John Schlitt's involvement

[Preacherman777]

You're missing the point. He's the one who suggested that socialism was the opposite extreme of anarchy, which it is not. As I told him, that would be Communism or Nazism. None the less, he attempted to be witty by equating my concerns about big government leading us to socialism to concerns of small government leading to anarchy. All I did was point out that the comparison was invalid, because socialism is not the opposite extreme of anarchy. He could say he doesn't like a small or limited government and I could say I don't like socialism and neither one of us would be speaking of the extremes.

[blayze5150]

Wow, this turned, uh, interesting...

Maybe John's lack of involvement is an effort to give Greg a second chance. Even though Greg was his predecessor, John is so identified with Petra that it's going to be hard enough for Greg to escape his shadow without him hanging around to cast it. Perhaps John is ready to make his mark on music outside of Petra and feels the Lord wants him to move on. As I said before, I want to hear John's take, but it may not be what he feels the Lord wants him to do. I think that would be more likely than any of the other theories.

[bakersfieldpethead]

With every progressive step we take in Rock Music, we lose more and more of the message. We are so stinking politically correct that bands now don’t want to be labeled a “Christian” band, instead they want to be Christians in a Band and not sing about the message of Christ.

No we need less Christians trying to make it as part of the World, and start concentrating on bringing the message of Christ to the World. Our responsibility as Christians is to preach the gospel to even unto the ends of the World; that was a commandment given to us by Christ before he left us.

Yes, I will tell you, The forefathers of Petra intended to do this; that is why they formed Petra as stated in the constitution (interview) by Bob. It’s just like “industry leaders” to tell us we’re wrong to preach the Word in song and that we’ll never win souls that way, when the Bible tells us differently.

They started “Jesus Music” and the CCM industry to bring the Word of God to those that never heard Southern Gospel, or would never listen to Southern Gospel. Many have became fans of Southern Gospel since, but still there are those who love to Rock Out and still get the message of the Gospel. Thus why Petra is still needed, they may not be wanted, but Christ was never wanted when he was here. What’s so wrong with being labeled a “Christian Band”? When did we become ashamed to wear the name Christ on what we do? I am happy to carry the name of Christ on whatever I do for him including playing music. What happened to the theme of the youth of the 80s and 90s “Christ Like”. Yes Petra is needed, we want Petra, we want someone who is a true witness and example of what a Christian Minister should be. We want Petra in any form they can minister and I’ll fight for them until I draw my last breath!!!!

[Preacherman777]

I couldn't agree with you more.

[CatNamedManny]

With every progressive leader we get in office, we lose more and more of our Rights.

This depends on who the "we" and "our" in this statement are. People who in previous generations would have died because they couldn't afford to get old or get sick would argue they have many more rights now.

We are so stinking regulated, that company owners can’t wipe their selves without the government knowing about it, or how much that company spent to do that.

Again, consumers whose children are no longer dying from lead poisoning or toxic fumes or toxic waste or overwork or underpayment would argue they have many more rights than before.

No we need less regulation.

The families of the men who died in West Virginia and the Gulf of Mexico may or may not agree. We just finished eight years of an administration that shared this view or went even further. We now have had a tremendous economic collapse, a huge mining disaster, the worst oil spill in our country's history and an unprecedented spate of recalls of defective toys and contaminated food. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but that's a pretty stunning coincidence.

Our nation’s responsibility is to protect our nation, armed forces etc.

Again, others might argue that regulating industries is a form of protecting our nation, especially given the excesses of the purely unregulated market we saw in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and the excesses we saw in the underregulated financial markets of the 1920s and 2000s.

I don’t want the government telling me that I have to buy insurance now or else I’m going to be punished somehow or will go to jail. It’s just like a big government to take law abiding people and suddenly turn them into criminals because those people can’t afford to do what they are asking them to do.

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.

Yes, I will tell you our nation was founded upon the principles that the Government stay out of our Life, period, point blank, straight to the point, leave us alone!!!!!!!

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

We came here to escape the clutches of a government that was ruling every step we made. And we came here for the right to worship God freely.

Not quite. The Puritans came here to run things the way they thought things should be run. When others tried to worship God in their own way, they were thrown into the wilderness and the news of their inevitable death was greeted with rejoicing. Ask the people who were already living here how many rights they had and how free they were to worship when "we" first came over here and started taking their land.

It’s not the government’s job to give us rights or to take away rights. Our rights were given by God.

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.

We now have to watch what we say because someone might be offended if we say “One Nation under God” and you see this as a good thing??? What’s so wrong with God that people want us to stop saying his name so much that they try to make the Government take our right away to say that?

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

This is big Government, this is socialism and it’s very un-American and I’ll fight it until I draw my last breath!!!!

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

[CatNamedManny]

You're missing the point. He's the one who suggested that socialism was the opposite extreme of anarchy, which it is not. As I told him, that would be Communism or Nazism. None the less, he attempted to be witty by equating my concerns about big government leading us to socialism to concerns of small government leading to anarchy. All I did was point out that the comparison was invalid, because socialism is not the opposite extreme of anarchy. He could say he doesn't like a small or limited government and I could say I don't like socialism and neither one of us would be speaking of the extremes.

Do the words need to be exactly on opposite sides of the spectrum to be comparative? I don't think so. Socialism is an extreme system of governance. So is anarchy. Neither is close to happening in this country. Arguing how many degrees of government control lie beyond each is a red herring. It avoids answering this question:

How does Barack Obama's governing philosophy fit the textbook definition of socialism?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. For 70 years, it's been, "This is another step down the road to socialism!" In which case, every tax cut, every spending cut, every deregulation, no matter how justified, is another step down the road to anarchy.

[gman]

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.

False dichotomy, or something like that. I would bet that a lot of people who don't carry insurance don't foist the bill on someone else. They go to their doctor, a walk-in clinic, or the ER, and they pay for it out of pocket. I did this for many years. Your auto insurance doesn't pay for basic stuff, neither should helath insurance, IMO. The overhead would be a lot less and would drive down the cost of healthcare.
Regarding healthcare, the goal of the current administration is to get to a single payer gov't run system, and the new healthcare legislation is one step in helping to get there.
The president already essentially stated that some people would find themselves in a position where they would be denied treatment, presumably because of cost. That would be a loss of one's right to go to whatever length they choose to try and prolong their life.

[Dan]

I'm guessing not.. John welcomed GXV with open arms for the fairwell album, that's the kind of guy John is. But don't expect that Greg would consider getting John on this project even for one second.

Holy cow! That was extremely uncalled for. Is it any wonder that me and some others feel it's open season on Greg around here?

O hush.

[Preacherman777]

Do the words need to be exactly on opposite sides of the spectrum to be comparative?

Yes, they do. Otherwise you're setting up a false comparison. You're wanting to take the most extreme position on the end you don't like, but not the most extreme position of the end you do like. It's a clear attempt to slant the debate in your favor by trying to push me into a corner of having to defend something indefensible, while protecting yourself from having to do the same.

I'm not taking issue with the furthest extreme in big government, though I would if I thought we were going there, no, I'm taking issue with what I see as our decent into socialism. Heck, many on the left even recognize and admit that's where we're going and have taken to trying to defend socialism rather than trying to deny it. Every Democratic president since Wilson has clearly pushed us closer to socialism, but heck, it was Theodore Roosevelt who truly started the ball rolling, so it hasn't all been Democrats. Barack Obama has just taken it further than anyone has before and put more of stranglehold on the free market than anyone else. He's creating new giant entitlement programs that we can't afford, racking up unprecedented debt and putting the government in charge of more and more things. When the state starts taking over the private market and starts taking from the people in order to provide their basic services, that's socialism. No doubt about it. By the way, nobody gets refused medical treatment. It's against the law to do that. I have no problem with helping people in need, but taking away my right to seek my own medical services and coverage on my own terms in order to do it, is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. Remember, whatever powers are not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states.

[CatNamedManny]

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.

False dichotomy, or something like that. I would bet that a lot of people who don't carry insurance don't foist the bill on someone else. They go to their doctor, a walk-in clinic, or the ER, and they pay for it out of pocket. I did this for many years. Your auto insurance doesn't pay for basic stuff, neither should helath insurance, IMO. The overhead would be a lot less and would drive down the cost of healthcare.
Regarding healthcare, the goal of the current administration is to get to a single payer gov't run system, and the new healthcare legislation is one step in helping to get there.
The president already essentially stated that some people would find themselves in a position where they would be denied treatment, presumably because of cost. That would be a loss of one's right to go to whatever length they choose to try and prolong their life.

They do that ... until they can't. And with the cost of health care the way it is now, that is becoming increasingly untenable. An uninsured visit to an urgent care clinic is likely to run hundreds of dollars easily. To an ER, you're looking at thousands without batting an eye. And the vast majority of the uninsured are people who cannot afford even a doctor's visit, so they let problems pile up until they go to the ER, where it's much more expensive. Those who choose to go without insurance are running the risk that they won't be in an accident or become seriously ill. That's fine if they want to risk it, but unless they are incredibly rich, they aren't going to be paying for treatment. Those of us with insurance will be. That's why conservative groups in the 1990s, to try to come up with a conservative response to Democrats' health care proposals, introduced the idea of an individual mandate, finally making everyone pay for at least a portion of the health care they were likely to use. As I said, it was the idea of self-sufficiency: no free lunches. That they now oppose it as an example of "socialism" says more about the intellectual strength of their opposition than about the potential efficacy of the plan itself.

I'm curious if anyone thinks people are denied treatment because of cost currently? Because they are. Rationing takes place every day, and people die as a result. The only way to reduce rationing is to reduce the cost, and that means introducing greater competition and transparency into the system, which is the whole purpose of the health care exchanges created by health-care reform. Single payer is a red herring; that was never on the table, and it's not what was passed.

[CatNamedManny]

Do the words need to be exactly on opposite sides of the spectrum to be comparative?

Yes, they do. Otherwise you're setting up a false comparison. You're wanting to take the most extreme position on the end you don't like, but not the most extreme position of the end you do like. It's a clear attempt to slant the debate in your favor by trying to push me into a corner of having to defend something indefensible, while protecting yourself from having to do the same.

Which is exactly what you're doing by casting the debate as "small government versus socialism." Socialism is not even remotely in the picture.

I'm not taking issue with the furthest extreme in big government, though I would if I thought we were going there, no, I'm taking issue with what I see as our decent into socialism. Heck, many on the left even recognize and admit that's where we're going and have taken to trying to defend socialism rather than trying to deny it.

Time to cite some sources if you're going to make statements like that.

Every Democratic president since Wilson has clearly pushed us closer to socialism, but heck, it was Theodore Roosevelt who truly started the ball rolling, so it hasn't all been Democrats.

And every Republican has pushed us closer to anarchy. Sorry. It's just as true a statement, semantics over extremes aside.

Barack Obama has just taken it further than anyone has before and put more of stranglehold on the free market than anyone else. He's creating new giant entitlement programs that we can't afford, racking up unprecedented debt and putting the government in charge of more and more things. When the state starts taking over the private market and starts taking from the people in order to provide their basic services, that's socialism. No doubt about it.

You're going to need better examples.

Nonpartisan CBO said the health care bill would actually reduce the deficit, so we actually can afford this "entitlement program," which is actually not even as big an entitlement program as Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, which means your first sentence is totally wrong. If the free market is what we've seen out of the health insurance and banking industries in the past decade, you're going to have to forgive me if I decide I would rather have those markets be a little less free.

As for racking up "unprecedented debt," the No. 1 contributor to the national deficit was the revenue lost during the economic collapse, which occurred under the previous administration. The No. 2 contributor was the revenue lost by cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003. The No. 3 contributor was the unpaid-for stimulus spending. The No. 4 contributor were the unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts are the single biggest contributor to the deficit outside the economic collapse itself. Take away the tax cuts and the wars, and the deficit would be nearly half what it actually is.

And if you can tell me which part of the health care bill involves the state "taking over the private market," I would be most appreciative.

By the way, nobody gets refused medical treatment. It's against the law to do that.

True. But it isn't against the law to refuse to cover them, even if they already had insurance that was supposed to cover the ailment. Well, it is now.

I have no problem with helping people in need, but taking away my right to seek my own medical services and coverage on my own terms in order to do it, is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

How will health care reform keep you from seeking your own medical services or coverage on your own terms? You are still allowed to visit any doctor you choose and remain uninsured. For the first time, however, you'll be required to pay for this latter privilege, to help cover at least a portion of any expenses you incur that you will be unable to pay for.

Remember, whatever powers are not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states.

The regulation of interstate commerce is specifically granted to the federal government.

[Preacherman777]

Look, my wife works in the health insurance industry and she knows first hand how this will affect things. She's not some big boss either, so she has no horse in the race, she just knows the realities and is an expert in Medicare. There is no way this will provide greater competition because just as happens now in Medicare, you're going to have less doctors who are willing to play ball. In fact, the problems inherent to Medicare are a blue print for the problems this system will have. They already have doctor shortages, they already have rationing, they already have financial insolvency and the incentives to bring in the best or develop new and better medications are no where to be found. The government is already a pillar of inefficiency when it comes to stuff like this and now we're going to give them power over all of us. The fact is, there are far better ways to take care of these problems, but Obama and his bunch had no desire to hear about any of that. They had their own agenda and nothing else mattered. That was proved by the closed door, back room dealing, way they did all this. The American people were overwhelmingly against it, but they did it anyway. Obama lied to the American people about how he would handle this and he failed to deliver on his economic promises and now it looks like he's gonna have to pay the price.

[Preacherman777]

And every Republican has pushed us closer to anarchy. Sorry. It's just as true a statement, semantics over extremes aside.

Look Dude, I'm not gonna play this game with you. You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too, but I'm not gonna play along.

Nonpartisan CBO said the health care bill would actually reduce the deficit, so we actually can afford this "entitlement program,"

Yeah, do you remember when the CBO used to bring Obama numbers he didn't like and then he brought them up to the White House for a talking to and then suddenly, magically, all the numbers started to favor him. Amazing how that happened. Forgive me if I don't have great confidence in the CBO anymore.

As for racking up "unprecedented debt," the No. 1 contributor to the national deficit was the revenue lost during the economic collapse, which occurred under the previous administration. The No. 2 contributor was the revenue lost by cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003. The No. 3 contributor was the unpaid-for stimulus spending. The No. 4 contributor were the unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts are the single biggest contributor to the deficit outside the economic collapse itself. Take away the tax cuts and the wars, and the deficit would be nearly half what it actually is.

Ok, if you know your facts and history and you are honestly attempting to blame the economic collapse on Bush, then I would really have to question your honesty. But beyond that, I'm not talking about debt that occurred under Bush, I'm talking about Obama's deficit spending which is outpacing Bush by leaps and bounds.

The regulation of interstate commerce is specifically granted to the federal government.

If I'm not buying insurance there is no commerce taking place.

[CatNamedManny]

Yeah, do you remember when the CBO used to bring Obama numbers he didn't like and then he brought them up to the White House for a talking to and then suddenly, magically, all the numbers started to favor him. Amazing how that happened. Forgive me if I don't have great confidence in the CBO anymore.

Actually, no, I don't. Because that never happened. I do remember quite a bit of legislators revising the bill so they could get the bill certified by the CBO as deficit-neutral. I also remember when the Bush administration threatened a Medicare actuary with his job when he produced numbers that would have shown the Medicare Part D bill was going to explode the deficit. Turns out that was actually illegal. Oops. Got the bill passed though, didn't it?

Ok, if you know your facts and history and you are honestly attempting to blame the economic collapse on Bush, then I would really have to question your honesty. But beyond that, I'm not talking about debt that occurred under Bush, I'm talking about Obama's deficit spending which is outpacing Bush by leaps and bounds.

The collapse occurred on his watch, and in large part because a bubble popped that had been spurred by deregulation championed by both Bush and Clinton. The debt that occurred under Bush is part of the deficit now. The stimulus spending to which you're referring is a one-time addition to the deficit that is canceled out when the economy improves. The tax cuts continue to have a significant role in the deficit because it is an ongoing loss of revenue. Tax cuts without paying for them is the same thing as deficit spending; it is just as fiscally irresponsible. And given Bush's support for the $500 billion-plus Medicare Part D expansion, as well as No Child Left Behind and his boondoggle in Iraq, I think it's safe to say that Bush is holding his own just fine in the "deficit spending" department.

Which is fine. Criticize Obama for deficit spending all you want. I won't complain, as long as you were raising the same criticism when the president had an "R" after his name on the ballot. I assume you also were criticizing the creeping socialism of expanding Medicare and government control and regulation of schools under the Bush administration, as well?

[gman]

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.