There are many issues I see with that article.
First, they always look at the abuses and ignore real needs that are being met honorably.
Second…and most importantly, I would no more trust the “church” as it’s currently structured in this country than I do the government.
Well it is funny how you can look and see different things. I went to the linked Mars Hills web site and what did I see? – they have the baptistry right there next to the stage to baptize people right away.
None of this – “well we will baptize when the ocean / lake water warms up.”
I always thought it was funny when at the end of Sept many CCs would announce “our last baptism of the year.” 🙂
Let’s pretend that our leaders were forced to act like adults and had to operate with a no debt budget. Let’s also pretend that they decided obey the law of the land, and only involved the Govt in matters that fall under enumerated powers. Poof-minimum 2/3 reduction in spending. All welfare and entitlements gone.
Some States would choose to provide some form of safety net, but the heavy lifting would fall upon the people. I believe such a world would heal the Church, who would be forced to step up and fulfill her mandate.
I understand that some liberals think that libertarians or constitutional conservatives are fine with the poor dying in our streets, but some of us have a hidden agenda. Yes, we stand against the immorality of forced theft at gunpoint while we watch our stolen resources squandered, but some of us believe the Church will only step up when she becomes the poor’s only hope.
You seem to want the Govt to take care of everyone, while waging war at the drop of hat. When do we admit that we can do no more? 27 trill in debt ? 40 trill?
I don’t believe that the “church” would step up, because one, there is no single “church’ that could or would take responsibility, and two, I think a large percentage of the church are tares.
There simply aren’t enough committed Christians to address the need.
I can also tell you from experience that American evangelicals will help you to the degree that you agree with their agenda.
Step out of line and you’re toast.
I agree that the Catholics would be in the forefront.
I also believe there would be huge suffering that would be justified by blaming it on those suffering as if they deserved it.
My email has wished me death and despair far too many times to think otherwise…
I don’t have one and I’m not sure that anyone does.
This kind of problem takes noble people from different perspectives and different gifts to come together to find solutions.
We are a million miles from such in this country.
In my opinion, the ruling oligarchy is fine with things as they are and historically, oligarchies care little about suffering outside their class.
In connection with Michael’s first article on John Calvin, this post is intended to examine the interpretation of the words “election,” “foreknowledge” and “predestination” as used by Paul in Romans Chapter 8:29-30, 33.
The question I would like to discuss from the different theological perspectives represented here is whether Romans Chapter 8 supports the Calvinist doctrine of the election of a limited number of predetermined individuals to salvation?
“because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.” (8:29-30)
As a preliminary matter, I propose that 8:29-30 falls within the context of Paul’s argument that begins more or less at 8:17: “And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)—if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.” Paul is addressing (and providing encouragement and assurance) to a Christian community which is or will face persecution.
In the context of Paul’s argument, being “conformed to the image of his Son” appears to be what happens to those believers who re-enact in their own lives the suffering and death of Jesus in order that they “may also be glorified with him.” Paul makes a similar argument in Philippians (see 1:29; 2:5).
The church now makes up “God’s elect” (Rom 8:33); they are foreknown in the same way that national Israel was foreknown by God (11:2): “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!” It is the prior relationship of the people of God that is at issue here, not the abstract foreknowledge of the salvation of individuals.
The churches (this reconfigured elect) have been “called” to suffer; they will be a martyr community for the sake of the future of the people of God. Romans 8:18-39 addresses the fears that will come with their vocation. The theological rhetoric of verses 29-30 is intended to reinforce the particular point that there is nothing accidental about their situation. They are no less a chosen servant community than Jesus was the chosen servant through whom God would redeem his sinful people. Their suffering is not less predetermined than Jesus’ suffering was predetermined.
If this outline accurately interprets the thrust of Paul’s argument, then I don’t think it can be used in support of a Calvinist doctrine of the election of a limited number of predetermined individuals to salvation. What say others?
My sources for this post are NET and ESV Bible translations; D.J. Moo, Romans: NIV Application Commentary; N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One; Andrew Perriman, P.OST Blog, Election and the Martyr Church.
The problem with that view is that the church corporately is still comprised of individuals, whom Wright has a difficult time defining how they become a part of.
The second issue is that the “Calvinistic doctrine of election” is not based on one passage…it’s based on many, and this is just another that supports it.
Having said that, Wright has some good things to say about what we do and what our calling is as a part of the corporate whole.
Yes, Moo does affirm Calvinist doctrine. I used his material as a source and appreciated some of his exegesis, but I disagreed with his conclusion.
I acknowledge that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not based on one passage, but I couldn’t cover them all in one post and thought Rom 8:29-30 was a good place to start. Is there another you would like to discuss?
Do you see Rom 11:2 as about individuals or corporate Israel?
You can’t separate corporate and individual election in my opinion for the reason I gave above.
I honestly care very little about the doctrine of election as I believe it’s something understood in retrospect…it’s about how we got here, not about how we get here.
My understanding of predestination and election has no effect on how I witness, the need for evangelism, or how I live out my walk.
It’s the most overblown, over discussed doctrine of the last 500 years.
Having said that, I’ll answer questions as I get the time.
Not discounting a deep theological review of the arguments or my lack of bible college or seminary, on the surface does it make sense that Jesus did not want all to be saved who believed and gave their life over to Christ?
Or you believe you are saved and a pastor and live your life for God to the fullest extent but by Gods choice you are not of the selected?
On the flip side, I am a hard core sinful atheist but am elected. How does that work?
I am trying to figure out Jim’s objection to the government relief agencies. These organizations are funded through public funds (taxes) which are heavily contributed to by Church Folks – and many of the workers in these government agencies, the ones who do the actual work alleviating the poverty and suffering are also Church Folks.
I remember Ron Paul being asked the following question in a presidential debate (Paul was against national health insurance and would repeal Medicare and Medicaid): how would the poor with cancer or a heart attack get health care? Paul suggested local churches. I sat there wondering how many churches have multi-millions dollar budgets for health care for their poor members. I suppose churches would replace FEMA too.
1. The Fed Gov has no constitutional authority to do so.
2. The church abdicates her responsibility to the state.
3. LBJ’s great society (our current welfare state) destroyed the impoverished black family without lowering the poverty rate.
This discussion always floors me because all the Christians on this site agree with helping the needy and also are actively doing so in many ways, but somehow the assumption is the Christian church at large stinks. I guess we all must be super-special or something then….
I also fear the violence that is coming when the checks stop being printed because there is no more money to be borrowed. (Or when inflation makes the currency being printed effectively worthless)
I guess my question always comes back to simply asking “how is that working out anyway” – It’s not like there is no track record. How are the most liberal cities in our nation doing these days? Cities with nothing but liberal leaders for decades, (and often in liberal states). How is taking all that tax money from the 50% of the country that still pays federal income taxes doing for the whole?
I’m amazed at Detroit with the water issue and all the battles being waged over people paying for services. But it’s WATER everyone yells – but should water be free (i.e. subsidized by others) just because decades of poor government have destroyed Detroit? I weep for the innocent people trapped in such a city, worrying each night about a home invasion or stray bullet taking out a child. And Chicago, and Gary, and Philly, and Newark, and South Central and on and on….
MLD – To your question, One problem I have is with borrowed money. Your statement that things are funded by taxes is simply not the case anymore. Of course, money is fungible and one can’t say which particular dollars going out are borrowed and which ones are raised by taxation – but clearly the whole thing is out of whack.
My second issue is that in an entitlement state there is zero room for personal responsibility and evaluation of need. Entitlement means, you qualify, you get.
Our church gives a significant percentage of money for our budget to the needy, and my hope and goal is that we can raise that level more and more. However, we do not simply hand out money to everyone who shows up off the street until all the money is gone (since we won’t be borrowing from China to fund deficits). Instead we have the chance to talk to people about Jesus, find out a little where they stand as to their real needs beyond just the present distress (economic as well as spiritual needs) and hopefully develop a relationship where it is not a one-time thing either…since nobody is going to be lifted out of their difficult situation with a one-time handout.
And we have seen a few success stories – and largely because we had the resources to help because we had not given them all away to people looking for an entitlement. And because the people of the church, despite the massive taxation they suffer under, were still willing to give to the work of the Lord.
Steve,
I wasn’t saying that we need to blow the budget to take care of the poor. Let’s make choices – this time, let us sit out the ISIS thing (let the EU spend their money) and those funds will offset any new money to the poor.
Your church along with many so very well for what they have. So, someone poor church member in Lake Elsinore needs daily dialysis … how many times do you have to pass the plate around the church to be his sponsor?
My big point that went right by you and Jim was that Christians do work in and pay for much of the government system … so that is ‘Christians at work for the poor.’ Why do I have to work out of a church building for it to count as christian work? Why doesn’t working my vocation count./
I’ll tell you what I’m sick of to the point of a violent rage.
If I care about health care or the poor than I’m automatically labeled a “liberal”.
Freaking church already judges people who don’t tow the political line and I’m supposed to trust them with my neighbors health and well being…who may not be a Christian at all.
Fat freaking chance.
Most small churches couldn’t make a dent in the needs in their own group…so we force everyone to join a mega church to get through…
My favorite mega church in one of the poorest cities in the country spent over a million and a half for good video lighting…and outsourced the food pantry.
Brad Keseloski just won today’s NASCAR race for anyone interested. The good news is this is the 3rd week in a row that my wife has watched the race with me from start to finish. 🙂
Jean, never litigated. The proper role of the Federal Government died a thousand deaths during the 20th century, so by the 60’s, government programs were beyond constitutional fidelity testing.
No one here with their “I think this or that” will ever posit that our current welfare state is allowable under enumerated powers. They simply don’t care about the crusty old document.
Well, I don’t really distinguish liberal economic policy from social policy when it comes to a discussion of the inner-city. They are all tied together. We may wonder why liberal economics has resulted in so many fatherless homes, failed schools and a host of other issues that grieve the Lord and His people (though many have written excellent works making those connections).
But Michael never has supported liberal social policy to my knowledge,
MLD, Tulsa stunk last year, but they usually are a bowl team (who often wins that bowl game I would add) and as you know the schedules are made years in advance – plus they are in the same state AND OU did go to their place to play rather than just stay at home.
I think your Pop Warner question had more relevance last week. 🙂
I missed the healthcare question. But my answer is the same it always is – namely I support safety nets for the poor. I don’t expect the church to pay for dialysis or brain surgery. I don’t expect people to be left to die on the street in America. However, government has been the problem with healthcare for decades leading us to this point.
And the reality is that if the government left the industry except for the safety net (and fixed the tax code) we could continue to see the explosion of HSA’s coupled with low premium, major medical insurance, high deductible plans. That’s what I, the insurance guy, uses for his family.
But we had our discussions about the fact that Obamacare, over time would reduce care and raise costs (not to mention increase unemployment and underemployment). Of course, I assumed he would not continue to grant unilateral delays on the mandates and taxes that were required to fund the thing, but why suffer at the ballot box in November when China still buys the debt.
I will though remind that Obamacare, as written, deliberately pushed a lot of people into Medicaid (i.e. called them poor when previously they did not qualify) and as written still left millions of uninsured (besides the many that he has made uninsured or otherwise caused havoc)
If Warren Buffett collecting on Medicare is somehow a safety net though, then we are talking a different language.
Question for all you theologians. When you are grouping the books of the Bible, do you usually refer to the Wisdom books, or the Poetical books (or do you use both titles as one)?
Well then you are back on my side – the point I made – the government and the church both working to solve problems. Not working together, but working.
Jim’s (and Rand Paul’s) point seemed to be “get the government out” and let people take care of themselves and if they MUST have some help, let them go to the church.
Rand Paul (apparently) believes in a much larger federal Government than I do. As I said before, I don’t think the Church would stand alone in providing assistance to those who are in need. Perhaps a Bill Gates would lead the charge. America is not going to stand idle and watch poor families die in our streets.
I believe that those receiving assistance who can be self sufficient, should be. Many would need help getting there. I also believe that there are millions who are incapable of self sufficiency, and that most members of our society can and would at the very least provide funds to help take care of others. It would of course be voluntary, unless individual states required participation through taxation. I’ve been out of sales for years, but I’d be able to empty some wallets. A legion of salesmen would mobilize, and America is a generous nation.
I think that people are blind to the effect, “let the govt do it”, has had on us. Take away that option, and watch us become great again.
Part of self-sufficiency (and I realize I made my living at it for over two decades so I can easily be discounted) is the private insurance marketplace. (It’s part of personal responsibility too, but I digress).
We ought to ask why has this one line of insurance, health, gotten so much attention from the government – all insurance is regulated, so we’re not speaking of that. But why is the government not actively involved in auto, home, life like they are with health?
The answer in my opinion is control and power. Because when the government controls the means of seeing how healthcare is distributed to the people, then any sort of grab on personal liberty can be undertaken in the name of “reducing healthcare costs” – after all, life and death are at stake.
And of course, that is what we are seeing now develop as well – as government legislates things like the size of sodas, the pink cookies in an elementary school, wearing helmets on motorcycles and on and on.
Steve,
I’m shocked that someone with 2 decades experience in the private insurance market would ask such a ridiculous question. Every one knew the private health insurance market was broken (except maybe the insurance companies) before the ACA came along.
And Jean, what is often overlooked is that during those 20+ years, private insurance companies LEFT the health insurance marketplace in droves. Companies we used to represent, still selling other lines of insurance, but no longer dealing with health insurance. Cost me plenty of sales commissions and a whole lot of hastle for my clients scrambling to literally find someone willing to take their insurance premiums in the private marketplace.
I have yet to have someone answer me why those evil companies supposedly making money hand over fist in the health insurance business decided to pull up their tents and stop.
Have you looked lately at how much health care that is delivered in this nation is paid through private insurance policies versus how much by government means? And asked why the same stats are nowhere near to be found when it comes to auto, home, life?
What amazes me is that liberals really think that using other people’s money to disincentivize the unfortunate and create subcultures of chronic dependency and misery is “compassion”.
I will listen to your pleas for the government to get out of the welfare business for the poor right after I see the government get out of the welfare business for the rich.
Today is a good day to think about this – Opening Day for the NFL
1.) NFL for one reason or another holds non profit status … ergo no taxes
2.) Almost all NFL stadiums build with public funds. Even though local by the time they pass hands, they begin in Federal redevelopment funds.
Even something like Nevada giving Tesla $1.5 billion just to build their battery plant in Nevada is outrageous,
So when that all ends, I will begin to listen about poverty welfare
My argument is consistent. Most of what the FedGovt does is not justified. Cut 66% of the budget, and see what we can afford. All fed laws must pass enumerated powers test.
You have been very consistent and without the rhetoric that usually accompanies these discussions, which is appreciated.
I think it would destroy the country…I have no faith in the “church” as anything but an entertainment vehicle.
I also believe corporate America has exactly what it wants…high profits and low wages with a shrinking job market and abundant desperate labor.
That combination without a safety net is a guaranteed formula for violent revolution.
Jim, you have a distorted view of the FedGov. The US Supreme Court says what’s justified, not you. You can talk all you want about enumerated powers, but that’s an incomplete picture. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. You may not like laws that fall under that power, but that doesn’t mean they’re unjustified. Your view is of a Constitution the U.S. doesn’t have.
If I ever had an original thought, it was decades ago. My view is the fidelity view, and..newsflash…it’s catching on. You read the commerce clause, tell me what three arenas it addresses, and tell me how it gave congress the authority to regulate commerce within my state.
Jim – I just read the Commerce Clause. Perhaps just having a web site to offer services throws business into an interstate commerce category. If Suzy homemaker in Florida is selling “Grandma’s Secret Recipes” on the web and I purchase them here in California would you deny that she is involved in interstate commerce?
Hence Suzy homemaker has allowed the Feds to be involved in her life … all the way. I don’t know too many people who have a web presence limited to their state’s boundaries. 🙂
It was clear to the founders that the bill of rights did not create rights, but would protect the rights of individuals from the federal government. A later amendment applied the bill of rights against the individual states.
So, my right to keep and bear arms is codified in the 2nd amendment, and my presumption of innocence is codified under due process in the 5th.
After the assassinations of MLK and the Kennedy’s, LBJ gave us the GCA of 1968. Oswald purchased a rifle via mail order (instead of going to the local hardware store), so something had to be done!
Now, if I want to buy and sell firearms as a business, with all transactions conducted within the state of Florida, I need a license from the federal government. If I want to purchase a new forearm, even it if was manufactured in the state of Florida, I have purchase the firearm from a federally licensed dealer, and to submit to yet another FBI background check to prove that I am not a criminal, because there is an unconstitutional presumption of guilt.
In 2007, I went through an exhaustive background check, which included submitting my fingerprints to the state of Florida, to obtain a CWL which allows me to bear arms. I also purchased two firearms that year, both requiring FBI background checks. I purchased another firearm in 2012, and two more this year. Three more presumptions of guilt, three more FBI background checks.
Please defend the constitutionality of laws that treat me like a criminal because I enjoy a sport that involves instruments that are constitutionally protected.
The church can not (or in some cases will nit) even take care of basic needs for people in their communities. How the heck are they going to take care of healthcare needs?
People who suggest that have obviously never worked in healthcare.
I have worked in healthcare in the US, Canada and the UK.
There’s not a church in any of those countries that could handle dealing with decisions about paying for healthcare needs.
The church can’t even decide who will be allowed to be a member or who can take communion where.
They also can’t keep a secret about anything. The government has regulations like HIPAA which require workers keep silent about patient conditions. I can never see a church doing that.
Churches should quit bitching about the government taking care of healthcare and concentrate on what isn’t being taken care of at all, and take care it.
Was considering U-District closure but they’d have to sell that real estate (and the sale of the MH HQ is pending) and wasn’t sure they’d be closing it since there’s no sign the property in the U district was on the market yet. Well, now it’s official. Reconsolidating people and resources back into Ballard from MH U-District and the leased campus Downtown makes some sense.
Albuquerque is still running, from the sound of it. So far.
The idea that amid multiple campus closures that a Spokane plant will still proceed seems … ill-advised. They’ve got Mars Hill Schools kicking off this fall and are closing possibly up to four campuses and … opening a campus in Spokane?
Jim, your state willingly gave away their own right to regulate. Did the Florida representatives and Senators walk out of congress when all of this was legislated? Stop sending people to congress – you just encourage them.
London,
“Churches should quit bitching about the government taking care of health…”
There are no churches bitching about the government and healthcare. What there are is individuals (many of whom are 2nd amendment kooks) who attend church and speak for no one but themselves.
Not necessarily including anyone here – but we did see Jim show his true colors in what started out as “get the gov out of welfare” to his real issue… gun ownership..
But people are fools if they do not see, government, church, charitable organizations (Red Cross & United Way) along with philanthropic individuals working together to ease suffering and poverty..
If you can’t win an argument about a topic you have a loose grasp on, demonize the one you disagree with. “err…. I can’t answer his argument…. He’s a gun nut!!!”
London – I didn’t pull you into anything – you bought into a false point that “churches” are objecting to government being in the welfare business – which they are not.
Even the Catholic Church that does great community welfare work takes millions in tax dollars – so they aren’t objecting.
“You read the commerce clause, tell me what three arenas it addresses, and tell me how it gave congress the authority to regulate commerce within my state.”
It doesn’t matter how I or you reads the commerce clause. In our system of government, what matters is how the Supreme Court reads the commerce clause. When Congress passes a law, signed by the President, which is upheld by the Supreme Court, guess what? It’s constitutional!
“It was clear to the founders that the bill of rights did not create rights, but would protect the rights of individuals from the federal government. A later amendment applied the bill of rights against the individual states.”
The founders aren’t around anymore, and we can’t go back there. It’s the 21st Century and the country has to deal with issues the founders never thought about. The Constitution must be applied to today’s problems and issues, which in many cases weren’t even on the horizon of the founders. When the 2nd Amendment was written, do you think the writers were thinking about enshrining a 9 year old girl’s right to play with an Uzi Machine gun?
Jim, I clearly answered you on the commerce clause – that web sites make companies interstate businesses – so I don’t know how you can accuse me of avoiding the topic.
You came back to that point and pointed me to your lesson on “guns and the feds”
Your argument is inconsistent. You first said, “The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. You may not like laws that fall under that power, but that doesn’t mean they’re unjustified.”
Now you argue that the document is outdated. Better to just start with position 2, as that’s how most people think today. Most are just not honest enough to plainly say it.
The document is irrelevant because the founders could not see into the future. Got it.
Jim, you said it’s outdated, not me. I said nothing of the kind.
What you don’t seem to be able to understand, is that the enumerated powers include powers to legislate. You don’t like some or most of that legislation. I get that. But that’s not a failing of the FedGov or the courts. That’s only a problem for the losing side on any litigation or legislation (if it’s not litigated).
I’m not saying that our system of government is perfect, but I don’t think there are any better systems out there. Do you? If you have any suggestions to make it better, maybe you should start or join a movement to amend the Constitution.
But I don’t think your problem is the Constitution. I think what you really don’t like is our current President. But it’s not enough to disagree with his policies.You want to delegitimize his presidency by thowing out the unconstitutional hooey. That may work at a Tea Party rally, but it doesn’t work here.
You made the outdated argument without using the words. If you don’t care what Madison said, then you don’t care what the constitution means, nor are you concerned with the type of govt our founders envisioned. This is why you don’t understand that the power to legislate is limited.
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I don’t go to tea party rallies, nor do I parrot their rhetoric. You’re correct, I don’t like Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or…. I actually don’t think I like any president since Coolidge.
“But I don’t think your problem is the Constitution. I think what you really don’t like is our current President. But it’s not enough to disagree with his policies.You want to delegitimize his presidency by thowing out the unconstitutional hooey. That may work at a Tea Party rally, but it doesn’t work here.”
Jean, you usually have the ability to disagree agreeably. There is no evidence for the statement above. I’m assuming that I’m saying something that sounds similar to something you’ve heard someone else say. All that “unconstitutional hooey” you heard somewhere.
If you’re going to judge a man, it’s best to evaluate exactly what he’s saying, and not immediately jump to, “oh, he’s one of THOSE people”.
I care about what the Constitution means, just like I care about what my blood panel and other tests mean. Does that mean I play doctor? Who is better qualified to interpret the Constitution: you, me or 9 justices who specialize in constitutional law, backed up by 3 clerks each who provide research?
You seem to be pining for a country that doesn’t exist. All you seem to offer are complaints and unrealistic suggestions. Is this what drives your seeming obsession with guns? I’m not trying to be mean, but you don’t seem very happy ane you may feel isolated with the ideas you embrace. Perhaps you could put your gifts to productive endeavors, which might lift your spirits.
When it gets personal, it get’s ugly. I can get ugly, so I’m gonna bow out before I form a caricature of those I disagree with and start fighting strawmen.
Jim, I’m happy to bow out too. Political partisanship is not my strong suit nor my interest. These kinds of discussions usually descend into labels, judgments and get personal. I apologize for my part in those offenses.
The commerce clause is just fine as written, as are the entire bill of rights. It is deemed irrelevant by ignorant legislators, not by me. Your Internet illustration was correct.
I know that legislators screw everything up. I am for going back to part time legislation terms. California up to about 40-50 years ago was part time … I think 5 months a year.
My wife’s uncle was a state senator in west Virginia for several years. They served 3 or 4 months a year and kept their regular jobs.
I say let Congress go and do any damage they want for 5 months and send them home until the next session… and get rid of their staffs – what do they need a staff for?
As I was read the following verses from Ezekiel this afternoon, I couldn’t help but reflect on Michael’s articles from last week regarding MHC, the article about the Philippine child abuse case, and the link provided by a reader to the story of the CC bible school teacher convicted of possessing child pornography. We pray for the health of the church universal, we pray for God’s will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven, and we pray for justice; but one thing we can be confident of is that God is totally ware of what’s going on on Earth, and he will hold those in leadership in the church accountable for their conduct, the good and the bad. I hope these verses may be of comfort to those who have been hurt by shepherds of the church.
“Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice animals, but you do not feed the sheep! You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled over them. They were scattered because they had no shepherd, and they became food for every wild beast.
….
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the sovereign Lord says: Look, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand my sheep from their hand. I will no longer let them be shepherds; the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore. I will rescue my sheep from their mouth, so that they will no longer be food for them.” (Ezek 34:2c-5, 9-10)
not too much to add about this recent observation except the irony in this particular campus closure announcement has to e a particularly bitter pill to swallow.
9 justices who specialize in constitutional law
——————————————-
Harriet Miers was almost a Supreme Court judge (and would have been if the Republicans had not broken ranks and forced Bush to withdraw her nomination) – several years ago there was serious talk about a Hillary Clinton Justice from those on the left who thought she would be great.
One thing I will never understand is why so many people think politicians are super-smart. There is certainly more intelligence represented on this board (from both political sides) than found in dozens and dozens of federal lawmakers, and thousands nationwide at all levels. How is Al Franken or Arnold any different from the average blog poster who cares a little about politics – except for their fame. These guys aren’t smarter than any of us here
Have you seen how many federal politicians (or state governors) are simply relatives of famous politicians who trade on the name, or are multi-millionaires who buy a seat
Now, they may know the House or Senate rules of order better than we do, but most of these people have never met a payroll, dealt with a budget, sold a product, or even in some cases held a prior job in the private sector.
I have had 12.4% of my lifetime earnings taken from me for 25 years now, all in the name of providing for my retirement. Why can’t I control my own retirement needs and plans. I will sign any letter saying the government never has to pay me a dime, if they let me keep my money. I already support the safety net with my income taxes, why the payroll taxes on top. I assure you I would have more in savings than the government will deliver AND I will have plenty extra that could be used for private charity to others.
More importantly, why can’t young workers save that money so one day they can afford to move out of Mom and Dad’s and put a deposit on a starter condo or house. Build equity over the years, while continuing to save for the future, or pay off student loans etc. Then, when retirement becomes a serious concern as the years go by, they can evaluate where they are in life and what those needs are. Maybe that extra 12.4% over the years helped fund a business that is now worth a couple million, or helped buy a stock or real estate portfolio, or maybe a rich mommy or daddy left them an inheritance and any social security is unnecessary. If the person abdicates the chance to ever receive from the system, who is the government to say they can’t.
What possible argument can be offered in the name of freedom and America that says a person who agrees to opt out should not be allowed to opt out and take care of their own needs….except the nanny state argument that somehow elected officials are needed to save us from our own choices.
As far as pining for a country that does not exist…there was a time when America was a manufacturing giant, a net exporter of goods and services, a world lender with minimal to no debt, and righted its greatest immorality in fighting a bloody civil war to end it. And it sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.
“One thing I will never understand is why so many people think politicians are super-smart.”
I don’t know a single person who thinks politicians are super-smart. Personally, I think most of them are below average. On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court has by and large been populated by very intelligent justices; therefore I would not categorize them with politicians.
“And [America] sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.”
To me, these are the biggest problems facing America today. And these are issues within the wheelhouse of the church to address and speak out against…, if the church can remember which kingdom it represents.
I could bring up Supreme Court decisions that I don’t agree with too, and there are a couple recent ones that I think really do the country harm. But with all due respect (and I’m not going to judge or get personal), what’s the alternative to our system? I assume you respect the rule of law. No one thinks our system is perfect, but who’s got a better one and we have to live in this one.
Jean, Jim (and I) are not looking for an alternative. We are looking for the actual return to a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is a remarkable document in that it allows for its own amendments and allows for impeachment of those who fail to keep their oath to legislate and execute the laws according to the Constitution. Want to enshrine abortion as a new constitutional right? Then go through the process – which of course would not succeed so we have a few men in black robes decide and over 40 years of a political issue and focus of EVERY SCOTUS nominee since.
And of course, its greatest asset to the American people is in limiting federal government power and vesting that power in the individual states.
As an aside, you may not have met a single person who thinks the D.C. crowd is smarter than the average yokel in “flyover country” but elitism and big government go hand and hand and I would suggest reviewing some actual quotes from our fearless leaders as to what they think about the people they govern.
Bill Clinton “”We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right,”
One of the most relevant suggestions made on these issues was from MLD the other day when he suggested making serving in Congress a part time job. I think a large part of the problem is in the power grab and personal fiefdoms that many politicians, if left to themselves, try to create.
So, currently, a congressman makes about $170k/yr (plus or minus) with Cadillac benefits, expense accounts, staffs, mail privileges, pensions, etc., and I don’t see a lot of value for my tax dollar. Thus, I would totally support legislation and, if necessary, a constitutional amendment, to make the jobs in the Senate and House part time.
The difficulty is, those men and women won’t give up the power and gravy train easily; they will fight it tooth and nail. For example, how many of the Republicans who signed the 1980’s Contract with America actually honored their own commitment to term limits? Some politicians, Republican and Democrat, serve (and I use that term loosely) until they’ve got one foot in the grave.
So, I am all for reform and even aggressive reform of government, but I’m not going to waste a lot of time dreaming of something that doesn’t exist or would be impossible to create or recreate. It’s like serving in a church: I can go around looking for the perfect church (and never find it), or can stand around complaining about everything that’s wrong in the church while doing nothing, or I can plug into an imperfect church and try to make a difference.
Thanks Steve. Hard for me to understand why anyone would infer from what I’ve said here that I would want anything other than a constitutional republic.
Michael, I do hear what you say, and I thought that statement might get some pushback. However, when we look at the well advertised “10 biggest problems in the public high schools” from the 1950s and today…or when we look at cities like Detroit or Harlem, today versus 50+ years ago….I must stand by my assertion. Not to mention the sexual revolution and the consequences it has spawned.
MLD, I don’t agree with the premise you and Jean are asserting. That age and tenure alone necessitate a politician must be terrible. So maybe your question is better asked of him. I will say that I have supported the many primary challenges to sitting Republican Senators and do not care if it means “holding the seat” will be tougher in the national election.
My congressman is Bill Posey. I spent an hour on the phone with him back in 1992, when he first ran for the Florida House. We agree on most issues, and I’ll continue to vote for him.
Fifty years ago would be the early sixties.
The President (who was a serial adulterer) had just been assassinated.
We were getting swallowed up in Vietnam and the seeds of the race riots to come had been planted and were ready to sprout.
We were a divided and deeply disturbed nation…and the worse was yet to come.
When you turn back the clock to some “golden age” you simply begin addressing another set of sins.
Steve,
“That age and tenure alone necessitate a politician must be terrible.”
I didn’t say terrible … just entrenched and doing what it takes to stay entrenched. Congress, especially the House was meant to be, “go to Washington, do your business for your community and go home and let someone else take over after a period of time.”
When I used to vote in primaries, I always voted for the guy running against the incumbent. My personal term limits attempt.
I will say, I had a guy knock on my door a couple of weeks ago and tell me he was running for city council. I told him I would vote for him because in 15 yrs as a city resident, he was the first to come and ask me personally for my vote. He said, do you want to talk about my programs? and I said no, because as the new kid on the council you will have very little power and if you got into strange stuff I would vote against you in a couple of yrs.
“MLD, I don’t agree with the premise you and Jean are asserting.”
My premise had nothing to do with term limits. My premise was limiting the time spent in Washington by Congress and related to that their staffs, budgets, etc. I brought up term limits as an example of how they cling to power.
If you give someone a full time job in Washington, with a staff and large budget, what do you think they’re going to want to do with all their time? Answer: write more laws and try to fix more problems, problems that historically may not have been addressed at the federal level. That’s my premise.
And, as an aside, who are the politicians going to listen to with all their time? You, me or the lobbyist with the big checks, which the politicians want to stay in power. You can’t fix Washington, until you reform Campaign finance laws.
I have no yearning for any golden age. Our nation is financially bankrupt because our leaders lost the owners manual. I have grandkids, so it matters to me.
Wondering why our govt doesn’t work is like wondering why dogs don’t fly. The answer is staring us in the face, and we all know it.
I am against term limits myself. I think people should have the same dopey people they want and no one should be able to say who can and can’t run. I exercise my own form of term limits.
If the people of Kentucky are stupid enough to continue to vote for Mich McConnell – 30 yrs in office, will be almost 80 at the end of his term – then God bless those idiots.
Well, my math was off as I really was speaking of the 1950s, so sixty years ago…but again, I never spoke of a “golden age” that was problem free.
I just really can’t see the point in discussing whether or not the moral fiber of this nation is declining or not. We can blame technology, the media, politicians, video games, or Elvis and Jerry Lee (kidding) but a decline it has been.
If you give someone a full time job in Washington, with a staff and large budget, what do you think they’re going to want to do with all their time?
———————————————-
Play golf and have dinner with Beyonce and Jay Z?
And while there maybe never was a sin-free golden age, my much earlier (and uncommented upon) point stands…that there was a time when America was a leading manufacturer, exporter, debt free world lending superpower.
So this is not pining away for a country that never was. The Constitution, coupled with a strong Christian ethic, made this country great.
And when each generation looked with realistic hope (that used to be realized) that their children and grandchildren would live in an even better nation than they had. And that would be realized largely because of the efforts and sacrifices they made for those generations to come.
I say cut it all … but you must start with corporate welfare – get rid of every last time that goes to private enterprise before you hit the poor.
——————————————————
Absolutely. If green power (to use one example) has so much promise then the entrepenaerial spirit of America will find a way to make millions of dollars of profit. Just as with many other industries. But now, CEOs get hundreds of millions in tax money and then kickback a portion of that to the politicians who gave them the money.
My first post was a link. in my second post I said, “Let’s pretend that our leaders were forced to act like adults and had to operate with a no debt budget. Let’s also pretend that they decided obey the law of the land, and only involved the Govt in matters that fall under enumerated powers. Poof-minimum 2/3 reduction in spending.”
I’m firmly in the cut it all camp, starting with firing 3 million federal employees.
Your assumption is that our economic strength has been crippled by the common mans lack of ethics.
I say it was destroyed by corporate and political greed.
I’m still waiting for the explanation for why in an era of record corporate profits we see continual job cuts…
“that there was a time when America was a leading manufacturer, exporter, debt free world lending superpower.”
When there was no world competition. ‘Made in Japan’ was a joke comment when I was younger. The only thing you got from China was those Chinese handcuff that locked your thumbs together – and we owned the oil fields in the Middle East.
I too agree with much of what Jim and Steve have said.
However, I also agree with what Michael said:
“That combination [high profits and low wages with a shrinking job market and abundant desperate labor] without a safety net is a guaranteed formula for violent revolution.”
So, if we’re going to talk about stopping or phasing out welfare, yes we need to cut corporate welfare, but the country also has to address income disparity, education (both for workers and young people) and other causes of poverty.
But defense contractors provide a service and a product. The Air Force wants a plane they have to go out and buy it from Boeing or whoever – the Navy wants a ship, they need to buy it … or I guess they could build their own.
But that is not free corporate welfare money. The GM bailout is welfare – the Tesla plant is welfare.
I just read an article stating that the US Foreign Assistance budget request for 2015 is $46.2 billion. Apparently austerity hasn’t reached that budget yet. I would want to see that budget slashed before slashing welfare at home.
Now you’re back to partisan cherry picking. “I think this/I think that”. Read and understand what our Govt is supposed to do, what it was created to do, which is very little.
Zero foreign aid, zero corp welfare, zero entitlements, zero welfare, gut the military, close all foreign bases.
Balance the budget, pay down the debt, then eliminate federal income tax. Adhere to the 10th amendment, because it’s the law of the land, and because it will actually allow us to have a say in where our money goes.
I have no problem with the state of Florida providing a safety net for it’s residents. Arizona may disagree. Abortion would be legal in California, and illegal in Mississippi.
Early in our nation’s history, the penalty for sodomy in Virgina was death. Jefferson wanted to liberalize the law, and the residents of the state decided, with no input from the FedGov.
“Now you’re back to partisan cherry picking. “I think this/I think that”. Read and understand what our Govt is supposed to do, what it was created to do, which is very little.”
First of all, I wasn’t aware that the issues of income disparity, education and poverty were partisan issues. Are you saying that only Democrats care about these issues?
Second, I was very careful in my wording to say “the country has to address” not “the FedGov has to address”. It is my opinion that since we’re not staring a country from scratch, we need a national strategy to transition the country to a balanced budget and other government reforms. That national strategy can allocate responsibilities where it makes the best sense and in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, but the issues you refer to as partisan should be of concern to everyone.
By the way, if anyone doesn’t think the Supreme Court should be vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution, then who should be vested with that authority?
Your assumption is that our economic strength has been crippled by the common mans lack of ethics.
I say it was destroyed by corporate and political greed.
———————————————-
Actually my view is similar. I think corporate and political greed (and not just greed for money but power) is the starting point and that the welfare state (which is at its core an elitist power grab) is what destroyed the common mans lack of ethics.
The common mans ethics were pretty strong during the Great Depression, as stories from the era often show (as well as people in our families who lived through it) – if even a fraction of what reality was like then happened today, there would be riots and killings in every city.
Yes. Lets fire 3 million federal employees, not provide unemployment or Medicare, social security.
I suppose that we’d have to get rid of the military too…but we’d need them to stop all the chaos and looting that would happen as a result of this idiotic plan.
These political threads chap my hide. They are so unrealistic and a basic waste of time.
I would argue it is unrealistic to keep going as things are without either a crippling depression or paper money that can be used as toilet paper. London though makes an excellent point, once entrenched, it is impossible to get out of it..
Almost.
As to federal employees, (if I were king) absolutely no new hiring and as employees retire, die or move to the private sector (which would be multiple thousands of people each year those jobs are not filled with new people but rather eliminated or another job is eliminated and the employee takes this one. That is how the private sector works.
Unemployment should be fully funded by state taxes on employers, but states that want to grant huge benefits can’t run to Uncle Sam for loans. They charge the businesses in their state a sound, actuarial tax rate, and raise those taxes when needed – making a choice how badly they want to keep business in their state. The feds are 100% out of it though (if I were king)
Medicare – just as middle class and above retired and elderly people with the means purchase medicare supplement policies and long term health care policies, there is zero reason why the private market should not sell health insurance to the greater than 65 crowd (which is really not that old anymore). I already stated here that I support a safety net and not having people die on the streets, so Medicaid remains the option for the poor elderly…but in America the over 65 generation has a huge percentage of the wealth and a large number of them could afford to buy their own insurance coverage rather than having the paychecks of young workers and the minimum wage crowd get hit to pay their insurance
I mentioned social security earlier. Just let people opt out – choose the gov plan if they want “security” and pay the taxes accordingly, or go on their own.
No riots in the streets. None of this is an overnight fix, and there would be some accommodations for the transition years of people who were working under the old rules, but it would put us definitely on the right path, and is sellable to the American people except for the pols who want to keep control over the lives of the citizenry and/or are convinced that they alone know best how we should live our lives and feel we can’t be trusted to make our own retirement and insurance choices.. And of course they villify anyone who wants to discuss real reform while the voters (who want someone else to pay for their benefits (and that includes the Selfish (er..) “Greatest” Generation who not only vote but scream bloody murder if you mention the words medicare or social security, even if you exempt every single one of them already on these entitlements)
The Dems win elections fighting this stuff, and the few Republicans who are not in full throated agreement with the Dems already don’t have the backbone to risk their own reelections and so we move on towards bankruptcy and vote against guys who talk like me here as those who “hate the poor”
It’s all yours today…
First!
http://blog.tifwe.org/is-the-church-being-crowded-out/
More pastors leaving and the money drying up…
https://marshill.com/2014/09/05/the-weekly-9-5-14
Jim,
There are many issues I see with that article.
First, they always look at the abuses and ignore real needs that are being met honorably.
Second…and most importantly, I would no more trust the “church” as it’s currently structured in this country than I do the government.
Well..they sure crowded out the churches in my town.
Well it is funny how you can look and see different things. I went to the linked Mars Hills web site and what did I see? – they have the baptistry right there next to the stage to baptize people right away.
None of this – “well we will baptize when the ocean / lake water warms up.”
I always thought it was funny when at the end of Sept many CCs would announce “our last baptism of the year.” 🙂
Michael,
Let’s pretend that our leaders were forced to act like adults and had to operate with a no debt budget. Let’s also pretend that they decided obey the law of the land, and only involved the Govt in matters that fall under enumerated powers. Poof-minimum 2/3 reduction in spending. All welfare and entitlements gone.
Some States would choose to provide some form of safety net, but the heavy lifting would fall upon the people. I believe such a world would heal the Church, who would be forced to step up and fulfill her mandate.
I understand that some liberals think that libertarians or constitutional conservatives are fine with the poor dying in our streets, but some of us have a hidden agenda. Yes, we stand against the immorality of forced theft at gunpoint while we watch our stolen resources squandered, but some of us believe the Church will only step up when she becomes the poor’s only hope.
You seem to want the Govt to take care of everyone, while waging war at the drop of hat. When do we admit that we can do no more? 27 trill in debt ? 40 trill?
Jim,
I don’t believe that the “church” would step up, because one, there is no single “church’ that could or would take responsibility, and two, I think a large percentage of the church are tares.
Then let’s use the term, Christians”
I had the joy of meeting Xenia, “face to face” to day. She is a lovely lady, and we had such a nice visit.
Jim,
There simply aren’t enough committed Christians to address the need.
I can also tell you from experience that American evangelicals will help you to the degree that you agree with their agenda.
Step out of line and you’re toast.
I honestly think the Catholics would lead the charge. I also don’t think that Christians would be the only ones meeting needs.
In the spirit of open blogging, one of my favorite recent quotes:
“Labor is cheap, friends are expensive, but sons are priceless.”
“Sons” to be considered gender-neutral, of course.
Nonnie,
Wish I could have been there…that’s very cool.
Jim,
I agree that the Catholics would be in the forefront.
I also believe there would be huge suffering that would be justified by blaming it on those suffering as if they deserved it.
My email has wished me death and despair far too many times to think otherwise…
The fix is in…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/09/06/mark-dunford-explains-dismissal-from-mars-hill-church/
Michael,
There will be huge suffering if we stay the current course. You know that our level of debt and spending is unsustainable.
What’s your solution?
Jim,
I don’t have one and I’m not sure that anyone does.
This kind of problem takes noble people from different perspectives and different gifts to come together to find solutions.
We are a million miles from such in this country.
In my opinion, the ruling oligarchy is fine with things as they are and historically, oligarchies care little about suffering outside their class.
In connection with Michael’s first article on John Calvin, this post is intended to examine the interpretation of the words “election,” “foreknowledge” and “predestination” as used by Paul in Romans Chapter 8:29-30, 33.
The question I would like to discuss from the different theological perspectives represented here is whether Romans Chapter 8 supports the Calvinist doctrine of the election of a limited number of predetermined individuals to salvation?
“because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.” (8:29-30)
As a preliminary matter, I propose that 8:29-30 falls within the context of Paul’s argument that begins more or less at 8:17: “And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)—if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.” Paul is addressing (and providing encouragement and assurance) to a Christian community which is or will face persecution.
In the context of Paul’s argument, being “conformed to the image of his Son” appears to be what happens to those believers who re-enact in their own lives the suffering and death of Jesus in order that they “may also be glorified with him.” Paul makes a similar argument in Philippians (see 1:29; 2:5).
The church now makes up “God’s elect” (Rom 8:33); they are foreknown in the same way that national Israel was foreknown by God (11:2): “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!” It is the prior relationship of the people of God that is at issue here, not the abstract foreknowledge of the salvation of individuals.
The churches (this reconfigured elect) have been “called” to suffer; they will be a martyr community for the sake of the future of the people of God. Romans 8:18-39 addresses the fears that will come with their vocation. The theological rhetoric of verses 29-30 is intended to reinforce the particular point that there is nothing accidental about their situation. They are no less a chosen servant community than Jesus was the chosen servant through whom God would redeem his sinful people. Their suffering is not less predetermined than Jesus’ suffering was predetermined.
If this outline accurately interprets the thrust of Paul’s argument, then I don’t think it can be used in support of a Calvinist doctrine of the election of a limited number of predetermined individuals to salvation. What say others?
My sources for this post are NET and ESV Bible translations; D.J. Moo, Romans: NIV Application Commentary; N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One; Andrew Perriman, P.OST Blog, Election and the Martyr Church.
The problem with that view is that the church corporately is still comprised of individuals, whom Wright has a difficult time defining how they become a part of.
The second issue is that the “Calvinistic doctrine of election” is not based on one passage…it’s based on many, and this is just another that supports it.
Having said that, Wright has some good things to say about what we do and what our calling is as a part of the corporate whole.
If I’m not mistaken, Moo affirms the Calvinist doctrine of election in his exposition of Romans 9…
Michael,
Yes, Moo does affirm Calvinist doctrine. I used his material as a source and appreciated some of his exegesis, but I disagreed with his conclusion.
I acknowledge that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not based on one passage, but I couldn’t cover them all in one post and thought Rom 8:29-30 was a good place to start. Is there another you would like to discuss?
Do you see Rom 11:2 as about individuals or corporate Israel?
Thanks for your engagement.
Jean,
You can’t separate corporate and individual election in my opinion for the reason I gave above.
I honestly care very little about the doctrine of election as I believe it’s something understood in retrospect…it’s about how we got here, not about how we get here.
My understanding of predestination and election has no effect on how I witness, the need for evangelism, or how I live out my walk.
It’s the most overblown, over discussed doctrine of the last 500 years.
Having said that, I’ll answer questions as I get the time.
Not discounting a deep theological review of the arguments or my lack of bible college or seminary, on the surface does it make sense that Jesus did not want all to be saved who believed and gave their life over to Christ?
Or you believe you are saved and a pastor and live your life for God to the fullest extent but by Gods choice you are not of the selected?
On the flip side, I am a hard core sinful atheist but am elected. How does that work?
Sorry in advance for dumbing it down some.
I am trying to figure out Jim’s objection to the government relief agencies. These organizations are funded through public funds (taxes) which are heavily contributed to by Church Folks – and many of the workers in these government agencies, the ones who do the actual work alleviating the poverty and suffering are also Church Folks.
So what is the issue?
I remember Ron Paul being asked the following question in a presidential debate (Paul was against national health insurance and would repeal Medicare and Medicaid): how would the poor with cancer or a heart attack get health care? Paul suggested local churches. I sat there wondering how many churches have multi-millions dollar budgets for health care for their poor members. I suppose churches would replace FEMA too.
SJ,
That’s why I don’t enjoy these conversations.
Any who desire to be saved, will be saved.
That’s because you won’t even have the desire unless it is given by God.
Someone who dies an atheist is not elect, they didn’t believe.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
(John 6:44 ESV)
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”
(John 6:37 ESV)
Here we go again:
Calvary Chapel University City Bible teacher – sentenced for child porn…
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Children-s-Bible-study-instructor-sentenced-for-5736423.php
http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/texan-led-bible-study-gets-prison-child-porn-20623.shtml
MLD @ 25,
1. The Fed Gov has no constitutional authority to do so.
2. The church abdicates her responsibility to the state.
3. LBJ’s great society (our current welfare state) destroyed the impoverished black family without lowering the poverty rate.
Jim,
Are you saying that the welfare laws were never litigated for constitutionality, or the federal courts misinterpreted the Constitution?
I trust the government to take care of the sick and poor WAY more than I trust churches. WAY more.
To quote John D. Rockefeller’s great-granddaughter, a lovely lady from a family that has more experience than any other at giving away money:
“it’s hard to get rid of the money in a way that does more good than harm.”
Liberal do-gooders never learn. They throw a dying or starving child in your face to justify policies that do more harm than good.
And it is, admittedly, hard to argue with a dying child.
Love equips.
This discussion always floors me because all the Christians on this site agree with helping the needy and also are actively doing so in many ways, but somehow the assumption is the Christian church at large stinks. I guess we all must be super-special or something then….
I also fear the violence that is coming when the checks stop being printed because there is no more money to be borrowed. (Or when inflation makes the currency being printed effectively worthless)
I guess my question always comes back to simply asking “how is that working out anyway” – It’s not like there is no track record. How are the most liberal cities in our nation doing these days? Cities with nothing but liberal leaders for decades, (and often in liberal states). How is taking all that tax money from the 50% of the country that still pays federal income taxes doing for the whole?
I’m amazed at Detroit with the water issue and all the battles being waged over people paying for services. But it’s WATER everyone yells – but should water be free (i.e. subsidized by others) just because decades of poor government have destroyed Detroit? I weep for the innocent people trapped in such a city, worrying each night about a home invasion or stray bullet taking out a child. And Chicago, and Gary, and Philly, and Newark, and South Central and on and on….
MLD – To your question, One problem I have is with borrowed money. Your statement that things are funded by taxes is simply not the case anymore. Of course, money is fungible and one can’t say which particular dollars going out are borrowed and which ones are raised by taxation – but clearly the whole thing is out of whack.
My second issue is that in an entitlement state there is zero room for personal responsibility and evaluation of need. Entitlement means, you qualify, you get.
Our church gives a significant percentage of money for our budget to the needy, and my hope and goal is that we can raise that level more and more. However, we do not simply hand out money to everyone who shows up off the street until all the money is gone (since we won’t be borrowing from China to fund deficits). Instead we have the chance to talk to people about Jesus, find out a little where they stand as to their real needs beyond just the present distress (economic as well as spiritual needs) and hopefully develop a relationship where it is not a one-time thing either…since nobody is going to be lifted out of their difficult situation with a one-time handout.
And we have seen a few success stories – and largely because we had the resources to help because we had not given them all away to people looking for an entitlement. And because the people of the church, despite the massive taxation they suffer under, were still willing to give to the work of the Lord.
Steve,
I wasn’t saying that we need to blow the budget to take care of the poor. Let’s make choices – this time, let us sit out the ISIS thing (let the EU spend their money) and those funds will offset any new money to the poor.
Your church along with many so very well for what they have. So, someone poor church member in Lake Elsinore needs daily dialysis … how many times do you have to pass the plate around the church to be his sponsor?
My big point that went right by you and Jim was that Christians do work in and pay for much of the government system … so that is ‘Christians at work for the poor.’ Why do I have to work out of a church building for it to count as christian work? Why doesn’t working my vocation count./
Think about sitting out ISIS as an option.
I’ll tell you what I’m sick of to the point of a violent rage.
If I care about health care or the poor than I’m automatically labeled a “liberal”.
Freaking church already judges people who don’t tow the political line and I’m supposed to trust them with my neighbors health and well being…who may not be a Christian at all.
Fat freaking chance.
Most small churches couldn’t make a dent in the needs in their own group…so we force everyone to join a mega church to get through…
My favorite mega church in one of the poorest cities in the country spent over a million and a half for good video lighting…and outsourced the food pantry.
Brad Keseloski just won today’s NASCAR race for anyone interested. The good news is this is the 3rd week in a row that my wife has watched the race with me from start to finish. 🙂
I ought to publish some of the things that my Christian brethren wished on me after the kids on the border articles…
Great win for the Ducks today…
Great win for USC today
But to Steve, why was Oklahoma playing a Pop Warner team today? 😉
Michael, you self-identify as liberal.
Jean, never litigated. The proper role of the Federal Government died a thousand deaths during the 20th century, so by the 60’s, government programs were beyond constitutional fidelity testing.
No one here with their “I think this or that” will ever posit that our current welfare state is allowable under enumerated powers. They simply don’t care about the crusty old document.
Jim,
I self identify as a liberal, because “moderate” is no longer part of our vocabulary…
Well, I don’t really distinguish liberal economic policy from social policy when it comes to a discussion of the inner-city. They are all tied together. We may wonder why liberal economics has resulted in so many fatherless homes, failed schools and a host of other issues that grieve the Lord and His people (though many have written excellent works making those connections).
But Michael never has supported liberal social policy to my knowledge,
MLD, Tulsa stunk last year, but they usually are a bowl team (who often wins that bowl game I would add) and as you know the schedules are made years in advance – plus they are in the same state AND OU did go to their place to play rather than just stay at home.
I think your Pop Warner question had more relevance last week. 🙂
I missed the healthcare question. But my answer is the same it always is – namely I support safety nets for the poor. I don’t expect the church to pay for dialysis or brain surgery. I don’t expect people to be left to die on the street in America. However, government has been the problem with healthcare for decades leading us to this point.
And the reality is that if the government left the industry except for the safety net (and fixed the tax code) we could continue to see the explosion of HSA’s coupled with low premium, major medical insurance, high deductible plans. That’s what I, the insurance guy, uses for his family.
But we had our discussions about the fact that Obamacare, over time would reduce care and raise costs (not to mention increase unemployment and underemployment). Of course, I assumed he would not continue to grant unilateral delays on the mandates and taxes that were required to fund the thing, but why suffer at the ballot box in November when China still buys the debt.
I will though remind that Obamacare, as written, deliberately pushed a lot of people into Medicaid (i.e. called them poor when previously they did not qualify) and as written still left millions of uninsured (besides the many that he has made uninsured or otherwise caused havoc)
If Warren Buffett collecting on Medicare is somehow a safety net though, then we are talking a different language.
Question for all you theologians. When you are grouping the books of the Bible, do you usually refer to the Wisdom books, or the Poetical books (or do you use both titles as one)?
Well then you are back on my side – the point I made – the government and the church both working to solve problems. Not working together, but working.
Jim’s (and Rand Paul’s) point seemed to be “get the government out” and let people take care of themselves and if they MUST have some help, let them go to the church.
MLD,
Rand Paul (apparently) believes in a much larger federal Government than I do. As I said before, I don’t think the Church would stand alone in providing assistance to those who are in need. Perhaps a Bill Gates would lead the charge. America is not going to stand idle and watch poor families die in our streets.
I believe that those receiving assistance who can be self sufficient, should be. Many would need help getting there. I also believe that there are millions who are incapable of self sufficiency, and that most members of our society can and would at the very least provide funds to help take care of others. It would of course be voluntary, unless individual states required participation through taxation. I’ve been out of sales for years, but I’d be able to empty some wallets. A legion of salesmen would mobilize, and America is a generous nation.
I think that people are blind to the effect, “let the govt do it”, has had on us. Take away that option, and watch us become great again.
Part of self-sufficiency (and I realize I made my living at it for over two decades so I can easily be discounted) is the private insurance marketplace. (It’s part of personal responsibility too, but I digress).
We ought to ask why has this one line of insurance, health, gotten so much attention from the government – all insurance is regulated, so we’re not speaking of that. But why is the government not actively involved in auto, home, life like they are with health?
The answer in my opinion is control and power. Because when the government controls the means of seeing how healthcare is distributed to the people, then any sort of grab on personal liberty can be undertaken in the name of “reducing healthcare costs” – after all, life and death are at stake.
And of course, that is what we are seeing now develop as well – as government legislates things like the size of sodas, the pink cookies in an elementary school, wearing helmets on motorcycles and on and on.
Steve,
I’m shocked that someone with 2 decades experience in the private insurance market would ask such a ridiculous question. Every one knew the private health insurance market was broken (except maybe the insurance companies) before the ACA came along.
Jean, the government broke it…..that’s my point…..
And Jean, what is often overlooked is that during those 20+ years, private insurance companies LEFT the health insurance marketplace in droves. Companies we used to represent, still selling other lines of insurance, but no longer dealing with health insurance. Cost me plenty of sales commissions and a whole lot of hastle for my clients scrambling to literally find someone willing to take their insurance premiums in the private marketplace.
I have yet to have someone answer me why those evil companies supposedly making money hand over fist in the health insurance business decided to pull up their tents and stop.
Have you looked lately at how much health care that is delivered in this nation is paid through private insurance policies versus how much by government means? And asked why the same stats are nowhere near to be found when it comes to auto, home, life?
Liberals care about the poor.
Conservatives care for the poor.
One is a feeling, the other is an action.
What amazes me is that liberals really think that using other people’s money to disincentivize the unfortunate and create subcultures of chronic dependency and misery is “compassion”.
I will listen to your pleas for the government to get out of the welfare business for the poor right after I see the government get out of the welfare business for the rich.
Today is a good day to think about this – Opening Day for the NFL
1.) NFL for one reason or another holds non profit status … ergo no taxes
2.) Almost all NFL stadiums build with public funds. Even though local by the time they pass hands, they begin in Federal redevelopment funds.
Even something like Nevada giving Tesla $1.5 billion just to build their battery plant in Nevada is outrageous,
So when that all ends, I will begin to listen about poverty welfare
MLD,
My argument is consistent. Most of what the FedGovt does is not justified. Cut 66% of the budget, and see what we can afford. All fed laws must pass enumerated powers test.
Jim,
You have been very consistent and without the rhetoric that usually accompanies these discussions, which is appreciated.
I think it would destroy the country…I have no faith in the “church” as anything but an entertainment vehicle.
I also believe corporate America has exactly what it wants…high profits and low wages with a shrinking job market and abundant desperate labor.
That combination without a safety net is a guaranteed formula for violent revolution.
Jim, you have a distorted view of the FedGov. The US Supreme Court says what’s justified, not you. You can talk all you want about enumerated powers, but that’s an incomplete picture. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. You may not like laws that fall under that power, but that doesn’t mean they’re unjustified. Your view is of a Constitution the U.S. doesn’t have.
Michael,
So is bankruptcy and hyperinflation.
Jean,
If I ever had an original thought, it was decades ago. My view is the fidelity view, and..newsflash…it’s catching on. You read the commerce clause, tell me what three arenas it addresses, and tell me how it gave congress the authority to regulate commerce within my state.
Jim – I just read the Commerce Clause. Perhaps just having a web site to offer services throws business into an interstate commerce category. If Suzy homemaker in Florida is selling “Grandma’s Secret Recipes” on the web and I purchase them here in California would you deny that she is involved in interstate commerce?
Hence Suzy homemaker has allowed the Feds to be involved in her life … all the way. I don’t know too many people who have a web presence limited to their state’s boundaries. 🙂
Liberals care about the poor.
Conservatives care for the poor.
One is a feeling, the other is an action.
Bullcrap
Jean,
It was clear to the founders that the bill of rights did not create rights, but would protect the rights of individuals from the federal government. A later amendment applied the bill of rights against the individual states.
So, my right to keep and bear arms is codified in the 2nd amendment, and my presumption of innocence is codified under due process in the 5th.
After the assassinations of MLK and the Kennedy’s, LBJ gave us the GCA of 1968. Oswald purchased a rifle via mail order (instead of going to the local hardware store), so something had to be done!
Now, if I want to buy and sell firearms as a business, with all transactions conducted within the state of Florida, I need a license from the federal government. If I want to purchase a new forearm, even it if was manufactured in the state of Florida, I have purchase the firearm from a federally licensed dealer, and to submit to yet another FBI background check to prove that I am not a criminal, because there is an unconstitutional presumption of guilt.
In 2007, I went through an exhaustive background check, which included submitting my fingerprints to the state of Florida, to obtain a CWL which allows me to bear arms. I also purchased two firearms that year, both requiring FBI background checks. I purchased another firearm in 2012, and two more this year. Three more presumptions of guilt, three more FBI background checks.
Please defend the constitutionality of laws that treat me like a criminal because I enjoy a sport that involves instruments that are constitutionally protected.
MLD-see above and explain.
The church can not (or in some cases will nit) even take care of basic needs for people in their communities. How the heck are they going to take care of healthcare needs?
People who suggest that have obviously never worked in healthcare.
I have worked in healthcare in the US, Canada and the UK.
There’s not a church in any of those countries that could handle dealing with decisions about paying for healthcare needs.
The church can’t even decide who will be allowed to be a member or who can take communion where.
They also can’t keep a secret about anything. The government has regulations like HIPAA which require workers keep silent about patient conditions. I can never see a church doing that.
Churches should quit bitching about the government taking care of healthcare and concentrate on what isn’t being taken care of at all, and take care it.
well …
made some guesses that campuses would have to be closed in light of the financial troubles and made some guesses as to which closures seemed likely
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-light-of-mars-hill-financial.html
turns out as of today was right about the closures but at most about half right about which closures were likely
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/mars-hill-church-downtown-and-u.html
Was considering U-District closure but they’d have to sell that real estate (and the sale of the MH HQ is pending) and wasn’t sure they’d be closing it since there’s no sign the property in the U district was on the market yet. Well, now it’s official. Reconsolidating people and resources back into Ballard from MH U-District and the leased campus Downtown makes some sense.
Albuquerque is still running, from the sound of it. So far.
The idea that amid multiple campus closures that a Spokane plant will still proceed seems … ill-advised. They’ve got Mars Hill Schools kicking off this fall and are closing possibly up to four campuses and … opening a campus in Spokane?
Jim, your state willingly gave away their own right to regulate. Did the Florida representatives and Senators walk out of congress when all of this was legislated? Stop sending people to congress – you just encourage them.
London,
“Churches should quit bitching about the government taking care of health…”
There are no churches bitching about the government and healthcare. What there are is individuals (many of whom are 2nd amendment kooks) who attend church and speak for no one but themselves.
Not necessarily including anyone here – but we did see Jim show his true colors in what started out as “get the gov out of welfare” to his real issue… gun ownership..
But people are fools if they do not see, government, church, charitable organizations (Red Cross & United Way) along with philanthropic individuals working together to ease suffering and poverty..
MLD,
Jean brought up the commerce clause, and I gave a perfect example of it’s irelevance
You’re well aware that I have hundreds of real issues. I have no colors to hide.
MLD,
If you can’t win an argument about a topic you have a loose grasp on, demonize the one you disagree with. “err…. I can’t answer his argument…. He’s a gun nut!!!”
Poorly played.
And don’t try to pull other people (me) into your disagreement with Jim either.
London – I didn’t pull you into anything – you bought into a false point that “churches” are objecting to government being in the welfare business – which they are not.
Even the Catholic Church that does great community welfare work takes millions in tax dollars – so they aren’t objecting.
Jim – no matter how you twist it, you took it from government involvement in poveryt and food programs to guns. Wasn’t me.
And according to your list, you seem to have all the guns you want when you wanted them – so the Feds have not impeded your gun ownership at all.
Jim,
“You read the commerce clause, tell me what three arenas it addresses, and tell me how it gave congress the authority to regulate commerce within my state.”
It doesn’t matter how I or you reads the commerce clause. In our system of government, what matters is how the Supreme Court reads the commerce clause. When Congress passes a law, signed by the President, which is upheld by the Supreme Court, guess what? It’s constitutional!
“It was clear to the founders that the bill of rights did not create rights, but would protect the rights of individuals from the federal government. A later amendment applied the bill of rights against the individual states.”
The founders aren’t around anymore, and we can’t go back there. It’s the 21st Century and the country has to deal with issues the founders never thought about. The Constitution must be applied to today’s problems and issues, which in many cases weren’t even on the horizon of the founders. When the 2nd Amendment was written, do you think the writers were thinking about enshrining a 9 year old girl’s right to play with an Uzi Machine gun?
Jim, I clearly answered you on the commerce clause – that web sites make companies interstate businesses – so I don’t know how you can accuse me of avoiding the topic.
You came back to that point and pointed me to your lesson on “guns and the feds”
MLD,
Address my example, which is completely intrastate.
Jean,
Your argument is inconsistent. You first said, “The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. You may not like laws that fall under that power, but that doesn’t mean they’re unjustified.”
Now you argue that the document is outdated. Better to just start with position 2, as that’s how most people think today. Most are just not honest enough to plainly say it.
The document is irrelevant because the founders could not see into the future. Got it.
And Jean, Madison absolutely addressed the topic of welfare, which is where this discussion started.
http://www.cato.org/blog/charity-federal-government
Jim, you said it’s outdated, not me. I said nothing of the kind.
What you don’t seem to be able to understand, is that the enumerated powers include powers to legislate. You don’t like some or most of that legislation. I get that. But that’s not a failing of the FedGov or the courts. That’s only a problem for the losing side on any litigation or legislation (if it’s not litigated).
I’m not saying that our system of government is perfect, but I don’t think there are any better systems out there. Do you? If you have any suggestions to make it better, maybe you should start or join a movement to amend the Constitution.
But I don’t think your problem is the Constitution. I think what you really don’t like is our current President. But it’s not enough to disagree with his policies.You want to delegitimize his presidency by thowing out the unconstitutional hooey. That may work at a Tea Party rally, but it doesn’t work here.
And Jim,
I don’t care what Madison said. He’s dead and no longer has a vote. I am glad I live in 2014 vs. 1794.
Jean,
You made the outdated argument without using the words. If you don’t care what Madison said, then you don’t care what the constitution means, nor are you concerned with the type of govt our founders envisioned. This is why you don’t understand that the power to legislate is limited.
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I don’t go to tea party rallies, nor do I parrot their rhetoric. You’re correct, I don’t like Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or…. I actually don’t think I like any president since Coolidge.
“But I don’t think your problem is the Constitution. I think what you really don’t like is our current President. But it’s not enough to disagree with his policies.You want to delegitimize his presidency by thowing out the unconstitutional hooey. That may work at a Tea Party rally, but it doesn’t work here.”
Jean, you usually have the ability to disagree agreeably. There is no evidence for the statement above. I’m assuming that I’m saying something that sounds similar to something you’ve heard someone else say. All that “unconstitutional hooey” you heard somewhere.
If you’re going to judge a man, it’s best to evaluate exactly what he’s saying, and not immediately jump to, “oh, he’s one of THOSE people”.
Jim,
I care about what the Constitution means, just like I care about what my blood panel and other tests mean. Does that mean I play doctor? Who is better qualified to interpret the Constitution: you, me or 9 justices who specialize in constitutional law, backed up by 3 clerks each who provide research?
You seem to be pining for a country that doesn’t exist. All you seem to offer are complaints and unrealistic suggestions. Is this what drives your seeming obsession with guns? I’m not trying to be mean, but you don’t seem very happy ane you may feel isolated with the ideas you embrace. Perhaps you could put your gifts to productive endeavors, which might lift your spirits.
Wow. I sold two of the guns, so I own three. If that’s an obsession, I’d better start counting everything else in my house.
I don’t feel isolated at all, as my views are shared by millions.
I currently work 60 hours a week, and am engaged in volunteer work. Should I add ten or twenty hours to meet your productivity expectations?
Still judging wrongly, bro.
When it gets personal, it get’s ugly. I can get ugly, so I’m gonna bow out before I form a caricature of those I disagree with and start fighting strawmen.
Jim, I’m happy to bow out too. Political partisanship is not my strong suit nor my interest. These kinds of discussions usually descend into labels, judgments and get personal. I apologize for my part in those offenses.
“Who is better qualified to interpret the Constitution?”
This question alone shows that the constitution is an open document. Who does the constitution itself charge with its own interpretation? No one.
The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs Madison.
One more thing – if the Commerce Clause can be outdated why not the 2nd Amendment?
The commerce clause is just fine as written, as are the entire bill of rights. It is deemed irrelevant by ignorant legislators, not by me. Your Internet illustration was correct.
I know that legislators screw everything up. I am for going back to part time legislation terms. California up to about 40-50 years ago was part time … I think 5 months a year.
My wife’s uncle was a state senator in west Virginia for several years. They served 3 or 4 months a year and kept their regular jobs.
I say let Congress go and do any damage they want for 5 months and send them home until the next session… and get rid of their staffs – what do they need a staff for?
As I was read the following verses from Ezekiel this afternoon, I couldn’t help but reflect on Michael’s articles from last week regarding MHC, the article about the Philippine child abuse case, and the link provided by a reader to the story of the CC bible school teacher convicted of possessing child pornography. We pray for the health of the church universal, we pray for God’s will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven, and we pray for justice; but one thing we can be confident of is that God is totally ware of what’s going on on Earth, and he will hold those in leadership in the church accountable for their conduct, the good and the bad. I hope these verses may be of comfort to those who have been hurt by shepherds of the church.
“Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice animals, but you do not feed the sheep! You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled over them. They were scattered because they had no shepherd, and they became food for every wild beast.
….
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the sovereign Lord says: Look, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand my sheep from their hand. I will no longer let them be shepherds; the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore. I will rescue my sheep from their mouth, so that they will no longer be food for them.” (Ezek 34:2c-5, 9-10)
not too much to add about this recent observation except the irony in this particular campus closure announcement has to e a particularly bitter pill to swallow.
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/revisiting-promotion-of-2013s-call-to.html
9 justices who specialize in constitutional law
——————————————-
Harriet Miers was almost a Supreme Court judge (and would have been if the Republicans had not broken ranks and forced Bush to withdraw her nomination) – several years ago there was serious talk about a Hillary Clinton Justice from those on the left who thought she would be great.
I know those two did not make it, but the list is lengthy. http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
One thing I will never understand is why so many people think politicians are super-smart. There is certainly more intelligence represented on this board (from both political sides) than found in dozens and dozens of federal lawmakers, and thousands nationwide at all levels. How is Al Franken or Arnold any different from the average blog poster who cares a little about politics – except for their fame. These guys aren’t smarter than any of us here
Have you seen how many federal politicians (or state governors) are simply relatives of famous politicians who trade on the name, or are multi-millionaires who buy a seat
Now, they may know the House or Senate rules of order better than we do, but most of these people have never met a payroll, dealt with a budget, sold a product, or even in some cases held a prior job in the private sector.
I have had 12.4% of my lifetime earnings taken from me for 25 years now, all in the name of providing for my retirement. Why can’t I control my own retirement needs and plans. I will sign any letter saying the government never has to pay me a dime, if they let me keep my money. I already support the safety net with my income taxes, why the payroll taxes on top. I assure you I would have more in savings than the government will deliver AND I will have plenty extra that could be used for private charity to others.
More importantly, why can’t young workers save that money so one day they can afford to move out of Mom and Dad’s and put a deposit on a starter condo or house. Build equity over the years, while continuing to save for the future, or pay off student loans etc. Then, when retirement becomes a serious concern as the years go by, they can evaluate where they are in life and what those needs are. Maybe that extra 12.4% over the years helped fund a business that is now worth a couple million, or helped buy a stock or real estate portfolio, or maybe a rich mommy or daddy left them an inheritance and any social security is unnecessary. If the person abdicates the chance to ever receive from the system, who is the government to say they can’t.
What possible argument can be offered in the name of freedom and America that says a person who agrees to opt out should not be allowed to opt out and take care of their own needs….except the nanny state argument that somehow elected officials are needed to save us from our own choices.
As far as pining for a country that does not exist…there was a time when America was a manufacturing giant, a net exporter of goods and services, a world lender with minimal to no debt, and righted its greatest immorality in fighting a bloody civil war to end it. And it sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.
Steve,
“One thing I will never understand is why so many people think politicians are super-smart.”
I don’t know a single person who thinks politicians are super-smart. Personally, I think most of them are below average. On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court has by and large been populated by very intelligent justices; therefore I would not categorize them with politicians.
“And [America] sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.”
To me, these are the biggest problems facing America today. And these are issues within the wheelhouse of the church to address and speak out against…, if the church can remember which kingdom it represents.
“And it sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.”
It wasn’t called the wild, wild west for nothing. 🙂
I find the support here for the body that forced legalized abortion on the entire country really odd.
Even very liberal legal scholars who favor legal abortion have criticized R v W as a poorly crafted decision.
JIm,
I could bring up Supreme Court decisions that I don’t agree with too, and there are a couple recent ones that I think really do the country harm. But with all due respect (and I’m not going to judge or get personal), what’s the alternative to our system? I assume you respect the rule of law. No one thinks our system is perfect, but who’s got a better one and we have to live in this one.
Jean, Jim (and I) are not looking for an alternative. We are looking for the actual return to a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is a remarkable document in that it allows for its own amendments and allows for impeachment of those who fail to keep their oath to legislate and execute the laws according to the Constitution. Want to enshrine abortion as a new constitutional right? Then go through the process – which of course would not succeed so we have a few men in black robes decide and over 40 years of a political issue and focus of EVERY SCOTUS nominee since.
And of course, its greatest asset to the American people is in limiting federal government power and vesting that power in the individual states.
As an aside, you may not have met a single person who thinks the D.C. crowd is smarter than the average yokel in “flyover country” but elitism and big government go hand and hand and I would suggest reviewing some actual quotes from our fearless leaders as to what they think about the people they govern.
Bill Clinton “”We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right,”
Steve,
One of the most relevant suggestions made on these issues was from MLD the other day when he suggested making serving in Congress a part time job. I think a large part of the problem is in the power grab and personal fiefdoms that many politicians, if left to themselves, try to create.
So, currently, a congressman makes about $170k/yr (plus or minus) with Cadillac benefits, expense accounts, staffs, mail privileges, pensions, etc., and I don’t see a lot of value for my tax dollar. Thus, I would totally support legislation and, if necessary, a constitutional amendment, to make the jobs in the Senate and House part time.
The difficulty is, those men and women won’t give up the power and gravy train easily; they will fight it tooth and nail. For example, how many of the Republicans who signed the 1980’s Contract with America actually honored their own commitment to term limits? Some politicians, Republican and Democrat, serve (and I use that term loosely) until they’ve got one foot in the grave.
So, I am all for reform and even aggressive reform of government, but I’m not going to waste a lot of time dreaming of something that doesn’t exist or would be impossible to create or recreate. It’s like serving in a church: I can go around looking for the perfect church (and never find it), or can stand around complaining about everything that’s wrong in the church while doing nothing, or I can plug into an imperfect church and try to make a difference.
Thanks Steve. Hard for me to understand why anyone would infer from what I’ve said here that I would want anything other than a constitutional republic.
“And it sure was not as violent, drug addicted, hedonistic or selfish as it is today either.’
As I read history, I find little support for that assertion.
We simply have better media to advertise our sin today.
Jim – Steve,
Are you guys going to vote out your congressman this year?
Steve, I know your guy Ken Calvert has been around quite some time – I left Riverside County almost 20 yrs ago and he was in office.
Michael, I do hear what you say, and I thought that statement might get some pushback. However, when we look at the well advertised “10 biggest problems in the public high schools” from the 1950s and today…or when we look at cities like Detroit or Harlem, today versus 50+ years ago….I must stand by my assertion. Not to mention the sexual revolution and the consequences it has spawned.
MLD, I don’t agree with the premise you and Jean are asserting. That age and tenure alone necessitate a politician must be terrible. So maybe your question is better asked of him. I will say that I have supported the many primary challenges to sitting Republican Senators and do not care if it means “holding the seat” will be tougher in the national election.
MLD,
My congressman is Bill Posey. I spent an hour on the phone with him back in 1992, when he first ran for the Florida House. We agree on most issues, and I’ll continue to vote for him.
Fifty years ago would be the early sixties.
The President (who was a serial adulterer) had just been assassinated.
We were getting swallowed up in Vietnam and the seeds of the race riots to come had been planted and were ready to sprout.
We were a divided and deeply disturbed nation…and the worse was yet to come.
When you turn back the clock to some “golden age” you simply begin addressing another set of sins.
Steve,
“That age and tenure alone necessitate a politician must be terrible.”
I didn’t say terrible … just entrenched and doing what it takes to stay entrenched. Congress, especially the House was meant to be, “go to Washington, do your business for your community and go home and let someone else take over after a period of time.”
When I used to vote in primaries, I always voted for the guy running against the incumbent. My personal term limits attempt.
I will say, I had a guy knock on my door a couple of weeks ago and tell me he was running for city council. I told him I would vote for him because in 15 yrs as a city resident, he was the first to come and ask me personally for my vote. He said, do you want to talk about my programs? and I said no, because as the new kid on the council you will have very little power and if you got into strange stuff I would vote against you in a couple of yrs.
Steve,
“MLD, I don’t agree with the premise you and Jean are asserting.”
My premise had nothing to do with term limits. My premise was limiting the time spent in Washington by Congress and related to that their staffs, budgets, etc. I brought up term limits as an example of how they cling to power.
If you give someone a full time job in Washington, with a staff and large budget, what do you think they’re going to want to do with all their time? Answer: write more laws and try to fix more problems, problems that historically may not have been addressed at the federal level. That’s my premise.
And, as an aside, who are the politicians going to listen to with all their time? You, me or the lobbyist with the big checks, which the politicians want to stay in power. You can’t fix Washington, until you reform Campaign finance laws.
#108,
No, I didn’t change my name and “Jea” is not a nickname. 🙂
Michael,
I have no yearning for any golden age. Our nation is financially bankrupt because our leaders lost the owners manual. I have grandkids, so it matters to me.
Wondering why our govt doesn’t work is like wondering why dogs don’t fly. The answer is staring us in the face, and we all know it.
I am against term limits myself. I think people should have the same dopey people they want and no one should be able to say who can and can’t run. I exercise my own form of term limits.
If the people of Kentucky are stupid enough to continue to vote for Mich McConnell – 30 yrs in office, will be almost 80 at the end of his term – then God bless those idiots.
Well, my math was off as I really was speaking of the 1950s, so sixty years ago…but again, I never spoke of a “golden age” that was problem free.
I just really can’t see the point in discussing whether or not the moral fiber of this nation is declining or not. We can blame technology, the media, politicians, video games, or Elvis and Jerry Lee (kidding) but a decline it has been.
If you give someone a full time job in Washington, with a staff and large budget, what do you think they’re going to want to do with all their time?
———————————————-
Play golf and have dinner with Beyonce and Jay Z?
I agree with much of what Jim says, and I think we got sidetracked on the “government get out of welfare” discussion
I say cut it all … but you must start with corporate welfare – get rid of every last time that goes to private enterprise before you hit the poor.
Jerry Lee was bad…Elvis was a poser… 🙂
And while there maybe never was a sin-free golden age, my much earlier (and uncommented upon) point stands…that there was a time when America was a leading manufacturer, exporter, debt free world lending superpower.
So this is not pining away for a country that never was. The Constitution, coupled with a strong Christian ethic, made this country great.
And when each generation looked with realistic hope (that used to be realized) that their children and grandchildren would live in an even better nation than they had. And that would be realized largely because of the efforts and sacrifices they made for those generations to come.
I say cut it all … but you must start with corporate welfare – get rid of every last time that goes to private enterprise before you hit the poor.
——————————————————
Absolutely. If green power (to use one example) has so much promise then the entrepenaerial spirit of America will find a way to make millions of dollars of profit. Just as with many other industries. But now, CEOs get hundreds of millions in tax money and then kickback a portion of that to the politicians who gave them the money.
MLD,
My first post was a link. in my second post I said, “Let’s pretend that our leaders were forced to act like adults and had to operate with a no debt budget. Let’s also pretend that they decided obey the law of the land, and only involved the Govt in matters that fall under enumerated powers. Poof-minimum 2/3 reduction in spending.”
I’m firmly in the cut it all camp, starting with firing 3 million federal employees.
Steve,
Your assumption is that our economic strength has been crippled by the common mans lack of ethics.
I say it was destroyed by corporate and political greed.
I’m still waiting for the explanation for why in an era of record corporate profits we see continual job cuts…
“that there was a time when America was a leading manufacturer, exporter, debt free world lending superpower.”
When there was no world competition. ‘Made in Japan’ was a joke comment when I was younger. The only thing you got from China was those Chinese handcuff that locked your thumbs together – and we owned the oil fields in the Middle East.
I too agree with much of what Jim and Steve have said.
However, I also agree with what Michael said:
“That combination [high profits and low wages with a shrinking job market and abundant desperate labor] without a safety net is a guaranteed formula for violent revolution.”
So, if we’re going to talk about stopping or phasing out welfare, yes we need to cut corporate welfare, but the country also has to address income disparity, education (both for workers and young people) and other causes of poverty.
Glad we’re all anti corporate welfare, because that means we’re all anti war, as “defense” contractors are the largest recipients.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/?a=viewall
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-us-defense-companies-2012-2?op=1
But defense contractors provide a service and a product. The Air Force wants a plane they have to go out and buy it from Boeing or whoever – the Navy wants a ship, they need to buy it … or I guess they could build their own.
But that is not free corporate welfare money. The GM bailout is welfare – the Tesla plant is welfare.
I just read an article stating that the US Foreign Assistance budget request for 2015 is $46.2 billion. Apparently austerity hasn’t reached that budget yet. I would want to see that budget slashed before slashing welfare at home.
Jean,
Now you’re back to partisan cherry picking. “I think this/I think that”. Read and understand what our Govt is supposed to do, what it was created to do, which is very little.
Zero foreign aid, zero corp welfare, zero entitlements, zero welfare, gut the military, close all foreign bases.
Balance the budget, pay down the debt, then eliminate federal income tax. Adhere to the 10th amendment, because it’s the law of the land, and because it will actually allow us to have a say in where our money goes.
I have no problem with the state of Florida providing a safety net for it’s residents. Arizona may disagree. Abortion would be legal in California, and illegal in Mississippi.
Early in our nation’s history, the penalty for sodomy in Virgina was death. Jefferson wanted to liberalize the law, and the residents of the state decided, with no input from the FedGov.
That was clearly the founders intent.
JIm,
“Now you’re back to partisan cherry picking. “I think this/I think that”. Read and understand what our Govt is supposed to do, what it was created to do, which is very little.”
First of all, I wasn’t aware that the issues of income disparity, education and poverty were partisan issues. Are you saying that only Democrats care about these issues?
Second, I was very careful in my wording to say “the country has to address” not “the FedGov has to address”. It is my opinion that since we’re not staring a country from scratch, we need a national strategy to transition the country to a balanced budget and other government reforms. That national strategy can allocate responsibilities where it makes the best sense and in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, but the issues you refer to as partisan should be of concern to everyone.
By the way, if anyone doesn’t think the Supreme Court should be vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution, then who should be vested with that authority?
“then who should be vested with that authority?”
Me 😉
MLD,
That’s about par for the course. Isn’t that the way we do Bible interpretation now too? 🙂
Forgive the word “partisan”, but leave the rest. While I think that it should be zero, foreign aid is less than 2% of our federal budget.
Foreign aid should be given only to countries who are willing to kiss our butts and do exactly as we say. Otherwise, take your tin cup elsewhere.
Your assumption is that our economic strength has been crippled by the common mans lack of ethics.
I say it was destroyed by corporate and political greed.
———————————————-
Actually my view is similar. I think corporate and political greed (and not just greed for money but power) is the starting point and that the welfare state (which is at its core an elitist power grab) is what destroyed the common mans lack of ethics.
The common mans ethics were pretty strong during the Great Depression, as stories from the era often show (as well as people in our families who lived through it) – if even a fraction of what reality was like then happened today, there would be riots and killings in every city.
Yes. Lets fire 3 million federal employees, not provide unemployment or Medicare, social security.
I suppose that we’d have to get rid of the military too…but we’d need them to stop all the chaos and looting that would happen as a result of this idiotic plan.
These political threads chap my hide. They are so unrealistic and a basic waste of time.
“I think this…”
Well, we could talk football. The Rams and the Raiders are my teams.
Boy, if they both aren’t at the bottom of the power rankings, I would hate to be the team that is.
I would argue it is unrealistic to keep going as things are without either a crippling depression or paper money that can be used as toilet paper. London though makes an excellent point, once entrenched, it is impossible to get out of it..
Almost.
As to federal employees, (if I were king) absolutely no new hiring and as employees retire, die or move to the private sector (which would be multiple thousands of people each year those jobs are not filled with new people but rather eliminated or another job is eliminated and the employee takes this one. That is how the private sector works.
Unemployment should be fully funded by state taxes on employers, but states that want to grant huge benefits can’t run to Uncle Sam for loans. They charge the businesses in their state a sound, actuarial tax rate, and raise those taxes when needed – making a choice how badly they want to keep business in their state. The feds are 100% out of it though (if I were king)
Medicare – just as middle class and above retired and elderly people with the means purchase medicare supplement policies and long term health care policies, there is zero reason why the private market should not sell health insurance to the greater than 65 crowd (which is really not that old anymore). I already stated here that I support a safety net and not having people die on the streets, so Medicaid remains the option for the poor elderly…but in America the over 65 generation has a huge percentage of the wealth and a large number of them could afford to buy their own insurance coverage rather than having the paychecks of young workers and the minimum wage crowd get hit to pay their insurance
I mentioned social security earlier. Just let people opt out – choose the gov plan if they want “security” and pay the taxes accordingly, or go on their own.
No riots in the streets. None of this is an overnight fix, and there would be some accommodations for the transition years of people who were working under the old rules, but it would put us definitely on the right path, and is sellable to the American people except for the pols who want to keep control over the lives of the citizenry and/or are convinced that they alone know best how we should live our lives and feel we can’t be trusted to make our own retirement and insurance choices.. And of course they villify anyone who wants to discuss real reform while the voters (who want someone else to pay for their benefits (and that includes the Selfish (er..) “Greatest” Generation who not only vote but scream bloody murder if you mention the words medicare or social security, even if you exempt every single one of them already on these entitlements)
The Dems win elections fighting this stuff, and the few Republicans who are not in full throated agreement with the Dems already don’t have the backbone to risk their own reelections and so we move on towards bankruptcy and vote against guys who talk like me here as those who “hate the poor”