@ivlfounder well there ought to be some left over from the crusades and witch hunts- and there was quite a bit of slaughter in India and i believe some in north Africa as well. And don't forget about some of those tribal cultures ye'all mostly wiped out- i'm sure they are still wondering what the fuck hit them.
@Englishdosser86 It seems you are reacting without understanding the context of what he's speaking about. If you aren't, I apologize. While I don't listen to him all the time, I listen enough to know the overall picture of what he's saying. Look up the 4 part vids on YT called "Glenn Beck: Communism or Fascism?" The Social Justice he is telling people to watch out for is the kind that Hitler promised. It's too bad an otherwise good concept (SJ) has been used to promote totalitarian governments.
@kingryanarthur I do understand what he's talking about. The fact that Hitler had similar economic ideas is irrelevant in my views. It was Hitler's ideas on ethnic superiority, genocide and intolerance that are repulsive. England and many countries in Europe like Sweeden have policies stronger than those Beck is complaining about. And we're certainly not like Nazi Germany.
@Englishdosser86 Good call. Hitler's genocidal policies were key. I think that any amount of control a government has over people is crucial to evaluate. For example, there are people these days that speak of the need to reduce the size of the world population (Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, UN bodies, etc). In the past, control of a food supply led millions to starve in China because seed was withheld from them. I don't think Beck's arguing that anyone's presently LIKE Hitler's Germany
@kingryanarthur ...but rather than anyone can BECOME like Hitler's Germany. Eugenics is still a popular enough movement that I don't think it would take long for a government that has control over most aspects of its peoples' lives to find someone in power that wants, "for the good of the whole", to limit health care to a certain group because it's too expensive, or to prevent that expense through forced sterilization: en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
@Lochee1000 Ya know it's sad when we tear down people (all of whom have immense worth) rather than putting forth concrete reasons why what they're saying is wrong. Attack platforms not people.
Glenn Beck is just drilling more illogical crapola into the heads of his followers. The fact that Marxism and Fascism endorse social justice does not serve as any reasonable justification for rejecting it. Say Beck had said: "You say cats have four legs, well I say Marxists and Fascists also believe that cats have four legs, so you shouldn't." This would obviously be fallacious, but its essentially the same type of "reasoning" that he uses to convince his listeners to reject social justice.
MEDIAMATTERS will soon be gone, GEORGE SOROS has terminal cancer, his children hate him, and Mystylplx will no longer be a paid liar and a queer prostitute!
@Jmage585 there is no mention of forced social justice in the bible, which is what Beck is railing against. He believes the bible: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, just not in stealing from one to give to another. Just because we use the abstraction of government and don't personally see who we're stealing from doesn't mean that it's not stealing. When the Haiti earthquake went down, me and many others gave what we could to help, some even went there, but I lose my "points" when it's forced.
The PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve Bank, which we have thanks to an old drunk named "Woodrow Wilson", and Herbert Hoover caused the great depression.
Fine Then lets listen to what is said by someone not what you want to hear. Think for yourself do not let others do it for you. Learn the truth for only that will set you free.
do not follow any one blindly question with authourity boldly . no racist not violent not
So what's the point to this clip?? It does nothing to refute it, discredit it, merely re-states it?? Or can media matters not refute it? I think it's likely the later.
GLENN BECK is promoter of hate against Immigrants, mainly Latino people. There is to Nazi German-American . I don' t like his wordiness. Please, boycot companies that promote it in their TV-shows in FOX and other channels .( 200 Companies did it ...!!! )
In order for there to be "justice" there needs to be an injustice committed. Where is the social injustice that need to be corrected?
Is is wrong for someone in American who plays by the rules, works hard and becomes successful financially? Most of those people got there by creating jobs.
Would you take Chris Gardner's money away from him after reading the book or seeing the movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness?" Wouldn't that be "social justice?"
And what Media Matters or anyone else in the mainstream media won't tell you is that after Beck made this announcement he followed it up by showing a newspaper from the 1930's printed by the American NAZI party, entitled "Social Justice."
@Mystylplx Who is comparing Democrats to Nazis? I want to know what I said that compares the two.
I don't believe the Dems want to kill anyone. But before the Nazi's started their killing spree they were Socialists first. Specifically National Socialists as opposed to Communists who were International Socialists.
The party platform that Hitler ran on to get elected sounded a lot like the Dem party platform.
You don't call what Beck does work? Perhaps you are not paying attention.
Not you, Beck. You pointed out in your comment how Beck had held up "a newspaper from the 1930's printed by the American NAZI party, entitled "Social Justice."
It's a hallmark of the intellectually hysterical to try to compare anyone or anything you disagree with to the Nazi's.
And Nazi's were never real socialists--that was the pretense, but once they were in power they went straight to fascism. If Dems were like that Clinton would still be President today.
@Mystylplx What you have to understand, and Beck understands this, is that in the early 30's the Nazi's weren't killing anyone. The American Nazi party fell to pieces once Hitler started his killing spree. The comparison still stands as valid because Beck is NOT comparing libs to murders, he is comparing libs to Socialists and that comparison is accurate.
Who's to say what a Socialist is. There are so many variations. Hitler was a Socialist before he rose to power, so did Mussolini.
@Mystylplx You can believe what you want to but you are not seeing the whole picture. Hitler was well respected by the American Progressives all during the 1930's. He didn't start killing Jews until 1941. That when the doodoo hit the fan for American Progressives. They had already had the rug pulled out from underneath them with Stalin's killing spree.
Beck is calling libs Nazis or Socialists, he's showing you how they are doing that all by themselves. Wealth redistribution IS Socialism.
I see the whole picture fine. Now you too are trying to tie progressives in with murderers. Why else is it so important to make comparisons with Hitler? Hitler was not a socialist, he was a murderer. There's plenty of ways to make whatever point you and Beck are trying to make without sinking to comparing people to Nazi's.
There's really no excuse for that--it's petty hyperbole.
@Mystylplx You're still missing the point. Before Hitler killed anyone he created a system of government that was strongly based on Socialism. Some call him a Fascist but he wasn't even that. He was a Nazi and they were their own version of Socialism.
It's not that we on the right are trying to tie Progressives to murders. It's that murders are a part of YOUR ideological past that YOU have to deal with. The vast majority of Progressives would never advocate violence, even back then. cont.
You are still missing the point--there are lots of socialist countries that work and a few in history run by lunatics. Focusing on the lunatics and trying to paint all socialists with the same brush is hyperbole... petty hyperbole.
Not that Democrats are even socialists. Implying that as Beck is doing is even more hyperbole.
@Mystylplx Name one socialist country that has produced as much as we used to, had as much freedom as we used to and has created as much wealth as we used to.
And if you come up with just one country, then ask yourself how that country would do if we weren't giving them tons of cash to keep them afloat.
They don't exist. Socialism is an absolute failure. It produces misery and poverty to everyone except the leaders. And when it begins to collapse under it's own weight you have Greece.
@Mystylplx Did you notice that I used the phrase "used to" when describing America. Of course the rest of the world is catching up with us because we have become a Socialist nation. Go back 25 - 30 years ago and you will see that we lived in a completely different country back then. After Reagan left office, we have moved rapidly and steadily into Socialism.
And the lie of Socialism is that in Capitalism the wealth only goes to the top. That is factually and historically false.
The wealth gap today is similar to what it was in the 1920's, and is still steeper than it is in most countries.
And the whole "socialism vs capitalism" thing is silly. It's like debating whether competition or cooperation is better--neither is better, both are good depending on the circumstances.
The evil comes from trying to go too much to either extreme. It's no coincidence that the 1st world countries all have some mixture. Extreme in either direction leads to fascism.
@Mystylplx Socialism is the ultimate "wealth gap." In this country, it used to be that all you had to do is work hard and your efforts were rewarded. It didn't matter who you were. Now businesses are regulated to death. You have to be rich to start a business. The start up fees and taxes imposed by the government alone are killing to most start ups.
This is Progressivism that directly responsible for preventing the poor from moving up. They don't want the underclass to achieve.
And socialism doesn't produce them any more than capitalism does. And too far in either direction creates the conditions that allow those evil people to flourish. Too pure of capitalism is as much "the ultimate wealth gap" as too pure socialism. It's silly to pit one against the other as if they are enemies--THAT'S what causes the real problem
@Mystylplx It is impossible for Capitalism to create a "wealth gap" unless it has been regulated. In a free society (the only place we can ever get to pure Capitalism) no one is prevented from success or failure.
The myth is that once rich, always rich and once poor, always poor.
If you look back 20 years about 80% of the rich back then are no longer rich.
The only reason why we have the same level of poor in this country that we did prior to LBJ is because we keep them poor.
Sorry but that's nonsense. Unregulated capitalism immediately creates a wealth gap, because without regulation wealth is the only form of power. There's a race to the top, those who win that race make the rules to keep themselves at the top--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Without regulation monopolies are a certainty, and pure capitalism only lasts until it becomes an oligarchy, with rule by the wealthy.
@Mystylplx We are just going round and round in this argument. Your opinion is that businesses should be heavily controlled by the gov and the poor should get paid for doing nothing. To me that is Fascism.
I think EVERYONE should have to work for their own betterment. In a free society we work as hard or as little as we want but we are responsible for the consequences not the rest of society. That ONLY comes with our Constitutional Republic the way the founders set it up and Capitalism.
"Your opinion is that businesses should be heavily controlled by the gov and the poor should get paid for doing nothing. To me that is Fascism."
Actually what it is is a straw man--a dishonest form of arguing where you put words in your opponents mouth and debate against those fictitious arguments because you either don't understand, or can't refute, what the other person is actually saying.
@Mystylplx I hate having words put into my mouth just as much as the next guy. But I was trying to sum up your arguments and nothing else. If I am mistaken I will gladly accept your correction.
The bigger richer entities can always (without regulation) drive their smaller opponents out of business. If you're big enough to be capable of selling below cost for a time, you drive opponents out of business then raise prices. If you can buy in larger quantities you get better starting prices, etc.
In a pure capitalism the advantages the big guys have over the little guys is overwhelming and unbeatable.
@Mystylplx 30 years ago K-Mart dominated the low price department store. Before that it was Woolworth. Now Wal-Mart dominates. Nothing lasts forever, not even Wal-Mart.
At one time Wal-Mart was the little guy and yet they succeeded in dethroning K-Mart.
Department stores are not in bed with the gov like auto industry. Because of corporatism we only have 3 U.S. auto makers and auto prices have skyrocketed. Now we only have 2, Ford and the 2 Government auto makers.
That's because of regulation. Regulation prevented Woolworth from leveraging their size to drive all their competition out of business. Without regulation and anti-trust legislation K-Mart and Wal-Mart would never have had a chance.
@Mystylplx First off that is total bunk. Woolworth was never on its way of creating a Monopoly. Sears was kicking them in the butt all the way to the top. There was always competition. Woolworth crashed an burned because they kept trying to undercut their competition by offering crappier merchandise. People want lower prices but they don't want to buy crap. Wal-Mart has seemed to figure out where the line between inexpensive and crap is right now but they won't last forever.
"First off that is total bunk. Woolworth was never on its way of creating a Monopoly."
You miss the point entirely. I think you are being intentionally obtuse at this point. Woolworth was never on it's way to creating a monopoly BECAUSE this is not, and has never been, a pure capitalism. If it was then either they would have, or Sears would have, or SOMEONE would have and K-mart and Wal-Mart would never have had a chance.
@Mystylplx Excuse me for being obtuse. I realize that we never had pure Capitalism in this country but we've had the closest thing to it without absolute anarchy.
Anti trust legislation was mainly written to prevent monopolies. When you mentioned anti trust laws used on Woolworth I took that to mean you may have thought they were becoming a monopoly.
But my original point still stands, Woolworth died because they did not offer their customers the value they wanted.
" I realize that we never had pure Capitalism in this country but we've had the closest thing to it without absolute anarchy."
So then you are acknowledging that some regulation (which you call socialism) is necessary for capitalism to work? Although a pure capitalism wouldn't really be anarchy--it would be more of a monarchy or at least an oligarchy, at least you seem to understand that pure capitalism doesn't work any more than pure socialism does.
@Mystylplx Now who is putting words in who's mouth. I said that we have never had pure capitalism NOT because it wouldn't work but because we have a government. Anytime a transaction takes place there is a value traded for another value. If the government takes any part of either of those two values then it is not pure capitalism. It does not matter what type of gov it is.
That is why our founders put such severe limits on the gov. Now we want to put limits on capitalism instead.
The framers didn't put any limits on Gov per se. They put limits on the Federal Gov. and allow states to do damn near anything they want. And it had nothing to do with defending free markets--it had to do with limiting centralized power.
@Mystylplx Actually the States are the ones responsible for ratifying the Constitution. Jefferson insisted on the Bill of Rights to protect the people from the government.
The main purposes of the Constitution was to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate means to equalize not control. In other words they made trade free between the states by removing interstate tariffs.
Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations was a best seller in 1776. It had a major influence on the founders.
Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776. It is never mentioned in the Constitutional Convention debate notes nor in the federalist papers. There's no evidence any of the framers had even read it at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Madison mentioned it in 1791 while opposing a National bank, and Jefferson mentioned it in a letter in 1807, but the Constitution was adopted 1787.
@Mystylplx So because they never mentioned reading that book before 1791 then are you saying they didn't read it any earlier?
Especially when people like Benjamin Franklin taught himself, Latin, French and German specifically because he was too impatient to wait for a translated in English versions.
I would think that ALL of the founders had read that book when it first came out.
Technically speaking it wouldn't have mattered because Capitalism fits perfectly with individual liberty.
"So because they never mentioned reading that book before 1791 then are you saying they didn't read it any earlier?"
You claimed it was highly influential. I merely pointed out there's no evidence of that. No mentions in the debate notes, no mentions in the federal papers. Some of them may have read it earlier, but there's no evidence of that and certainly no evidence that anything in the Constitution was based on it.
@Mystylplx Then what the small business has to do is offer better service and better quality.
Small business survive by being better than their larger competition. Consumers, maybe not all consumers but enough will always prefer value over price. Maybe the small business will never be as big but perhaps the goal is just to offer a better value.
But giants will not always stay on top. Look at Sprint. They were on top but their customer service was dismal. Now they are a distance 3rd.
"Then what the small business has to do is offer better service and better quality."
I think you are naive. That fact is only true with regulations in place preventing the bigger company from leveraging their size and power to drive out all competition. Without such regulation it's impossible for the smaller company to compete in service, quality, or prices.
@Mystylplx I'm not naive. I'm observant. I see it happening in the real world every day. I've gone to stores ran by the little guys specifically because the employees knew about the products they sell.
Do you mean all those regulation imposed on large businesses with employees over a certain number. The ones that keep the little guys little because they cannot afford those regulations? Is that what you are talking about?
Are you aware that small business start ups actually GREW during the recent recession and that the high point for such start ups was during the 90's? The Clinton years?
What you are saying is a certain dogmatic mythology that is not based on facts.
@Mystylplx And then all those tech start ups came crashing down when the tech bubble burst in 2000 while Clinton was still in office.
No president every controls who and how many people will start up a business. Their can be artificial influences that make it easier but those ALWAYS lead to bubbles because it is based on fiat currency and false hopes.
When left alone the number of small business start ups will remain consistent and have a better chance at survival in the long term.
Yes, it was an artificial bubble created by overly-optimistic investing in the stock market. That's capitalism. I agree it had little to do with Clinton, but neither did it have to do with too much or too little regulation.
@Mystylplx That's one way to create a bubble. The most devastating way is when government starts investing money into something like new home buyers. Because when that happens you get the Great Recession that we are living in. Oh Wall Street does have a lot to share in that blame. But both Bush and Obama are very well connected to Goldman Sachs.
Another way is when, due to lack of regulation, lending institutions start making bad loans depending on the rising value of the collateral to cover the costs if the borrowers default.
I agree Gov. investment in Fannie and Freddie also played a role--this is not a simple thing.
@Mystylplx Most lending institutions were coerced into bad loans by the government. Some still rejected it because they saw what the outcome of this type of lending would do to the home buyer.
Quite literally ACORN would march into banks and demand, out loud so that all bank customers could hear, that banks give loans to people who cannot afford them. While ACORN is not the gov. they were acting in accord with the Community Reinvestment Act, plus they have received millions from the Fed.
"Most lending institutions were coerced into bad loans by the government."
Utter baloney. What a rationalization! Other than Fannie and Freddie NO businesses were coerced into making bad loans by anything other than their own greed.
@Mystylplx This was part of the terms for taking the bail out money and they were coerced into taking the bail out money.
They had been doing this before the bail out but that was part of the CRA that let them do this. It was never in their best interest and many like you said were greedy. So greedy that they did not see the road in front of them if they took this route. The smarter banks stayed out of it all together.
They were hardly "coerced" into taking the bailout money--they were clamoring for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we agree that some regulation is necessary for capitalism to work. So then the question becomes what regulation? And how much?
@Mystylplx A small minority of banks took bail out money but most were definitely coerced by the fed.
There are some laws that are necessary. Most of those involve "good faith" type operations. But what passes for "regulation" these days are controls. Like the handicap law. Companies with more than 50 employees must retrofit their buildings in case they may one day hire a handicapped person. Regardless if a handicapped person ever applies there. Another road block for a small business.
That's just not true. Private businesses above a certain size that provide goods or services to the public are required to remove barriers to access if doing so is "readily achievable." No business has ever been required to provide handicap access for employees if they don't have handicapped employees. Just look around--there are tons of businesses that don't provide handicap access. There's no handicap access where I work, for instance.
@Mystylplx "Readily achievable" applies to the physical surroundings if it can be carried out without much difficulty or expense. That has nothing to do with the question of if a handicapped person may or may not work at this location. Plus the ADA never qualifies what is "difficult" or "expensive." It gives a list of changes that can be made and some are inexpensive while others could cost into the thousands. For a small business those changes could be devastating.
That's what I mean--I work at an employer with 170 (ish) employees, but no wheel chair ramps or anything. I've never heard of the requirement you cite, and it obviously isn't applied in CA. where I work.
Just what statute (or whatever) are you referring to?
@Mystylplx Oh, California! Queer child molesting capitol of the world. You work in a day care center so you can have free sex with little boys that aren't old enough to tell on you.
@Mystylplx So are you telling me that at your company there is no way for a handicapped person in a wheel chair to get into your building? Are you saying there are no handicapped stalls in your restrooms. No handicapped parking stalls if your company has a parking lot. None of that?
I don't live in CA any more but that is where I have lived most of my life and I have never ever worked for a company after the ADA of 1994 and even prior to that act anywhere in CA.
There are no ramps. A person in a wheelchair can be lifted up about 4 stairs, but no special accommodations, no handicapped parking spots, and no stalls in the restrooms. (All the restrooms are "one at a time" anyway... no stalls at all.)
Although we probably SHOULD have those things. It's not as if wheelchair ramps are expensive. Less than $100.
@Mystylplx Next you're going to tell me that you live in the Bay Area!!! I just cannot believe that in the Peoples Republic of California you company is not handicap accessible.
Not only is that a violation of Federal law but you are probably in violation of half a million California laws. I mean really? In California? I lived the vast majority of my 52 years in So. Cal and 3 years in the Bay Area. Ever since the late 80's I have never seen a building that was not handicap accessible.
It is not a violation of any law. Try reading what the ADA actually requires.
This is fairly typical of your whole argument--it's based on some rather hysterical exaggerations and misinformation. Lots of dogmatic hyperbole and few facts.
@Mystylplx I think I might have had my years wrong on the regulation. It was 2007 not 1994. I was trying to find where I had read what I was talking about. I could not find it specifically but the article in the next 4 comments deals with it.
@Mystylplx Employer groups are expressing concern about new federal regulations under the Americans With Disabilities Act proposed last month by the Department of Justice.
The rules implement guidelines enacted three years ago to update the disabilities act, which passed in 1990. They are meant to address ambiguities in the original law and complaints from disabled worker advocates about compliance by employers and operators of public facilities.
@Mystylplx "The proposed rules, which take up 215,000 words in the Federal Register, are open for comment through mid-August. They range from the general (most work areas must have "circulation paths" wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs) to the specific (light switches in new hotel rooms must be no more than 48 inches above the floor).
The complexity of the rules likely will cause trouble for employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."
@Mystylplx "There's a whole group of lawyers who do nothing but come into facilities and look for technical violations of the ADA and then file suit against employers," said Mark Freedman, director of labor law policy.
It's unclear in the new regulations how much retrofitting of existing facilities and workplaces employers will have to do to comply with the new rules, Freedman said.
@Mystylplx When the proposed rules were published, Justice Department officials noted that they contain a "safe harbor" provision for small businesses: If they spend at least 1% of their gross revenue on making improvements to accommodate the disabled in a given year, the next year they will be considered in compliance. After the grace period ends, the business would be exposed again to the law.
Fine, Howard "Regulation Watch". Orange County Business Journal. 7-13 July, 2008.
@Mystylplx One other point with this. I have no problem with making concessions for handicapped or otherwise disabled people. I think it is a moral obligation. But I don't think it is something that should be imposed by the State or the Fed Govs.
Also businesses who operate in newer buildings (less that 20 years old) never have to deal with these regs because the builders were required to build them handicapped accessible.
I can't find anything about any of that from the actual ADA site. If you read what the actual requirements are from the source instead of getting all these hysterical exaggerations from sites like "Regulation Watch" you might be better off.
@Mystylplx This is not the first place I read about this and prior to that article I had never heard of a group called "Regulation Watch."
When I get a little time I will do as you suggest and go straight to the horses mouth and read the actual legislation. Something in there has people worried so there must be a reason for that.
Just out of curiosity, and you needn't answer this if you don't want to because I know this is a sensitive subject which you may not feel is appropriate, so no pressure at all to get into this--but are you by chance a Christian?
@Mystylplx I feel a set up coming on. Okay I'll bite. Yes I am a Christian. I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) for all my life.
Why do you ask (Alba asks, waiting for the hammer to drop)?
No set up--just that "Social Justice" is the thing that Jesus talked about most and was most concerned with. "Do unto others" "Whosoever is without sin should cast the first stone" "Store up your riches in heaven" ""The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
@Mystylplx Oh there is so much wrong with this and the other comments you made prior to this.
Jesus NEVER once said that the government should redistribute wealth by force. He taught to the individual, He never addressed the government to make changes. His message is all about what the individual can do to save him or herself. Charity is YOUR responsibility, you cannot pass it off to the government to do it for you.
He never once said the government should NOT do it either. He was mostly concerned that it get done--that the hungry were fed, the naked clothed, etc. He didn't seem to care much how it was accomplished, only that it WAS accomplished.
When it comes to Gov. about all he said was to pay your taxes and not grumble about it. Mark 12:17
We have a government that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
@Mystylplx Helping the poor was a commandment given to the individual. If the individual passes that off to another person then how can that person obey the commandment. The government is not going to stand before God at the judgement day in your behalf.
Plus you are totally overlooking one of God's commandments given to Moses. Thou shalt not steal. When a government takes money or property from an individual to give to another they are stealing.
It was a commandment period. Jesus never said it was just for the individual. And we are a democracy--a nation of individuals. There are many ways to give. Matthew 6:1-2
And Jesus also (as I already said) said to pay your taxes without grumbling. Mark 12:13-17 He did not call it theft.
@Mystylplx Jesus never mandated anything. You don't understand that He never took our free will away. We CHOOSE to obey the commandments.
You also don't understand what charity is. If you mandate it, it no longer is charity. Charity comes from the heart because it is the pure love of Christ. I never feel that Christian love when I pay taxes, do you?
Matt 6:1-2 is about the individual directly giving aid to the poor.
Mark 12:13-17 is more about returning property than taxes.
"Jesus never mandated anything. You don't understand that He never took our free will away. We CHOOSE to obey the commandments."
Yes and no. We choose to obey the commandments and if we don't we go to hell. With everything he commanded (mandated) we do, we obviously always have a choice to obey or disobey. That's how it works.
@Mystylplx Jesus said that he stands at the door and knocks. He does not kick it in.
YOU have to make the choice to let Him in. But just like everything else in life, you have to live with the consequences of your actions. If you choose to follow Satan then you have to live with those consequences but the choice will always be yours.
There is no escaping any consequence. For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.
@Mystylplx "That's exactly what I was saying. It's no different than paying taxes"
I know it may sound like I am opposed to paying taxes but I am not. BUT there must be accountability and frugality on the part of the gov. We have the polar opposite of that. I am opposed to our current form of taxation. We tax prosperity. I would opt for a national sales or a flat rate tax. And this taxation must be capped and it must replace all other forms of federal taxation, including corporate taxes.
Charity is aid given to the needy. It's still charity even if it's forced, though true Christians would not feel it is forced.
At the time Jesus was in the flesh there were no Democracies. In a democracy the Gov. represents the people--we vote in representatives who collect taxes to do the will of the people. I prefer my taxes be used for charitable purposes rather than paying for the most bloated military in the world, so I vote in people who will do that.
@Mystylplx You have no clue about what Charity is. The government cannot exonerate you from your responsibility with stolen money. That is not charity.
The whole purpose of charity is less about helping the poor and more about teaching you humility and love. You think charity is ONLY about giving money to the poor. That is wrong. To be truly charitable you help lift someone up. You don't just throw money at them and then feel good about yourself. That is why the gov cannot do charity.
"The whole purpose of charity is less about helping the poor and more about teaching you humility and love."
Absolutely incorrect. The whole point of charity is indeed helping the poor. By your definition it takes all the "charity" out of charity. The way you define it charity is a selfish act. Charity is not about you, it's about those you help. It's not about making yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, it's about putting food in peoples mouths.
@Mystylplx "The whole point of charity is indeed helping the poor."
Your definition is helping the poor STAY poor with blood money that was stolen from someone else who earned it. Your definition is not Charity, it's cruelty.
The Lord wants us to develop humility and love and that is why He commands charity from us. In addition we should direct that charity to help a person out of poverty rather than perpetuate it.
Socialism at best perpetuates poverty, at worst creates more poverty.
"Your definition is helping the poor STAY poor with blood money that was stolen from someone else who earned it. Your definition is not Charity, it's cruelty."
That's your belief, and it's a belief that is QUITE inconsistent with what Jesus taught in the gospels. According to you when Jesus said over and over to feed the hungry he must have been cruel.
@Mystylplx "According to you when Jesus said over and over to feed the hungry he must have been cruel."
No those were NOT my words. I said that Jesus would want us to help the poor stand on their own two feet. So that those poor can have the opportunity to also help the poor. The idea is the raise everyone up out of poverty.
Ending poverty is NOT what Jesus came to do. He came to save us all from our sins.
@Mystylplx "I assume you call those socialism too"
Every program that only benefits a select few but takes from everyone is Socialist. That includes subsidizing corporations just as much as it does in subsidizing poverty.
I really cannot understand WHY you would not want to help someone out of poverty. It is beyond my comprehension. Your cruelty runs deep and the idea that you claim your cruelty is in the name of Jesus only makes you a blasphemer. You misunderstand what Jesus said.
"Every program that only benefits a select few but takes from everyone is Socialist."
So if even jobs programs are socialist then apparently you don't even want to "teach them to fish...?"
The rest of your comment is hysterical hyperbole. I DO want to help people out of poverty. THAT'S social justice! It's YOU and others of your ilk who argue against such efforts, and use some rather transparent rationalizations to do so.
@Mystylplx "So if even jobs programs are socialist then apparently you don't even want to "teach them to fish...?""
Is that what I said? I don't think so. Does your life revolve around the federal government? If it does then you are looking in the wrong place for solutions. You apparently have read the Bible or at least read parts of it so I am assuming you attend a Christian Church of some kind. Long before Marxism crept into Churches, Churches used to help people directly. Many still do
"Long before Marxism crept into Churches, Churches used to help people directly."
Not enough. And it's not an either/or. If more Christians actually gave to charity (real charities, not just the offering plate of their own church) there would be less need for government "social justice" programs.
@Mystylplx "If more Christians actually gave to charity ...there would be less need for government "social justice" programs"
There is NO need for government "social justice" programs. Wealth redistribution or "trickle up poverty" doesn't work. It never has. It causes MORE poverty. There is not enough money on this planet to take care of everyone.
If you lift people out of poverty, as Franklin said, by "making them uncomfortable in their poverty", then you decrease the number of poor.
No, it's trickle DOWN economics that doesn't work. We tried it in the 80 and it produced the highest unemployment in the nations history. Then we tried it again in the 00's and it did so again. Unemployment for 2009 was nearly as bad as it was under Reagan.
@Mystylplx "No, it's trickle DOWN economics that doesn't work"
That's the myth anyway.
Reagan's economic advisor, Art Laffer, said they didn't act fast enough when Reagan took office. So most of Reagan's changes didn't start until about 1983. We had the largest expansion of peace time growth ever. The rich got richer AND SO DID THE POOR.
This greatly thwarted the plans of the left to keep the economy in ruins, like Bush and Obama are doing, so the smear campaign went into high gear.
You are espousing an utterly selfish philosophy which says, "I've got mine so screw you!" You think taxes are "theft" if used to help the poor, but not apparently if used to support an incredibly bloated military. You keep saying "teach them to fish..." but then say that even jobs programs are socialist and therefor evil.
Your whole argument is hyperbole, starting with your grossly exaggerated notions of what the ADA requires.
@Mystylplx "You are espousing an utterly selfish philosophy which says, "I've got mine so screw you!""
I never said that. That is your Marxism speaking.
If the military is actually bloated we should cut out the bloat. But what if the "bloated" military is the sword that Jesus told His disciples to carry, as you pointed out.
We spend (depending on who's doing the accounting) either almost as much or slightly more than THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED on the military. So yes it's bloated.
But that's not the point--the point is you can't call taxes "theft" only when you disagree with how they are being spent and not the rest of the time.
@Mystylplx Our "bloated" military is what makes it possible for you and I to argue. Otherwise one or both of us would be in prison right now.
I am going by what the founders decided was a valid reason for taxation. In their day only a very small fraction of people, mostly rich land owners paid taxes. The government was extremely small and limited in it's scope. There was far less money needed to run the gov. That is how it should be today.
@Mystylplx "That's just more fear-mongering hyperbole..." If it doesn't make sense to you then how do you know it is "fear-mongering."
That's another thing. Why is that the left NEVER recognizes their own fear mongering and they think it is in the exclusive domain of the right? And it gets reported that way in the news.
It makes sense because the country with the biggest baddest military is the safest country in the world. Countries with weak armies and lots of natural resources don't last
Do you know why Al Qaeda attacked us? They thought we were weak. Clinton had decimated our military. Political correctness has turned us into weaklings. The perception was that it would be easy to attack us.
Did you see the rest of the Arab world freaked when Bush responded to Al Qaeda. Gaddafi wet his tunic when he saw our response. No one in the Arabic world ever expected any retaliation from us.
"They thought we were weak. Clinton had decimated our military. Political correctness has turned us into weaklings."
Hello? We spend as much or more on our military as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. Your whole point was that a stronger military is supposed to make us safer. The facts, once again, dispute your theory.
@Mystylplx "We spend as much or more on our military as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED"
What part of "Clinton had decimated our military" did you not understand? About the only thing Bush did right was to try to build our military back is an short amount of time possible.
@Mystylplx "So you understand the founders thought taxation was valid and not "theft?""
Our founders understood that if they didn't return a value for the taxes they collected they would be ran out of office. That is why in the preamble to the Constitution there are only 3 things that We the People expect from our gov in return for taxes paid.
We pay for justice, law enforcement and the military. In return we get a sense of general welfare (not a dole) and liberty for the individual.
@Mystylplx "Well, and infrastructure. But yes, "justice" as in "social justice.""
The Constitution never mentioned "infrastructure". The 10th Amendment was included to pass off ALL other "powers" not delegated to the US are reserved for the States or the people. That includes infrastructure.
Perhaps the only modification that I personally would accept would be interstate highways.
And nice try. "Establish justice" does NOT mean wealth redistribution.
"Mark 12:13-17 is more about returning property than taxes."
That's a blatant rationalization. It is clearly and EXPLICITLY about paying taxes. They ask him "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?" And he answers the question--"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
@Mystylplx You're not understanding what I am saying. It is about paying taxes but all currency was the property of Caesar. The money belonged to Caesar. Jesus said give what belongs to Caesar back to Caesar. And give what belongs to God, which is everything - including what belongs to Caesar, back to God.
The currency we use in this country does not belong to the government. It belongs to us. Way too many people on your side of the isle think your money is their money but they are wrong.
I understand you perfectly. It is a rather strained rationalization. Jesus was asked whether people should pay taxes and since you don't like his answer you are trying to make out like he really answered some other question than was asked.
Besides, Roman currency was only Caesars in the same way that US currency "belongs" to the gov. It is legal tender--we own the value but they own the actual coins and bills. If you don't think that's true try melting down some pennies...
@Mystylplx There is nothing strained, it just is how I said it. You're ignorance on the situation is what leads you to your conclusion. Jesus was asked if we should pay taxes, that is correct. But he didn't answer then with a Yes. He answered them by saying give what is Caesar's to Caesar. His answer was neither a yes or a no it was an avoidance of the issue because He did not want to be put in a position that would jeopardize His mission at that time. cont....
Yes, a very strained rationalization. He answered the question and you are trying to rationalize it away. If you think you own your bills and coins then, as I said, try melting down some pennies to sell the copper and zinc, then call the FBI and tell them about it. Your rationalization is OVER-THE-TOP strained--it's utter baseless nonsense.
If Jesus was in the flesh today and was asked the same thing undoubtedly he would say
@Mystylplx Have you ever paid a quarter to smash a penny in a machine that stamps information about the place you were visiting? Why are those machines legal?
If Jesus were here now he would say "obey the laws of your country" but He would never say that you cannot change those laws if they violate the unalienable rights that He gave us. He would most likely advocate non violence unless those laws infringed on life and liberty. Ya know, like everything that Socialism inflicts on the people.
They aren't. In that case the law is simply not enforced. There are many cases like that...Opium poppies, for example, are illegal, but they sell the seeds in many plant stores and little old ladies all over the place have them growing in their flower beds.
@Mystylplx "Oh, and Title 18 United States Code, Section 333"
Did you happen to notice WHEN this law came into effect and WHO is claiming ownership of that bill? The law came in 1948 under a Progressive president Harry S Truman. The bills that are specifically mentioned are the ones that have the words "Federal Reserve" on them. The Federal Reserve has never operated in the best interest of the United States, they are a consortium of international bankers. They want to control all of us.
"Did you happen to notice WHEN this law came into effect and WHO is claiming ownership of that bill?"
Excuses, excuses. What does that have to do with anything? Even if you were right, do you think Caesar was operating in the "best interests" of the Jews?
That's a pointless point even if it were accurate.
@Mystylplx "Excuses, excuses. What does that have to do with anything? Even if you were right, do you think Caesar was operating in the "best interests" of the Jews?"
It has to do with a fundamental change to our system of government that his been slowly and carefully orchestrated by Socialists ever since Teddy Roosevelt. It is a shift in rights descending from God to descending from gov. A shift of gov being of the people to gov controlling the people. It is a shift from who we were.
Don't know why that last got marked as spam, but read it anyway, it's the text of the statute saying it's illegal to destroy money. The value of it is yours, but the bills themselves belong to Uncle Sam. This is no different from how it was in Rome.
@Mystylplx "Don't know why that last got marked as spam" I've heard that if you paste text into a comment box, Google sometimes sees that as spam and automatically marks it that way.
If Jesus was in the flesh today and was asked the same thing undoubtedly he would say, "Show me a dollar bill." And then he would point to the picture on the dollar bill and say, "Give to Washington what is Washingtons and give to God what is God's."
@Mystylplx "Give to Washington what is Washington's" Talk about strained rationalization? George Washington wouldn't take it. He would say that this is not mine. The same applies with Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and most others.
That said, Woodrow Wilson would expect you return all his $100,000 bills to him and FDR all the dimes go to him but they were Progressives who think like you. They thought that the people are here to serve the government.
@Mystylplx "Straw man. Not what I think, not what they thought." Regardless if that is what you think, that is the end of the road that you are on.
The rights of the individual are expendable under a collectivist regime. The collective has priority and a strong central government controls what the collective needs. THAT IS SOCIALISM.
Tell me, if you don't believe in what Jesus said, do you believe in the Constitution?
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States;"
It's the very first one of the enumerated powers, given to Congress by our founding fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.
We should dismantle all organizations promoting justice on the off chance they're a bunch of commie sympathizers
SgtChilly 10 months ago
Christians have never wanted to hide their desire to help others.
So much for it being a conspiracy.
ivlfounder 11 months ago
@ivlfounder yuhhu wanna help put out the flames from all those villages you burned down?
ehhem- back on topic:
glen beck is a globalist pawn and covers some real issues and lases them with lies and disinfo.
UrSoMeanBoss 11 months ago
@UrSoMeanBoss
uhuh ....nd where exactly are these villages I burned located?
ivlfounder 11 months ago
@ivlfounder well there ought to be some left over from the crusades and witch hunts- and there was quite a bit of slaughter in India and i believe some in north Africa as well. And don't forget about some of those tribal cultures ye'all mostly wiped out- i'm sure they are still wondering what the fuck hit them.
UrSoMeanBoss 11 months ago
@ivlfounder and mind ye im talking bout your religion, not you as an individual :D
UrSoMeanBoss 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UrSoMeanBoss
Sorry but my religion isn't into burning villages.....some of the fan club maybe but not the religion. ;)
ivlfounder 11 months ago
I can't believe people like Beck exist and that other people actually believe his shit.
Englishdosser86 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 It seems you are reacting without understanding the context of what he's speaking about. If you aren't, I apologize. While I don't listen to him all the time, I listen enough to know the overall picture of what he's saying. Look up the 4 part vids on YT called "Glenn Beck: Communism or Fascism?" The Social Justice he is telling people to watch out for is the kind that Hitler promised. It's too bad an otherwise good concept (SJ) has been used to promote totalitarian governments.
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
@kingryanarthur I do understand what he's talking about. The fact that Hitler had similar economic ideas is irrelevant in my views. It was Hitler's ideas on ethnic superiority, genocide and intolerance that are repulsive. England and many countries in Europe like Sweeden have policies stronger than those Beck is complaining about. And we're certainly not like Nazi Germany.
Englishdosser86 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 Good call. Hitler's genocidal policies were key. I think that any amount of control a government has over people is crucial to evaluate. For example, there are people these days that speak of the need to reduce the size of the world population (Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, UN bodies, etc). In the past, control of a food supply led millions to starve in China because seed was withheld from them. I don't think Beck's arguing that anyone's presently LIKE Hitler's Germany
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
@kingryanarthur ...but rather than anyone can BECOME like Hitler's Germany. Eugenics is still a popular enough movement that I don't think it would take long for a government that has control over most aspects of its peoples' lives to find someone in power that wants, "for the good of the whole", to limit health care to a certain group because it's too expensive, or to prevent that expense through forced sterilization: en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
ALL: BecKKK statement are a perfect example of what happens when a schizophrenic is allowed to have one hour on SlyFOXX News.
Lochee1000 1 year ago
@Lochee1000 Ya know it's sad when we tear down people (all of whom have immense worth) rather than putting forth concrete reasons why what they're saying is wrong. Attack platforms not people.
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
I watch all the news networks and have a mind of my own. I do not have my head in the sand and drink Koolaide like you>
GBEK61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glenn Beck is just drilling more illogical crapola into the heads of his followers. The fact that Marxism and Fascism endorse social justice does not serve as any reasonable justification for rejecting it. Say Beck had said: "You say cats have four legs, well I say Marxists and Fascists also believe that cats have four legs, so you shouldn't." This would obviously be fallacious, but its essentially the same type of "reasoning" that he uses to convince his listeners to reject social justice.
ccmm53095 1 year ago 3
MEDIAMATTERS will soon be gone, GEORGE SOROS has terminal cancer, his children hate him, and Mystylplx will no longer be a paid liar and a queer prostitute!
9nunyabiz9 1 year ago
Churches preach social justice because we see it in the bible TIME and TIME again.
Jmage585 1 year ago
@Jmage585 there is no mention of forced social justice in the bible, which is what Beck is railing against. He believes the bible: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, just not in stealing from one to give to another. Just because we use the abstraction of government and don't personally see who we're stealing from doesn't mean that it's not stealing. When the Haiti earthquake went down, me and many others gave what we could to help, some even went there, but I lose my "points" when it's forced.
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
Warning.......Glenn Beck is a code word........for "STUPID IDIOT".
rah01kah 1 year ago
Read the Book of Proverbs to learn how the Poor should conduct themselves.
romulus463 1 year ago
The PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve Bank, which we have thanks to an old drunk named "Woodrow Wilson", and Herbert Hoover caused the great depression.
9nunyabiz9 1 year ago
Fine Then lets listen to what is said by someone not what you want to hear. Think for yourself do not let others do it for you. Learn the truth for only that will set you free.
do not follow any one blindly question with authourity boldly . no racist not violent not
quite anymore
GBEK61 1 year ago
Stop drinking the Koolaide Mr Beck is 1000% correct. Mr Beck speak the truth and thruth will always drown out lies.
GBEK61 1 year ago
@GBEK61
Beck is a whiny, hystrionic, little girl. He wouldn't know what the word "truth" meant if the definition were tattooed on the insides of his eyelids.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
So what's the point to this clip?? It does nothing to refute it, discredit it, merely re-states it?? Or can media matters not refute it? I think it's likely the later.
81artmonk 1 year ago
Glen Beck is right though. "Social justice" is just a code word for communism. Media Matters is just a communist propaganda wing.
timetravler100 1 year ago
GLENN BECK is promoter of hate against Immigrants, mainly Latino people. There is to Nazi German-American . I don' t like his wordiness. Please, boycot companies that promote it in their TV-shows in FOX and other channels .( 200 Companies did it ...!!! )
CAPISTRANTOMAS 1 year ago
In order for there to be "justice" there needs to be an injustice committed. Where is the social injustice that need to be corrected?
Is is wrong for someone in American who plays by the rules, works hard and becomes successful financially? Most of those people got there by creating jobs.
Would you take Chris Gardner's money away from him after reading the book or seeing the movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness?" Wouldn't that be "social justice?"
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
And what Media Matters or anyone else in the mainstream media won't tell you is that after Beck made this announcement he followed it up by showing a newspaper from the 1930's printed by the American NAZI party, entitled "Social Justice."
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Yes, because comparing Democrats to Nazi's isn't histrionic hyperbole or anything...
Beck is a hysteric whiner. Maybe if he'd ever had to work for a living he wouldn't be such a brainless drama queen.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Who is comparing Democrats to Nazis? I want to know what I said that compares the two.
I don't believe the Dems want to kill anyone. But before the Nazi's started their killing spree they were Socialists first. Specifically National Socialists as opposed to Communists who were International Socialists.
The party platform that Hitler ran on to get elected sounded a lot like the Dem party platform.
You don't call what Beck does work? Perhaps you are not paying attention.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Not you, Beck. You pointed out in your comment how Beck had held up "a newspaper from the 1930's printed by the American NAZI party, entitled "Social Justice."
It's a hallmark of the intellectually hysterical to try to compare anyone or anything you disagree with to the Nazi's.
And Nazi's were never real socialists--that was the pretense, but once they were in power they went straight to fascism. If Dems were like that Clinton would still be President today.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx What you have to understand, and Beck understands this, is that in the early 30's the Nazi's weren't killing anyone. The American Nazi party fell to pieces once Hitler started his killing spree. The comparison still stands as valid because Beck is NOT comparing libs to murders, he is comparing libs to Socialists and that comparison is accurate.
Who's to say what a Socialist is. There are so many variations. Hitler was a Socialist before he rose to power, so did Mussolini.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
No, he's comparing libs to murderers. That's the subtext to comparing anyone to Nazi's. It's quite dishonest to claim otherwise.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You can believe what you want to but you are not seeing the whole picture. Hitler was well respected by the American Progressives all during the 1930's. He didn't start killing Jews until 1941. That when the doodoo hit the fan for American Progressives. They had already had the rug pulled out from underneath them with Stalin's killing spree.
Beck is calling libs Nazis or Socialists, he's showing you how they are doing that all by themselves. Wealth redistribution IS Socialism.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
I see the whole picture fine. Now you too are trying to tie progressives in with murderers. Why else is it so important to make comparisons with Hitler? Hitler was not a socialist, he was a murderer. There's plenty of ways to make whatever point you and Beck are trying to make without sinking to comparing people to Nazi's.
There's really no excuse for that--it's petty hyperbole.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You're still missing the point. Before Hitler killed anyone he created a system of government that was strongly based on Socialism. Some call him a Fascist but he wasn't even that. He was a Nazi and they were their own version of Socialism.
It's not that we on the right are trying to tie Progressives to murders. It's that murders are a part of YOUR ideological past that YOU have to deal with. The vast majority of Progressives would never advocate violence, even back then. cont.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
You are still missing the point--there are lots of socialist countries that work and a few in history run by lunatics. Focusing on the lunatics and trying to paint all socialists with the same brush is hyperbole... petty hyperbole.
Not that Democrats are even socialists. Implying that as Beck is doing is even more hyperbole.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Name one socialist country that has produced as much as we used to, had as much freedom as we used to and has created as much wealth as we used to.
And if you come up with just one country, then ask yourself how that country would do if we weren't giving them tons of cash to keep them afloat.
They don't exist. Socialism is an absolute failure. It produces misery and poverty to everyone except the leaders. And when it begins to collapse under it's own weight you have Greece.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
It's not all about how much you produce when most of the benefits from that production go to a few at the top.
And as far as "freedoms" most of them have as much or more than we do.
And tell France, Sweden, Norway, GB, etc. that socialism is a failure.
You are obviously coming at this from a very dogmatic semi-religious perspective, which is not the best way to be objective.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Did you notice that I used the phrase "used to" when describing America. Of course the rest of the world is catching up with us because we have become a Socialist nation. Go back 25 - 30 years ago and you will see that we lived in a completely different country back then. After Reagan left office, we have moved rapidly and steadily into Socialism.
And the lie of Socialism is that in Capitalism the wealth only goes to the top. That is factually and historically false.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
The wealth gap today is similar to what it was in the 1920's, and is still steeper than it is in most countries.
And the whole "socialism vs capitalism" thing is silly. It's like debating whether competition or cooperation is better--neither is better, both are good depending on the circumstances.
The evil comes from trying to go too much to either extreme. It's no coincidence that the 1st world countries all have some mixture. Extreme in either direction leads to fascism.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Socialism is the ultimate "wealth gap." In this country, it used to be that all you had to do is work hard and your efforts were rewarded. It didn't matter who you were. Now businesses are regulated to death. You have to be rich to start a business. The start up fees and taxes imposed by the government alone are killing to most start ups.
This is Progressivism that directly responsible for preventing the poor from moving up. They don't want the underclass to achieve.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
And socialism doesn't produce them any more than capitalism does. And too far in either direction creates the conditions that allow those evil people to flourish. Too pure of capitalism is as much "the ultimate wealth gap" as too pure socialism. It's silly to pit one against the other as if they are enemies--THAT'S what causes the real problem
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx It is impossible for Capitalism to create a "wealth gap" unless it has been regulated. In a free society (the only place we can ever get to pure Capitalism) no one is prevented from success or failure.
The myth is that once rich, always rich and once poor, always poor.
If you look back 20 years about 80% of the rich back then are no longer rich.
The only reason why we have the same level of poor in this country that we did prior to LBJ is because we keep them poor.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Sorry but that's nonsense. Unregulated capitalism immediately creates a wealth gap, because without regulation wealth is the only form of power. There's a race to the top, those who win that race make the rules to keep themselves at the top--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Without regulation monopolies are a certainty, and pure capitalism only lasts until it becomes an oligarchy, with rule by the wealthy.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx We are just going round and round in this argument. Your opinion is that businesses should be heavily controlled by the gov and the poor should get paid for doing nothing. To me that is Fascism.
I think EVERYONE should have to work for their own betterment. In a free society we work as hard or as little as we want but we are responsible for the consequences not the rest of society. That ONLY comes with our Constitutional Republic the way the founders set it up and Capitalism.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Your opinion is that businesses should be heavily controlled by the gov and the poor should get paid for doing nothing. To me that is Fascism."
Actually what it is is a straw man--a dishonest form of arguing where you put words in your opponents mouth and debate against those fictitious arguments because you either don't understand, or can't refute, what the other person is actually saying.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I hate having words put into my mouth just as much as the next guy. But I was trying to sum up your arguments and nothing else. If I am mistaken I will gladly accept your correction.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
The bigger richer entities can always (without regulation) drive their smaller opponents out of business. If you're big enough to be capable of selling below cost for a time, you drive opponents out of business then raise prices. If you can buy in larger quantities you get better starting prices, etc.
In a pure capitalism the advantages the big guys have over the little guys is overwhelming and unbeatable.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx 30 years ago K-Mart dominated the low price department store. Before that it was Woolworth. Now Wal-Mart dominates. Nothing lasts forever, not even Wal-Mart.
At one time Wal-Mart was the little guy and yet they succeeded in dethroning K-Mart.
Department stores are not in bed with the gov like auto industry. Because of corporatism we only have 3 U.S. auto makers and auto prices have skyrocketed. Now we only have 2, Ford and the 2 Government auto makers.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
That's because of regulation. Regulation prevented Woolworth from leveraging their size to drive all their competition out of business. Without regulation and anti-trust legislation K-Mart and Wal-Mart would never have had a chance.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx First off that is total bunk. Woolworth was never on its way of creating a Monopoly. Sears was kicking them in the butt all the way to the top. There was always competition. Woolworth crashed an burned because they kept trying to undercut their competition by offering crappier merchandise. People want lower prices but they don't want to buy crap. Wal-Mart has seemed to figure out where the line between inexpensive and crap is right now but they won't last forever.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"First off that is total bunk. Woolworth was never on its way of creating a Monopoly."
You miss the point entirely. I think you are being intentionally obtuse at this point. Woolworth was never on it's way to creating a monopoly BECAUSE this is not, and has never been, a pure capitalism. If it was then either they would have, or Sears would have, or SOMEONE would have and K-mart and Wal-Mart would never have had a chance.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Excuse me for being obtuse. I realize that we never had pure Capitalism in this country but we've had the closest thing to it without absolute anarchy.
Anti trust legislation was mainly written to prevent monopolies. When you mentioned anti trust laws used on Woolworth I took that to mean you may have thought they were becoming a monopoly.
But my original point still stands, Woolworth died because they did not offer their customers the value they wanted.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
" I realize that we never had pure Capitalism in this country but we've had the closest thing to it without absolute anarchy."
So then you are acknowledging that some regulation (which you call socialism) is necessary for capitalism to work? Although a pure capitalism wouldn't really be anarchy--it would be more of a monarchy or at least an oligarchy, at least you seem to understand that pure capitalism doesn't work any more than pure socialism does.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Now who is putting words in who's mouth. I said that we have never had pure capitalism NOT because it wouldn't work but because we have a government. Anytime a transaction takes place there is a value traded for another value. If the government takes any part of either of those two values then it is not pure capitalism. It does not matter what type of gov it is.
That is why our founders put such severe limits on the gov. Now we want to put limits on capitalism instead.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
You said "we've had the closest thing to it without absolute anarchy."
Your own words. Not mine.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
The framers didn't put any limits on Gov per se. They put limits on the Federal Gov. and allow states to do damn near anything they want. And it had nothing to do with defending free markets--it had to do with limiting centralized power.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Actually the States are the ones responsible for ratifying the Constitution. Jefferson insisted on the Bill of Rights to protect the people from the government.
The main purposes of the Constitution was to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate means to equalize not control. In other words they made trade free between the states by removing interstate tariffs.
Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations was a best seller in 1776. It had a major influence on the founders.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776. It is never mentioned in the Constitutional Convention debate notes nor in the federalist papers. There's no evidence any of the framers had even read it at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Madison mentioned it in 1791 while opposing a National bank, and Jefferson mentioned it in a letter in 1807, but the Constitution was adopted 1787.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx So because they never mentioned reading that book before 1791 then are you saying they didn't read it any earlier?
Especially when people like Benjamin Franklin taught himself, Latin, French and German specifically because he was too impatient to wait for a translated in English versions.
I would think that ALL of the founders had read that book when it first came out.
Technically speaking it wouldn't have mattered because Capitalism fits perfectly with individual liberty.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaGoBragh
"So because they never mentioned reading that book before 1791 then are you saying they didn't read it any earlier?"
You claimed it was highly influential. I merely pointed out there's no evidence of that. No mentions in the debate notes, no mentions in the federal papers. Some of them may have read it earlier, but there's no evidence of that and certainly no evidence that anything in the Constitution was based on it.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Just a few ways a large co. can strangle smaller competition if not regulated--
1. More purchasing power means they can buy goods for less money.
2. More assets means they can sell at a loss in some stores for a period of time in order to drive smaller stores out of business.
3. They can make deals with suppliers saying, "I'm a HUGE customer. If you sell to my competition I will take my business elsewhere.
4. They can afford much more advertising.
Etc. etc.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Then what the small business has to do is offer better service and better quality.
Small business survive by being better than their larger competition. Consumers, maybe not all consumers but enough will always prefer value over price. Maybe the small business will never be as big but perhaps the goal is just to offer a better value.
But giants will not always stay on top. Look at Sprint. They were on top but their customer service was dismal. Now they are a distance 3rd.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Then what the small business has to do is offer better service and better quality."
I think you are naive. That fact is only true with regulations in place preventing the bigger company from leveraging their size and power to drive out all competition. Without such regulation it's impossible for the smaller company to compete in service, quality, or prices.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I'm not naive. I'm observant. I see it happening in the real world every day. I've gone to stores ran by the little guys specifically because the employees knew about the products they sell.
Do you mean all those regulation imposed on large businesses with employees over a certain number. The ones that keep the little guys little because they cannot afford those regulations? Is that what you are talking about?
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Are you aware that small business start ups actually GREW during the recent recession and that the high point for such start ups was during the 90's? The Clinton years?
What you are saying is a certain dogmatic mythology that is not based on facts.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx And then all those tech start ups came crashing down when the tech bubble burst in 2000 while Clinton was still in office.
No president every controls who and how many people will start up a business. Their can be artificial influences that make it easier but those ALWAYS lead to bubbles because it is based on fiat currency and false hopes.
When left alone the number of small business start ups will remain consistent and have a better chance at survival in the long term.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Yes, it was an artificial bubble created by overly-optimistic investing in the stock market. That's capitalism. I agree it had little to do with Clinton, but neither did it have to do with too much or too little regulation.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx That's one way to create a bubble. The most devastating way is when government starts investing money into something like new home buyers. Because when that happens you get the Great Recession that we are living in. Oh Wall Street does have a lot to share in that blame. But both Bush and Obama are very well connected to Goldman Sachs.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Another way is when, due to lack of regulation, lending institutions start making bad loans depending on the rising value of the collateral to cover the costs if the borrowers default.
I agree Gov. investment in Fannie and Freddie also played a role--this is not a simple thing.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Most lending institutions were coerced into bad loans by the government. Some still rejected it because they saw what the outcome of this type of lending would do to the home buyer.
Quite literally ACORN would march into banks and demand, out loud so that all bank customers could hear, that banks give loans to people who cannot afford them. While ACORN is not the gov. they were acting in accord with the Community Reinvestment Act, plus they have received millions from the Fed.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Most lending institutions were coerced into bad loans by the government."
Utter baloney. What a rationalization! Other than Fannie and Freddie NO businesses were coerced into making bad loans by anything other than their own greed.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx This was part of the terms for taking the bail out money and they were coerced into taking the bail out money.
They had been doing this before the bail out but that was part of the CRA that let them do this. It was never in their best interest and many like you said were greedy. So greedy that they did not see the road in front of them if they took this route. The smarter banks stayed out of it all together.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
They were hardly "coerced" into taking the bailout money--they were clamoring for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we agree that some regulation is necessary for capitalism to work. So then the question becomes what regulation? And how much?
True?
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx A small minority of banks took bail out money but most were definitely coerced by the fed.
There are some laws that are necessary. Most of those involve "good faith" type operations. But what passes for "regulation" these days are controls. Like the handicap law. Companies with more than 50 employees must retrofit their buildings in case they may one day hire a handicapped person. Regardless if a handicapped person ever applies there. Another road block for a small business.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
That's just not true. Private businesses above a certain size that provide goods or services to the public are required to remove barriers to access if doing so is "readily achievable." No business has ever been required to provide handicap access for employees if they don't have handicapped employees. Just look around--there are tons of businesses that don't provide handicap access. There's no handicap access where I work, for instance.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Readily achievable" applies to the physical surroundings if it can be carried out without much difficulty or expense. That has nothing to do with the question of if a handicapped person may or may not work at this location. Plus the ADA never qualifies what is "difficult" or "expensive." It gives a list of changes that can be made and some are inexpensive while others could cost into the thousands. For a small business those changes could be devastating.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
That's what I mean--I work at an employer with 170 (ish) employees, but no wheel chair ramps or anything. I've never heard of the requirement you cite, and it obviously isn't applied in CA. where I work.
Just what statute (or whatever) are you referring to?
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Oh, California! Queer child molesting capitol of the world. You work in a day care center so you can have free sex with little boys that aren't old enough to tell on you.
9nunyabiz9 1 year ago
@9nunyabiz9
Grownups are having a conversation, junior. Go outside and play.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx So are you telling me that at your company there is no way for a handicapped person in a wheel chair to get into your building? Are you saying there are no handicapped stalls in your restrooms. No handicapped parking stalls if your company has a parking lot. None of that?
I don't live in CA any more but that is where I have lived most of my life and I have never ever worked for a company after the ADA of 1994 and even prior to that act anywhere in CA.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
There are no ramps. A person in a wheelchair can be lifted up about 4 stairs, but no special accommodations, no handicapped parking spots, and no stalls in the restrooms. (All the restrooms are "one at a time" anyway... no stalls at all.)
Although we probably SHOULD have those things. It's not as if wheelchair ramps are expensive. Less than $100.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Next you're going to tell me that you live in the Bay Area!!! I just cannot believe that in the Peoples Republic of California you company is not handicap accessible.
Not only is that a violation of Federal law but you are probably in violation of half a million California laws. I mean really? In California? I lived the vast majority of my 52 years in So. Cal and 3 years in the Bay Area. Ever since the late 80's I have never seen a building that was not handicap accessible.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
It is not a violation of any law. Try reading what the ADA actually requires.
This is fairly typical of your whole argument--it's based on some rather hysterical exaggerations and misinformation. Lots of dogmatic hyperbole and few facts.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I think I might have had my years wrong on the regulation. It was 2007 not 1994. I was trying to find where I had read what I was talking about. I could not find it specifically but the article in the next 4 comments deals with it.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Employer groups are expressing concern about new federal regulations under the Americans With Disabilities Act proposed last month by the Department of Justice.
The rules implement guidelines enacted three years ago to update the disabilities act, which passed in 1990. They are meant to address ambiguities in the original law and complaints from disabled worker advocates about compliance by employers and operators of public facilities.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "The proposed rules, which take up 215,000 words in the Federal Register, are open for comment through mid-August. They range from the general (most work areas must have "circulation paths" wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs) to the specific (light switches in new hotel rooms must be no more than 48 inches above the floor).
The complexity of the rules likely will cause trouble for employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "There's a whole group of lawyers who do nothing but come into facilities and look for technical violations of the ADA and then file suit against employers," said Mark Freedman, director of labor law policy.
It's unclear in the new regulations how much retrofitting of existing facilities and workplaces employers will have to do to comply with the new rules, Freedman said.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@Mystylplx When the proposed rules were published, Justice Department officials noted that they contain a "safe harbor" provision for small businesses: If they spend at least 1% of their gross revenue on making improvements to accommodate the disabled in a given year, the next year they will be considered in compliance. After the grace period ends, the business would be exposed again to the law.
Fine, Howard "Regulation Watch". Orange County Business Journal. 7-13 July, 2008.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@Mystylplx One other point with this. I have no problem with making concessions for handicapped or otherwise disabled people. I think it is a moral obligation. But I don't think it is something that should be imposed by the State or the Fed Govs.
Also businesses who operate in newer buildings (less that 20 years old) never have to deal with these regs because the builders were required to build them handicapped accessible.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
I can't find anything about any of that from the actual ADA site. If you read what the actual requirements are from the source instead of getting all these hysterical exaggerations from sites like "Regulation Watch" you might be better off.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx This is not the first place I read about this and prior to that article I had never heard of a group called "Regulation Watch."
When I get a little time I will do as you suggest and go straight to the horses mouth and read the actual legislation. Something in there has people worried so there must be a reason for that.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Just out of curiosity, and you needn't answer this if you don't want to because I know this is a sensitive subject which you may not feel is appropriate, so no pressure at all to get into this--but are you by chance a Christian?
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I feel a set up coming on. Okay I'll bite. Yes I am a Christian. I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) for all my life.
Why do you ask (Alba asks, waiting for the hammer to drop)?
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
No set up--just that "Social Justice" is the thing that Jesus talked about most and was most concerned with. "Do unto others" "Whosoever is without sin should cast the first stone" "Store up your riches in heaven" ""The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Etc.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Oh there is so much wrong with this and the other comments you made prior to this.
Jesus NEVER once said that the government should redistribute wealth by force. He taught to the individual, He never addressed the government to make changes. His message is all about what the individual can do to save him or herself. Charity is YOUR responsibility, you cannot pass it off to the government to do it for you.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
He never once said the government should NOT do it either. He was mostly concerned that it get done--that the hungry were fed, the naked clothed, etc. He didn't seem to care much how it was accomplished, only that it WAS accomplished.
When it comes to Gov. about all he said was to pay your taxes and not grumble about it. Mark 12:17
We have a government that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Helping the poor was a commandment given to the individual. If the individual passes that off to another person then how can that person obey the commandment. The government is not going to stand before God at the judgement day in your behalf.
Plus you are totally overlooking one of God's commandments given to Moses. Thou shalt not steal. When a government takes money or property from an individual to give to another they are stealing.
Charity cannot be mandated.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
It was a commandment period. Jesus never said it was just for the individual. And we are a democracy--a nation of individuals. There are many ways to give. Matthew 6:1-2
And Jesus also (as I already said) said to pay your taxes without grumbling. Mark 12:13-17 He did not call it theft.
Charity can be mandated. Jesus mandated it.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Jesus never mandated anything. You don't understand that He never took our free will away. We CHOOSE to obey the commandments.
You also don't understand what charity is. If you mandate it, it no longer is charity. Charity comes from the heart because it is the pure love of Christ. I never feel that Christian love when I pay taxes, do you?
Matt 6:1-2 is about the individual directly giving aid to the poor.
Mark 12:13-17 is more about returning property than taxes.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaGoBragh
"Jesus never mandated anything. You don't understand that He never took our free will away. We CHOOSE to obey the commandments."
Yes and no. We choose to obey the commandments and if we don't we go to hell. With everything he commanded (mandated) we do, we obviously always have a choice to obey or disobey. That's how it works.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Jesus said that he stands at the door and knocks. He does not kick it in.
YOU have to make the choice to let Him in. But just like everything else in life, you have to live with the consequences of your actions. If you choose to follow Satan then you have to live with those consequences but the choice will always be yours.
There is no escaping any consequence. For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"But just like everything else in life, you have to live with the consequences of your actions."
That's exactly what I was saying. It's no different than paying taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes but you have to live with the consequences.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "That's exactly what I was saying. It's no different than paying taxes"
I know it may sound like I am opposed to paying taxes but I am not. BUT there must be accountability and frugality on the part of the gov. We have the polar opposite of that. I am opposed to our current form of taxation. We tax prosperity. I would opt for a national sales or a flat rate tax. And this taxation must be capped and it must replace all other forms of federal taxation, including corporate taxes.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Charity is aid given to the needy. It's still charity even if it's forced, though true Christians would not feel it is forced.
At the time Jesus was in the flesh there were no Democracies. In a democracy the Gov. represents the people--we vote in representatives who collect taxes to do the will of the people. I prefer my taxes be used for charitable purposes rather than paying for the most bloated military in the world, so I vote in people who will do that.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You have no clue about what Charity is. The government cannot exonerate you from your responsibility with stolen money. That is not charity.
The whole purpose of charity is less about helping the poor and more about teaching you humility and love. You think charity is ONLY about giving money to the poor. That is wrong. To be truly charitable you help lift someone up. You don't just throw money at them and then feel good about yourself. That is why the gov cannot do charity.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"The whole purpose of charity is less about helping the poor and more about teaching you humility and love."
Absolutely incorrect. The whole point of charity is indeed helping the poor. By your definition it takes all the "charity" out of charity. The way you define it charity is a selfish act. Charity is not about you, it's about those you help. It's not about making yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, it's about putting food in peoples mouths.
Matthew 6:1-2
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "The whole point of charity is indeed helping the poor."
Your definition is helping the poor STAY poor with blood money that was stolen from someone else who earned it. Your definition is not Charity, it's cruelty.
The Lord wants us to develop humility and love and that is why He commands charity from us. In addition we should direct that charity to help a person out of poverty rather than perpetuate it.
Socialism at best perpetuates poverty, at worst creates more poverty.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Your definition is helping the poor STAY poor with blood money that was stolen from someone else who earned it. Your definition is not Charity, it's cruelty."
That's your belief, and it's a belief that is QUITE inconsistent with what Jesus taught in the gospels. According to you when Jesus said over and over to feed the hungry he must have been cruel.
Your words, not mine.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "According to you when Jesus said over and over to feed the hungry he must have been cruel."
No those were NOT my words. I said that Jesus would want us to help the poor stand on their own two feet. So that those poor can have the opportunity to also help the poor. The idea is the raise everyone up out of poverty.
Ending poverty is NOT what Jesus came to do. He came to save us all from our sins.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"I said that Jesus would want us to help the poor stand on their own two feet."
Yet he said over and over to simply GIVE them everything?
I tend to agree that things like jobs programs are better than simple welfare checks, but I assume you call those socialism too.
And sometimes you have to feed them and give them health care before they have a chance to stand on their own two feet.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "I assume you call those socialism too"
Every program that only benefits a select few but takes from everyone is Socialist. That includes subsidizing corporations just as much as it does in subsidizing poverty.
I really cannot understand WHY you would not want to help someone out of poverty. It is beyond my comprehension. Your cruelty runs deep and the idea that you claim your cruelty is in the name of Jesus only makes you a blasphemer. You misunderstand what Jesus said.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Every program that only benefits a select few but takes from everyone is Socialist."
So if even jobs programs are socialist then apparently you don't even want to "teach them to fish...?"
The rest of your comment is hysterical hyperbole. I DO want to help people out of poverty. THAT'S social justice! It's YOU and others of your ilk who argue against such efforts, and use some rather transparent rationalizations to do so.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "So if even jobs programs are socialist then apparently you don't even want to "teach them to fish...?""
Is that what I said? I don't think so. Does your life revolve around the federal government? If it does then you are looking in the wrong place for solutions. You apparently have read the Bible or at least read parts of it so I am assuming you attend a Christian Church of some kind. Long before Marxism crept into Churches, Churches used to help people directly. Many still do
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Long before Marxism crept into Churches, Churches used to help people directly."
Not enough. And it's not an either/or. If more Christians actually gave to charity (real charities, not just the offering plate of their own church) there would be less need for government "social justice" programs.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "If more Christians actually gave to charity ...there would be less need for government "social justice" programs"
There is NO need for government "social justice" programs. Wealth redistribution or "trickle up poverty" doesn't work. It never has. It causes MORE poverty. There is not enough money on this planet to take care of everyone.
If you lift people out of poverty, as Franklin said, by "making them uncomfortable in their poverty", then you decrease the number of poor.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
No, it's trickle DOWN economics that doesn't work. We tried it in the 80 and it produced the highest unemployment in the nations history. Then we tried it again in the 00's and it did so again. Unemployment for 2009 was nearly as bad as it was under Reagan.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "No, it's trickle DOWN economics that doesn't work"
That's the myth anyway.
Reagan's economic advisor, Art Laffer, said they didn't act fast enough when Reagan took office. So most of Reagan's changes didn't start until about 1983. We had the largest expansion of peace time growth ever. The rich got richer AND SO DID THE POOR.
This greatly thwarted the plans of the left to keep the economy in ruins, like Bush and Obama are doing, so the smear campaign went into high gear.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
You are espousing an utterly selfish philosophy which says, "I've got mine so screw you!" You think taxes are "theft" if used to help the poor, but not apparently if used to support an incredibly bloated military. You keep saying "teach them to fish..." but then say that even jobs programs are socialist and therefor evil.
Your whole argument is hyperbole, starting with your grossly exaggerated notions of what the ADA requires.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "You are espousing an utterly selfish philosophy which says, "I've got mine so screw you!""
I never said that. That is your Marxism speaking.
If the military is actually bloated we should cut out the bloat. But what if the "bloated" military is the sword that Jesus told His disciples to carry, as you pointed out.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
We spend (depending on who's doing the accounting) either almost as much or slightly more than THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED on the military. So yes it's bloated.
But that's not the point--the point is you can't call taxes "theft" only when you disagree with how they are being spent and not the rest of the time.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Our "bloated" military is what makes it possible for you and I to argue. Otherwise one or both of us would be in prison right now.
I am going by what the founders decided was a valid reason for taxation. In their day only a very small fraction of people, mostly rich land owners paid taxes. The government was extremely small and limited in it's scope. There was far less money needed to run the gov. That is how it should be today.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
That's just more fear-mongering hyperbole to say if it weren't for our bloated military we'd be in prison?!?!? That doesn't even make sense.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "That's just more fear-mongering hyperbole..." If it doesn't make sense to you then how do you know it is "fear-mongering."
That's another thing. Why is that the left NEVER recognizes their own fear mongering and they think it is in the exclusive domain of the right? And it gets reported that way in the news.
It makes sense because the country with the biggest baddest military is the safest country in the world. Countries with weak armies and lots of natural resources don't last
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"It makes sense because the country with the biggest baddest military is the safest country in the world."
Nonsense. Tell that to Al Quaida.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Nonsense. Tell that to Al Quaida"
Do you know why Al Qaeda attacked us? They thought we were weak. Clinton had decimated our military. Political correctness has turned us into weaklings. The perception was that it would be easy to attack us.
Did you see the rest of the Arab world freaked when Bush responded to Al Qaeda. Gaddafi wet his tunic when he saw our response. No one in the Arabic world ever expected any retaliation from us.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"They thought we were weak. Clinton had decimated our military. Political correctness has turned us into weaklings."
Hello? We spend as much or more on our military as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. Your whole point was that a stronger military is supposed to make us safer. The facts, once again, dispute your theory.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "We spend as much or more on our military as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED"
What part of "Clinton had decimated our military" did you not understand? About the only thing Bush did right was to try to build our military back is an short amount of time possible.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"I am going by what the founders decided was a valid reason for taxation."
So you understand the founders thought taxation was valid and not "theft?" Perhaps we are making progress.
And the founders didn't envision us spending more on the military than the entire rest of the world combined.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "So you understand the founders thought taxation was valid and not "theft?""
Our founders understood that if they didn't return a value for the taxes they collected they would be ran out of office. That is why in the preamble to the Constitution there are only 3 things that We the People expect from our gov in return for taxes paid.
We pay for justice, law enforcement and the military. In return we get a sense of general welfare (not a dole) and liberty for the individual.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"We pay for justice, law enforcement and the military."
Well, and infrastructure. But yes, "justice" as in "social justice."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Well, and infrastructure. But yes, "justice" as in "social justice.""
The Constitution never mentioned "infrastructure". The 10th Amendment was included to pass off ALL other "powers" not delegated to the US are reserved for the States or the people. That includes infrastructure.
Perhaps the only modification that I personally would accept would be interstate highways.
And nice try. "Establish justice" does NOT mean wealth redistribution.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Mark 12:13-17 is more about returning property than taxes."
That's a blatant rationalization. It is clearly and EXPLICITLY about paying taxes. They ask him "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?" And he answers the question--"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
It has NOTHING to do with returning property.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You're not understanding what I am saying. It is about paying taxes but all currency was the property of Caesar. The money belonged to Caesar. Jesus said give what belongs to Caesar back to Caesar. And give what belongs to God, which is everything - including what belongs to Caesar, back to God.
The currency we use in this country does not belong to the government. It belongs to us. Way too many people on your side of the isle think your money is their money but they are wrong.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
I understand you perfectly. It is a rather strained rationalization. Jesus was asked whether people should pay taxes and since you don't like his answer you are trying to make out like he really answered some other question than was asked.
Besides, Roman currency was only Caesars in the same way that US currency "belongs" to the gov. It is legal tender--we own the value but they own the actual coins and bills. If you don't think that's true try melting down some pennies...
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx BTW, If you don't believe I can whip you and AT LEAST put you in intensive care, try me.
9nunyabiz9 1 year ago
@Mystylplx There is nothing strained, it just is how I said it. You're ignorance on the situation is what leads you to your conclusion. Jesus was asked if we should pay taxes, that is correct. But he didn't answer then with a Yes. He answered them by saying give what is Caesar's to Caesar. His answer was neither a yes or a no it was an avoidance of the issue because He did not want to be put in a position that would jeopardize His mission at that time. cont....
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Yes, a very strained rationalization. He answered the question and you are trying to rationalize it away. If you think you own your bills and coins then, as I said, try melting down some pennies to sell the copper and zinc, then call the FBI and tell them about it. Your rationalization is OVER-THE-TOP strained--it's utter baseless nonsense.
If Jesus was in the flesh today and was asked the same thing undoubtedly he would say
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Have you ever paid a quarter to smash a penny in a machine that stamps information about the place you were visiting? Why are those machines legal?
If Jesus were here now he would say "obey the laws of your country" but He would never say that you cannot change those laws if they violate the unalienable rights that He gave us. He would most likely advocate non violence unless those laws infringed on life and liberty. Ya know, like everything that Socialism inflicts on the people.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Why are those machines legal?"
They aren't. In that case the law is simply not enforced. There are many cases like that...Opium poppies, for example, are illegal, but they sell the seeds in many plant stores and little old ladies all over the place have them growing in their flower beds.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
Title 18 United States Code, Section 331
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Oh, and Title 18 United States Code, Section 333
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Oh, and Title 18 United States Code, Section 333"
Did you happen to notice WHEN this law came into effect and WHO is claiming ownership of that bill? The law came in 1948 under a Progressive president Harry S Truman. The bills that are specifically mentioned are the ones that have the words "Federal Reserve" on them. The Federal Reserve has never operated in the best interest of the United States, they are a consortium of international bankers. They want to control all of us.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"Did you happen to notice WHEN this law came into effect and WHO is claiming ownership of that bill?"
Excuses, excuses. What does that have to do with anything? Even if you were right, do you think Caesar was operating in the "best interests" of the Jews?
That's a pointless point even if it were accurate.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Excuses, excuses. What does that have to do with anything? Even if you were right, do you think Caesar was operating in the "best interests" of the Jews?"
It has to do with a fundamental change to our system of government that his been slowly and carefully orchestrated by Socialists ever since Teddy Roosevelt. It is a shift in rights descending from God to descending from gov. A shift of gov being of the people to gov controlling the people. It is a shift from who we were.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaGoBragh
"Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Don't know why that last got marked as spam, but read it anyway, it's the text of the statute saying it's illegal to destroy money. The value of it is yours, but the bills themselves belong to Uncle Sam. This is no different from how it was in Rome.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Don't know why that last got marked as spam" I've heard that if you paste text into a comment box, Google sometimes sees that as spam and automatically marks it that way.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
If Jesus was in the flesh today and was asked the same thing undoubtedly he would say, "Show me a dollar bill." And then he would point to the picture on the dollar bill and say, "Give to Washington what is Washingtons and give to God what is God's."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Give to Washington what is Washington's" Talk about strained rationalization? George Washington wouldn't take it. He would say that this is not mine. The same applies with Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and most others.
That said, Woodrow Wilson would expect you return all his $100,000 bills to him and FDR all the dimes go to him but they were Progressives who think like you. They thought that the people are here to serve the government.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaGoBragh
"George Washington wouldn't take it. He would say that this is not mine."
Nonsense. We collected taxes when Washington was President. And your Woodrow Wilson analogy is overly simplistic and literal.
It's called a "metaphor."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
"but they were Progressives who think like you. They thought that the people are here to serve the government."
Straw man. Not what I think, not what they thought.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Straw man. Not what I think, not what they thought." Regardless if that is what you think, that is the end of the road that you are on.
The rights of the individual are expendable under a collectivist regime. The collective has priority and a strong central government controls what the collective needs. THAT IS SOCIALISM.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Tell me, if you don't believe in what Jesus said, do you believe in the Constitution?
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States;"
It's the very first one of the enumerated powers, given to Congress by our founding fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "Tell me, if you don't believe in what Jesus said, do you believe in the Constitution?"
How did this nation fund the federal government fund itself prior to Woodrow Wilson? There was no income tax. There was for a brief p