The Petra Zone

Continuing our well-off-topic discussion from the main forum:

gman wrote:The gov't took over the student loan industry. You can't go to college on a student loan, except through the federal Gov't. At what point will they begin to regulate where you can and can't go to school, and what you must study? At what point will they tell schools what they must teach in order to accept students taking federal loans? How do you eventually get to a country where most of the people are enslaved without realizing it, and will all vote the same way?

If you're looking for some socialism, try Maxine Waters and her famous statement, "what this liberal would be all about...", or Joe the Plumber and spread the wealth around, or the Communist Party USA admitting that the the democratic party has absorbed much of their Agenda.

If you're looking for single payer healthcare, try President Obama stating that he envisions the employer based healthcare model being fazed out and replaced with a single payer, universal healthcare system. Single payer, in its entirety, was not on the table with the current healthcare legislation. It would never have flown. However, to eventually get there, you do need to put some things into place, which is what this bill did. Although it's not happening on a large scale, companies are cancelling, or threathening to cancel, their insurance plans as a direct result of the legislation. Others are having to lower the quality of their plans, or shift more of the cost to employees.

The government did not take over the student loan industry. The government was already guaranteeing 100 percent of the student loans issued by private lenders. Now the government issues those loans themselves, more cheaply for the student because there's no middleman. You want to get a loan to attend college from a private bank? Feel free. That option has been and remains open to you.

I'll see your Maxine Waters and raise you a Michelle Bachmann. Using whatever crackpots occupy the fringe of political discourse as representations of the mainstream is an old, deceitful trick. Let's not use it here.

The employer-based health care model is incredibly inefficient and burdensome to both employers and employees, which is my most health care policy experts I've read from both sides of the aisle agree it should be scrapped. It represents a significant hidden tax on earnings we don't know we're paying because when employers determine how much they pay you, they aren't looking just at salary, they're looking at salary plus benefits. Why were wages stagnant from 2000-2010? Because rising health care premiums ate the money that would have gone to salary increases.

Again, companies were canceling coverage, reducing benefits and struggling with health care costs well before this bill was enacted. Why? Because the system was broken. The question that needed desperately to be answered was: How do we fix it? Is health care reform perfect? No. It will be adjusted and changed as problems crop up. But it's a start toward fixing a major problem that was killing thousands of people every year.

Let me bring all this around to my initial objection about labeling everything socialist. This bill creates exchanges that require 1. minimum standards, 2. transparency of cost and 3. an ability for the uninsured to obtain insurance. There is no government-run health plan, there is no government-controlled industry. There are no government-run hospitals or doctors. These exchanges are based solely on consumers choosing what's best for them, i.e., the free market. "Socialism" is defined as the government taking control of the means of production. This is far from it. This plan was based on principles crafted by the Heritage Foundation and initially proposed by Bob Dole as a response to the Clinton plan of 1993. It is not socialist; it's not even particularly liberal.

Actually, yes it did. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... priat.html

Or it could be a meeting in which the White House wanted to know the best way to cut costs in a way that would be better reflected in the CBO score. Given that the director posted about the meeting on his blog, I'm not going to worry too much about that.

Also, this may surprise you but I'm not a Republican and I have and have had plenty of criticism for them as well. There were definitely things Bush did that I didn't like, but I'm also going to be honest with history and recognize that when placed on the scales, Democrats actually bear more fault for the economic collapse than do Republicans.

I'm curious what you plan on citing for this. And Fannie Maw and Freddy Mac as the big-time causes of this has been debunked roughly 5 million times by now, no matter how often people keep bringing it up at Fox News.

Tax cuts are proven in history to spur economic growth, thereby increasing revenue to the treasury and actually causing the rich to pay a greater share of the tax burden.

Except they aren't. Throughout the 20th century, the period of largest growth (1940s-1960s) coincided with the period containing the highest tax rates. And after the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the economic recovery between was the weakest since the Depression, even before it ended in total economic collapse.

The myth that lower taxes lead to increased revenue is absolutely bunk. It has simply never occurred once in the history of the United States. In 1981, the Reagan tax cuts were followed by a plunge in revenue and a spike in the deficit. In 1993, the Clinton tax increases led to a growth in revenue and the first budget surplus we'd had in decades. The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 came as revenues were already sliding because of a recession, and they continued sliding; meanwhile, the deficit kept rising. I'll point you to this link: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... igher.html

Now there are things that can affect or derail that like unchecked spending in congress or a war, and I'll grant you Bush was a big spender, that's one of things I didn't like about him, but compared to Obama (and this fairy tale dream that all his spending is going to pay for itself) Bush was a virtual miser.

I'm not sure Obama ever claimed the spending would pay for itself, and I was probably incorrect in saying something similar in another post. I think the idea is that when the economy improves, the country is better able to absorb the mix of spending cuts and tax increases needed to balance the budget, while in the meantime government spending can spur job creation and help jumpstart an otherwise-lifeless economy. My concern is why Obama is tarred as a big spender when the evidence is clear Bush spent just as much, if not more, with arguably much less justification (Medicare Part D, NCLB, Iraq war, two tax cuts).

I get it. Gov't is basically good. "The American people are stupid, you just have to drag them to it."; courtesy of Bill Maher.
The fundamental transformation of America to socialism is a vast right-wing conspiracy. The United States will never be Venezuela, because it's spelled differently.

We just finished eight years of an administration that shared this view or went even further.

I didn’t say anything about Bush, did I? Conservatives are a little displeased with the Bush Years too.

[Good thing this isn't true then. It's a tax, nothing more, nothing less. You want to go without health insurance? Fine. Then pay for it and don't foist the bill on me when you get sick and have to use the emergency room. Conservatives used to support this idea (it was created by the Heritage Foundation) under the principle of self-sufficiency until it was proposed by Barack Obama. Strange how that works.]

There are progressives in both parties; those that call themselves conservative are not all telling the truth. Thus being why there is a movement to move out all progressives. The argument can be made for why we need all these things, but the agenda behind progressives is to push their control on the citizens of this nation. If that were not true so many people wouldn’t be having a problem with the drastic changes that Obama and the Democrat Majority of the House and Senate just pushed on us within the last 2 years. And Conservatives wouldn’t be leading in the polls right now to come in and counter act those changes. It’s not a fight between Republicans and Democrats anymore; it’s about Conservatives and Progressives.

It’s funny how the same people who says, we need to be of good will to others and bring amnesty to outsiders and give them anything they want, suddenly changes the meaning of good will when it comes to paying for our own citizens health care bills and criminalizes those of us that can’t afford it because we’re letting everyone else in illegally to take advantage of it.

It is unconstitutional for the Government to force the American people to purchase anything!!!!!! If someone wants to live out on the street, it’s there right, if they want to live in a dark house with no electricity it’s their right. If someone chooses not to buy insurance it’s their right without penalty, the health care law is against the Constitution. And at the same time, it’s your right not to pay it, the Government shouldn’t be taxing as much as they are and thus they created the argument to begin with. There for Progressives are getting what they want!!!!

Those who “Can’t” afford it “Can’t” afford it. It’s amazing how when someone is unemployed and is too sick to work and the “Government” says you don’t qualify for assistance, how people think you just don’t want to pay for your medical bills. But the fact that those people would rather complain about paying taxes on other people’s healthcare instead of the politicians pocketing their money and who go on to buy million dollar jets and boats, and try to find ways not to pay their own taxes on it is amazing. If someone doesn’t have the money to buy insurance, and can’t work, they sure aren’t paying taxes, because there is no income to pay taxes on, therefore someone is still footing the bill when someone goes to the emergency. Strange how that works.

[I presume, based on this sentiment, that you also support the legalization of marijuana, prostitution and gay marriage?]

God doesn’t support Homosexuality, therefore I don’t support it. If Marijuana has the healing properties that they claim it has, the obviously there was a reason why God created it. Then why not find a non-toxic medication with those properties and give that to the people.

However, it’s up to people to harm themselves in any way they desire, they want to live a corrupt life style, it is between them and God, and thus not our right to interfere under our own authority. We pray for those people, and pray that God turn their life around, and let them know Christ is the only answer but I don’t feel it is the Governments duty to stop someone from killing themselves. It’s harsh, but God won’t stop those who are hell bent on going to hell. He’ll love them anyway and he’ll deal with there heart but he can’t change us if we don’t want to be changed. Therefore we can’t change someone if they don’t want to be changed.

But also, if it were the will of the people is one thing. But the Government or Judicial System changing laws and rights to fit their own agenda is not the will of the people. Here in California we voted No against Gay Marriage and twice the Judicial System went against the will of the people and changed it. While we should not interfere with the rights of people, we can’t vote for that right; that would be condoning a life style which we as Christians don’t condone.

[What rights does the Bible say we have? It's the government's job to protect the rights enumerated by the Constitution that rules it. Again, this country historically hasn't done a good job protecting the rights of people who weren't wealthy white Christian men. Each expansion of these rights has been met with similar arguments to this.]

I said nothing about the Bible. The Declaration of Independence says

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

Therefore it is not the Government’s Job to give us or take away any rights; the Government should not be involved with every step of our lives, therefore we don’t work for the Government, we work for ourselves and the Government works for us! We the People, not We the Government.

[Well, obviously since you just said it and I assume no one came breaking down your door, then this right is very much intact.]

If someone came to break down my door because I said that, they’ll have a fight on there hands.

If you have any kids, let them start saying “One nation under God” in a public school and praying in a public school and see if you don't get called by that school. There are many stories coming through the news of Schools, or Jobs or some sort of public place that are telling us more and more not to do it. Why then were people told not to pray at the steps of the Nations Capitol earlier this year? Why was I told as early as the 3rd Grade, by the school not to bring my Bible with me?

While it may be the rights for others to refuse to hear about Jesus, It’s still not their right to tell me that I’m not allowed to talk about Him. They can simply say I don’t want to hear it and leave it at that.

[Now there is a question of whether the government should explicitly endorse any particular religion. Given our principal Founding Fathers distrusted religion and were, for the most part, not Christians (Madison was an atheist, Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, Washington refused to kneel in church, Adams signed a treaty with the Barbary states expressly stating this was not a Christian country), I'm going to assume they were fairly keen on making sure the government did not repeat the excesses of the Puritans and welcomed people of all faiths -- or no faith.]

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
- John Adams
in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
– Thomas Jefferson

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
– John Hancock

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
- James Madison.

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
- George Washington.

And although he is not a founding father, this US President is highly regarded by both democrats and republicans a like.

‎"I believe I am a humble servant in the hands of our Heavenly Father; I desire that all my works and acts may be according to His will."
- Abraham Lincoln

[I hate to say this, but you are fighting phantoms.]

If that were true then there wouldn’t be a great movement right now all over the Nation to restore our Country back to the ideas of the Constitution. This is called the Tea Party. It is no longer about Democrats vs. Republicans, as said earlier there are progressives in both parties and there is a move to get them out. The Tea Party is made up of citizens in the Democratic Party, The Republican Party and Independents alike. Apparently I’m not the only one that feels this way.

Progressivism comes from the very same principles founded by many socialists and communists from the past. That the citizens don’t know what they want, that the Government must direct their decisions and tell them what is good and what isn’t.

bakersfieldpethead wrote: Progressivism comes from the very same principles founded by many socialists and communists from the past. That the citizens don’t know what they want, that the Government must direct their decisions and tell them what is good and what isn’t.

Exactly what Bill Maher said, as posted above.

CatNamedManny wrote: I'll point you to this link: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... igher.html

That factcheck link doesn't say a whole lot. This one delves more deeply into theory and numbers, and goes against factcheck. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwt ... agtxct.htm Factcheck should have posted some numbers. If you lower taxes some and create enough growth to see a decent spike in the number of taxpayers, revenue will be higher than it would have been had the growth not occurred and the number of taxpayers remained static. Obviously, if you dramatically increase spending, you will decrease your profit or increase your deficit, depending on whether you were running in the red or black. But, your revenue was still higher.
We need tax cuts, and massive spending cuts.
Our Gov't has it bass ackwards. They don't do the things they should be doing, or at least not enough, and they have made everything they should stay away from a top priority. I agree with previous posts that have said they are not looking out for our good. There may have been some good to come out of things they have done over the years, but that wasn't their primary motivation.
Oh, and the sky is purple. I don't have anything to back that up, but if it get's said enough maybe people will believe. The healthcare system is broken. I've heard that a lot, but I've not seen anything to really back it up.

gman wrote:Gov't is basically good.

No, governments are made up of individuals, and individuals are sinful. This also means that the individual citizen is sinful as well. A problem arises when people start pointing at the government as an entity as evil and they forget that mankind is sinful. Does the government have it's abuses? Yes, however, extreme individual freedoms can cause abuses just as bad if not worse. The key is finding a balance between government protection and individual freedom where neither the government or the individual has too much power.

No, governments are made up of individuals, and individuals are sinful. This also means that the individual citizen is sinful as well. A problem arises when people start pointing at the government as an entity as evil and they forget that mankind is sinful. Does the government have it's abuses? Yes, however, extreme individual freedoms can cause abuses just as bad if not worse. The key is finding a balance between government protection and individual freedom where neither the government or the individual has too much power.

Thus why our founding fathers based things upon Christian Ideas and Values, knowing that Man's hearts were evil in nature, however as long as we seek God in every decision and listen to his will, our government will thrive. But the hearts of those who try to escape conviction have turned the ears of our leaders away from God and thus why we see what we are seeing today. They used to hold Church services in the House on Sundays and they had prayer room for the leaders to go and pray about decision regarding the direction of this nation.

But people are offended when we say “In God We Trust” or “One Nation under God”. And they discredit anything that has to do with Christianity regarding our Founding Fathers. When we say “We need to bring back God in America” that’s what we mean, not our own agenda, but the fact our leaders sought the face of God when it came to the choice and direction of this Nation as one.

bakersfieldpethead wrote:

No, governments are made up of individuals, and individuals are sinful. This also means that the individual citizen is sinful as well. A problem arises when people start pointing at the government as an entity as evil and they forget that mankind is sinful. Does the government have it's abuses? Yes, however, extreme individual freedoms can cause abuses just as bad if not worse. The key is finding a balance between government protection and individual freedom where neither the government or the individual has too much power.

Thus why our founding fathers based things upon Christian Ideas and Values, knowing that Man's hearts were evil in nature, however as long as we seek God in every decision and listen to his will, our government will thrive.

This doesn't compute when you enter the fact that most of the founding fathers were not Christians into the equation.

But people are offended when we say “In God We Trust” or “One Nation under God”.

They have a right to be. It's protected under the First Amendment.

And they discredit anything that has to do with Christianity regarding our Founding Fathers. When we say “We need to bring back God in America” that’s what we mean, not our own agenda, but the fact our leaders sought the face of God when it came to the choice and direction of this Nation as one.

Maybe they discredit it because history shows that the founding fathers weren't Christians, for the most part. Look, I will heartily agree with the fact that what this world needs is Jesus, but I won't agree with legislating morality from Washington D.C.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with my original statement, though.

separateunion wrote:

gman wrote:Gov't is basically good.

No, governments are made up of individuals, and individuals are sinful. This also means that the individual citizen is sinful as well. A problem arises when people start pointing at the government as an entity as evil and they forget that mankind is sinful. Does the government have it's abuses? Yes, however, extreme individual freedoms can cause abuses just as bad if not worse. The key is finding a balance between government protection and individual freedom where neither the government or the individual has too much power.

I agree, but the liberal premise seems to be that Gov't is good, or does things out of good intent and knows what is best for us, and we're just stupid.

They have a right to be. It's protected under the First Amendment.

I'm not saying that they don't have a right to be offended. However I at the same time have the right to say it whenever or where ever I want in this country. And they are trying to take my right away to do that in order to get on the good side of those who are offended. It is happening.

Maybe they discredit it because history shows that the founding fathers weren't Christians, for the most part.

Show me where

I just posted things that were said by some of the founding fathers themselves and there are more who talked like wise. You have to remember, History books have been changed in our schools over time by progressives, people who put their own opinion of what happend instead of true facts and thus why we need to go back and search out the true history of what happened. We had blacks fighting side by side with whites for our independence who were not slaves, yet the majority of those who criticize our country think that slavery was part of the foundation of our nation.

Although Slavery was eventually condoned by many, it was a President who sought the face of God that won the Civil War and freed them.

Look, I will heartily agree with the fact that what this world needs is Jesus, but I won't agree with legislating morality from Washington D.C.

If our leaders won't turn to God, then what kind of leaders are they? This nation is falling fast, but putting God in the Government is just not a good idea???? What then are we saying about God, that he's ok for one thing, but not good for another? He won't force himself on someone, but however it is our duty as Americans and Christians to vote for anything that would condone God being present in our nation. He is everywhere except where he’s not welcomed.

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." - 2 Chronicles 7:14

As Christians we must act upon our faith to see results, Faith without action is dead. So we must also as Christians act upon the will of the Father, if we are not voting in God’s will then we are not doing the will of God. Same goes for the leaders of this nation, if they are not leading in God's will, they are not doing the will of the Father.

Where ever God isn't the Devil is. So our Government forced God out, and the Devil came in, thus our Christian rights are more and more being lost.

gman wrote:I agree, but the liberal premise seems to be that Gov't is good, or does things out of good intent and knows what is best for us, and we're just stupid.

And the conservative premise is that man is ultimately good, if only he could just be allowed enough freedom to operate. I call bogus. Man is not ultimately, or genuinely, good. If given enough freedom, individuals would walk all over others to get what they wanted. And this still misses the point that governments are made up of PEOPLE. If we stopped treating government as some ominous entity and started treating it as a collection of sinful human beings (same as you and me), we might actually get somewhere.

bakersfieldpethead wrote:

Maybe they discredit it because history shows that the founding fathers weren't Christians, for the most part.

Show me where

Show me where history shows that they WERE Christians.

I just posted things that were said by some of the founding fathers themselves and there are more who talked like wise.

Sorry, I must've missed where you posted this.

You have to remember, History books have been changed in our schools over time by progressives, people who put their own opinion of what happend instead of true facts and thus why we need to go back and search out the true history of what happened.

Yeah, I don't have to remember anything, especially when it's an untruth. I have searched out "true history". I've gone to primary sources. Just because it doesn't line up with what you believe doesn't mean that I've been indoctrinated by the schools, which would have been hard to do anyways, since I never took a history class at a public school. This conservative argument of "you disagree with my view of history, therefore you have been indoctrinated by the liberals and don't see the truth" is really getting old. Could it possibly be that conservatives are wrong?

We had blacks fighting side by side with whites for our independence who were not slaves, yet the majority of those who criticize our country think that slavery was part of the foundation of our nation.

It was. What does this have to do with anything, though?

Although Slavery was eventually condoned by many, it was a President who sought the face of God that won the Civil War and freed them.

Lincoln was NOT a Christian. The whole history of the Civil War has been so entirely twisted by both sides, that there's little truth in what is spoken about it today. Did you know that Lincoln often conversed through writing with Karl Marx and Napoleon Bonaparte? Lincoln's war of aggression completely undermined and destroyed state's rights.

Look, I will heartily agree with the fact that what this world needs is Jesus, but I won't agree with legislating morality from Washington D.C.

If our leaders won't turn to God, then what kind of leaders are they?[/quote]

If they won't turn to God, what are you going to do about it? Regardless, God ordains EVERY leader, whether you like it or not.

Show me where history shows that they WERE Christians.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
- John Adams
in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
– Thomas Jefferson

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
– John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
- Samuel Adams

"I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself."
- William Penn

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.

I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.

I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment."
- Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
- James Madison

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
- George Washington

And although he is not a founding father, this US President is highly regarded by both democrats and republicans a like.

‎"I believe I am a humble servant in the hands of our Heavenly Father; I desire that all my works and acts may be according to His will."
- Abraham Lincoln

Did you know that Lincoln often conversed through writing with Karl Marx and Napoleon Bonaparte?

I'd like to see something on this. A quick search seems to indicate that there was one letter written to Lincoln by Marx, while Marx was living in London, and it was responded to by the British ambassador.