"
Yeah, but that's because the MSM in America doesn't know the difference and they constantly mislabel such things.
Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are both very savvy, market-oriented guys.
The current economic team is no better, no worse than the last one...they ALL misread the initial crisis as a "Crisis in liquidity" and responded by trying to provide more liquidity to the markets via the Term Auction Facility (TAF) in December, 2007, which had, as its main aims, to reduce interest rates, to spur the flow of credit, but that failed because it failed to address the primary problem they faced, which was one of counterparty risks. That was followed up bu the Pelosi-Reid Economic Stimulus Act of February 2008, the major part of that package was sending $100 Billion to individuals and families "so they would have more to spend and thus jump-start the economy."
That failed because as Milton Friedman's "Permanent Income Theory" long ago predicted, "temporary, as distinct from permanent increases in income do not lead to significant increases in consumer spending."
Keynesianism imploded in the late 1970s under Carter, and it's almost certain to implode again, not far down the road. Bush's 2 Supply Side tax cuts (reducing the Cap gains rate from 20% to 15% greatly increased Cap gains revenues since and his across-the-board income tax RATE cuts had income tax revenues skyrocket in their wake. Those increased revenues masked an awful lot of reckless and irresonsible Keynesian policy by the G W Bush administration.
The Obama team was wise to keep those tac rate cuts in place, rather than to end them early, but with the national debt more than doubled over the last eight years....in the vicinity of $3 TRILLION has been added over the past two years...even the CBO sees the long-term impact of the current "stimulus package" to be disastrous.
"Try again, bobo. If you were paying attention over the last few dismal years you may have realized that your precious private market was dealing in instruments that could NOT be properly risk rated in the equity markets." (Lame Duck)
<
<
Government MANDATED more subprime loans to low income people via the bipartisan "turbo-charged CRA" in 1995.
Then the government took to GUARANTEEING thos loans by buying them as CMOs through its two GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
Once all that bad debt was guaranteed, the banks and mortgage brokers couldn't write bad loans fast enough!
So, while the "liar loan" was indeed "invented" by unscrupulous people in the private sector, it was GOVERNMENT that set up the atmosphere where that HAD to happen.
It's similar to NYC's current Fire pension scandal - over 70% of the FDNY gets out on 3/4 disability pensions (that's 3/4s of your last year's earnings, including overtime, triple tax free - no federal, state or local taxes)...it was only 68% (appx 4% lower) pre-9/11, so this has been going on a long while.
I DON'T blame the guys who go out like that, even the "scammers," because government set up that system to encourage, or incentivize cheating. It's similr to the system that exempys FD & PD line-of-duty sick leave from federal and FICA taxes - it provides a very strong incentive for people to go sick or "tap out" from jobs, 4 to 6 times per year to build up some tax immunity.
When a government entity sets up a system that so clearly rewards cheating and abuse, you CANNOT rightly blame the individual abusers...if the system were set up better and if the proper oversights were set up, there'd have been no abuse....no abuse of the NYC 3/4s disabilities pensions and no abuse by bankers and mortgages fighting to write as much guaranteed bad paper as they could, as it greatly benefitted THEMSELVES and left the common folks holding the bag.
Why do such simple things have to be so painstakingly explained to you?
Emma Goldman and Norman Thomas - dead and DEAD....and BOTH ciphers in their lifetimes.
Today Keynesianism passes for "socialism."
Hey! I'm not complaining...not compalining at all.
NOT a single industrialized nation on earth has sought to eradicate private property rights....and rightly so.
"So the fact that 90% of Swedes are working for private entities is misleading since unionism is strong in Sweden and does protect worker interests." (Lame Duck)
<
<
We have "strong unionism" here in the U.S. and American workers are protected.
We workers here in the U.S. OPPOSE things like "pattern bargaining" that would force smaller companies to pay what larger ones do, because it kills of jobs.
A LOT of American Unions have come to see that their fortunes and the lives of their workers are tied to the profitability of the companies and Municipalities they work for.
As for Sweden, not ONLY is more of the Swedish workforce employed in the private sector than even here in the U.S., in Sweden, privately owned firms account for over 90% of that country's industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports.
Sweden and the U.S. have the very SAME regulated market-based economy. That nation started moving away from its very Keynesian path about a decade ago and experiences incredible economic growth as a result.
IF a government-managed economy COULD work better, than Hong Kong, the most market-oriented economy on earth, wouldn't also be boasting the world's lowest Misery Index of 6.0 and Venezuela, one of the world's most government-managed economies wouldn't have a staggering 39.5 Misery Index!
"z, a nuclear plant in Europe is no big deal. There's no way we deal with this energy problem without them." (Lame Duck)
<
<
WoW!
Duck supports nuclear power!
Wonders never cease.
A stopped clock?
"JMK...Government seems to be on its way to perverting CHristianity, that's for sure..or at least trying desperately to squelch it..Our gov't, anyway." (Z)
<
<
Well, aside from the "faith based initiatives" that may now be used the same way that the bailout monies are being used - yu take the money, you cede some influence/decision-making over to government....and that's (1) almost certainly unconstitutional, as government is barred under ANY circumstances from imposing itself on religion and (2) foolish of religious groups to bed down with the state - nothing good EVER comes from that.
Aside from that, prayer in schools (they HAVE to bar ALL prayer...YES, that means no Muslim prayer rooms, etc. as ALL religions MUST be treated the same by the state), I think they've handled it well, so long as they bar Muslim prayers on school property as they do other prayer.
Religion shouldn't depend on the state for anything.
Faith is a personal issue, so those who are fervently religious (in my view) should not want government involved (pro or con) in their religion.
The Newdow lobby (the atheists) tried to sue prayer out of the recent inaugeration....they didn't fare very well. Not well at all, in fact.
I DON'T think religion (ANY religion) is being squelched, but neither should it be supported or assisted in its mission by any part of the state....just my view on that.
Nothing any good ever comes from a pairing of religion and government.
Ducky, READ my point. Thanks.
And PLEASE read JMK...you can actually learn a lot. I know you never hear another side from our media and you seem to have some understandings about economics a little confused, too
Thanks, JMK...you are a veritable gold mine of information and I SO appreciate it.
We have "strong unionism" here in the U.S. and American workers are protected
------------------
Mind you, this comes from a public employee who's been sucking so long on the teat he doesn't know what it's like in the private sector.
In fact I doubt he ever had to make it in the dreaded private sector.
Emma Goldman and Norman Thomas - dead and DEAD....and BOTH ciphers in their lifetimes.
------------------
Thomas was instrumental in getting Social Security enacted. Hardly a cipher. His tenure with the Socialist Party was quite successful.
Goldman was the first to initiate a gay rights movement and was important in movements for womens rights, contraception and abortion.
Now whatever you think of any of those movements you would be quite the fool to deny their significance.
Your reply tells me you never heard of Thomas but chose to blow smoke.
That is NOT a systemic flaw, it is merely a human imperfection.
-------------
Dogma. Get back when you have something solid.
Current socialist? Guess I'd name Naomi Klein. Her writing and reporting is excellent.
Anarchists? They aren't about to become a formal force but anarchist groups have done some good protesting global trade problems at WTO meetings and getting folks like right wingers all shock up that their perfectly safe little cocoon might get a little messy.
I wonder who the great movers and shakers in the Libertarian world are now that Greenspan has been thoroughly discredited.
JMK let me recommend a subscription list that will bring you up to speed on what's happening on the left.
---------------------
World Socialist Review
The Nation
The Progressive
New York Review of Books
American Prospect
Unfortunately there aren't too many left wing arts magazines like the old Opus International out of France in the Dziga Vertov Group days but the NYRB will have to do for now.
Ducky; MY POINT is that Sweden led the charge years ago and the left all over Europe bought it "NO NUKE POWER... GO GREEN ..STOP NUCLEAR PLAN CONSTRUCTION"..FINALLY, they wake up from their liberal looniness.
Thankfully, Europe's getting the message, too; one only needs to see France's situation.
---------------------------
The world isn't static, z. Never will be and if you think the right wing has a complete answer then you are very foolish.
The point is to reason, admit when you are wrong and adjust.
Ducky...nice. Norman Thomas opposed the Second World War.
"let the Jews go (*&*(& themselves..?" Let's just let the Axis get powerful enough to (#@*&$& us? Sort of like nowadays, huh?...waiting for the enemy to get strong enough to get us? NO wonder you appreciate him.or.........
You'll LOVE this...there's a high school in NYC at the corner of 33rd St and Park...NORMAN THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL...ya, PUBLIC school....here's their mission statement; no WONDER you admire him!!
"Our high school was named Norman Thomas in tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the pursuit of social and economic justice. He taught respect for the people who provide their human labor for economic purposes. This philosophical concept is the underpinning of the operation of our school. It is the mission of Norman Thomas High School to prepare students to be literate, caring, questioning and critically thinking members of society. Our young people will be prepared to meet the academic and technological demands of the 21st century, thereby enabling them to succeed in college and the business world. We recognize that our mission also extends to new populations in the mainstream of American life"
And, of course, when I called that Public High School and asked if it were, indeed, PUBLIC..."yes!" I had to Press 2 for ENGLISH. TWO?? WHAT??? 1 is for.........any other language other than that stinkin' ENGLISH?
The world would have been better without Emma Goldman...She just had to kill those babies! Then, she was joined by Sanger, who decided it's best to kill BLACK BABIES, right? Sickens me.
I could write more, what's the point?
I'm glad you published that list of your magazines..THE NATION. Beautiful. Just beautiful. HATE AMERICA FIRST...is that their biline?
I forgot the best part...
Don't you love that it's at 33rd and Park? VERY egalitarian, dontcha know. I'll bet there are a LOT of people in that hugely high-rent district who need to hang on to speak SPANISH, huh?
Ducky...nice. Norman Thomas opposed the Second World War.
----------------------------
Lot of people did. America was very isolationist. That was one of the reasons FDR had to finesse conflict with Japan to get them to attack.
It was the only way to get us in.
I'm happy I have helped make people aware of Norman Thomas today.
Ducky, you make me laugh.
You probably don't know that more than half of America thought FDR was taking us to socialism, either...and they were right.
I'm glad I learned about Thomas, too.....It's important we work to enable every American to understand that a public school in our country was named for an avowed Socialist. Thanks for the head's up.
We have a lot of work to do.
"Mind you, this comes from a public employee who's been sucking so long on the teat he doesn't know what it's like in the private sector.
"In fact I doubt he ever had to make it in the dreaded private sector." (Lame Duck)
<
<
I've spent 24 years in a very noble profession...20 of them in the South Bronx and the last 4 in a HazMat Unit...before that I repossessed cars over the previous decade and I started a deck building business - hired American workers, straight cash pay. We did good business. I also have a Realtors License for both NYS and NJ a dn I passed the Series 7 about a decade ago.
A cousin of mine works trading stocks. He retired at 32 (said he loved the investing and hated the selling) and day traded for a few years before going back to "bounce ideas of other. He has a place in the Dakotas in Manhattan and a place in the Hamptons, so I guess he does pretty good, despite not being unionized. He DOES work some really long hours...up late tracking the Nikkei Index and up early to check the London Exchange.
Fact is, the vast bulk of America's income disparity is due to the differences in costs of living across regions. The guy earning $123,000/year in NYC has the same purchasing power as a guy in Houston earning $60,000/year, due solely to the disparate costs of living between the two areas, likewise, a worker earning $60,000/year in NYC has the same purchasing power as a worker earning $26,000/year in Atlanta...those cost of living differences account for the vast bulk of the income disparities.
"Current socialist? Guess I'd name Naomi Klein. Her writing and reporting is excellent." (Lame Duck)
<
<
Since economic socialism CAN'T be enacted absent political fascism, such folks should leaves such concerns to those who understand that and accept that inevitability.
In Italy, Mussolini was a leading socialist before accepting that fascism was the only workable path toward those ends.
In the USSR, naive utopianists like Kerensky and Trotsy gave way to the more iron-fisted, fascistic Stalin.
Fascism may not be the "way of the world," but it sure is "the way of socialism."
<
<
<
<
"Anarchists? They aren't about to become a formal force but anarchist groups have done some good protesting global trade problems at WTO meetings and getting folks like right wingers all shock up that their perfectly safe little cocoon might get a little messy." (Lame Duck)
<
<
The so-called "anarchists" who've fought globalization are not only on the wrong side of history, they're fighting AGAINST for a more widespread prosperity - Free Trade has produced 20 million MORE jobs, than have been lost to things like outsourcing.
Ducky's for nuclear power?
Whaaa?
Ducky, sometimes you really do need to just hush and listen to Z.
No, strike that. You need to hush and listen ALL THE TIME. You NEVER concede a point, even when you're clearly in the wrong.
"Thomas was instrumental in getting Social Security enacted." (J W Duckworth)
<
<
The planck of the idiotic "socialist platform" that was translated (by sycophants) into "social security" was, as a planck of the socialsit party's platform - "a guaranteed income for all."
Social security was set up and run as a paygo system, where people who contribute more get larger payouts at retirment (still true today) and it's capped at $102,000 for FY 2008, otherwise, people who earned $1 million or more per year would be getting payouts of $14,000 to $22,000 per month.
Hardly in keeping with Norman Thomas' ideas.
Bottom-line, IF there were only so much wealth available at any given time (the static wealth view), THEN socialist redistribution WOULD BE morally justifiable, but, of course, that is NOT the case.
We don't have a static amount of wealth. Wealth is very fluid - it expands and contracts.
Wealth is produced ONLY by productive effort (INVESTMENT and to a lesser degree work) and redistributing wealth FROM the primary producers TO those unable and unwilling to produce, deincentivizes wealth creation, while simultaneously incentivizing sloth and disability.
That is the core reason why (1) truly socialist economies (ones that actually eliminate private property rights, such as the former USSR and Bulgaria, Albania, before the fall of communism) ALWAYS fail and (2) why Keynesian (more highly regulated, bordering on government-managed) economies ALWAYS do worse than more Supply Side economies - worse in terms of inflation, unemployment, the Misery Index, etc.
A static wealth paradigm would favor socialism, while the actual, real world fluid wealth paradigm clearly favors more market-based, Supply Side economies.
Post a Comment