Illusion

[Brother James]

I've been extremely blessed financially, but not every person who has been blessed financially is a household word. The problem with derivative complexity is that some people were using them that had no idea how they worked or what they were buying. That is indeed a problem, but it's certainly not sufficient to indict the entire banking industry. I don't want to get into a contest of who knows what. That is not productive. However, banking has played a strong roll in economic development in the west for over 500 years. And this corresponds almost precisely to the rise of the enlightenment / renaissance. Capitalism requires capital. Capitalism has created more prosperity for more people than any other economic system. Eliminate the banks that produce no "tangible assets" as you put it and you destroy capitalism. There are intangible assets that have enormous value. Songwriters produce no tangible assets either. The software I used to write was not a "tangible asset". And, as I pointed out, many markets would sieze up and not function if there were not bankers, speculators, and other trading partners willing to let businesses lay off risks. There are many kinds of risk, but market risk is a huge impediment to conservative companies. Major oil companies could not function without derivatives, for example.

Also, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with credit default swaps, which is nothing more than paying someone else to take the risk that a credit liability will be defaulted. The fact that there are winners and losers is not inherently bad.

 

[HammerStone]

That is indeed a problem, but it's certainly not sufficient to indict the entire banking industry.

Indeed, which is why I specified Wall Street Bankers. You've also heard them called those that are "too big to fail." I don't take issue with the local bankers down the street - my money is with a local bank whom I trust (as much as one can trust someone else in a business relationship) and I also know that my money is backed by the government (FDIC). I'm not out to indict the entire industry, far from it. I did exercise my prerogative and remove my money from a large national bank after they began to abuse their customers - that bank also almost failed and was later bought out by another large national bank with precisely the same problem. (I know because some family members toughed it out.) Yet, I had an ATM shutdown on me mid transaction a few weeks ago, and my local [regional] bank was on it even after hours. So hey, there is a positive for bankers!

We may have to agree to disagree about CDS's in their complexity, as it's much more than just a few wayward souls becoming over-leveraged. I wish it were as simple as firing the idiots, but I felt your characterization suggested this to be the case, and I simply don't agree with you based on my knowledge.

I'm actually not trying to match wits, it's just that I lived this too, I devoted a significant amount of my undergrad time to Economics and kept myself apprised of basic issues since I graduated. In another life where I could find a local economics job, I'd have loved to have gone further in this field. God had other plans, though. Regardless, it's not my intention to prove or refute wit, I simply want you aware that I do have somewhat of a background on the topic. To make things a little more clear, I came through school during the front end of the current nosedive. I actually got into it (respectfully) with my professor over how to handle the mortgage crisis that was unfolding. (My suggestion, which was marked incorrect, was to offer a first-time homebuyer tax credit. Curiously legislation doing this was passed a month or two after my paper was submitted and my grade was reduced a bit because of my suggestion.) My professor, of course, is from the Keynesian school. I myself am sympathetic to the Austrian school of thought, but I do believe government must step in as a last resort in certain circumstances. In my limited view, much of the problem was caused by housing supply and demand. I feel that the credit eased an otherwise worse issue, but that's another debate for another day.

My point is that the issue was framed ultimately by CDS's.

There is nothing inherent wrong with a CDS on its own, but there is something inherently dangerous about a system that rests upon them. Again, we do not understand the full complexity of CDS's, yet we are bundling a rebundling them to a level where the risk was untraceable and incalculable. It works on a simple level, but many times over, you begin to weave a web of complexity that even the largest brain trusts don't understand.

Throw in computers - which is the field in which I work - and then you have further complexity. Those software programs you built - I know they'll be high quality and probably beyond my current scope of operations (my field is eLearning at the moment, though in finance) - you're well aware of the issues you faced. I mean a simple thing like floating point integers would blow the mind of someone who doesn't understand programming yet can't figure out why 50.1 + 49.9 somehow yields 99.999999999998 (ficticious example because I don't want to think at the end of the day, but yet get the point). Now imagine a much more complex issue exists - and suddenly that .00000000001 deviation is not accounted for, resulting in millions or billions mismanaged or lost. (It's happened.) You know the fix for this. The government would too because it's simple. However, what if a mathematical hiccup exists beyond your comprehension or any brainiac consultant your firm may hire. What if we simply aren't aware yet? I think this is the case w/ CDS and other complex derivatives.

I'm not advocating that we scrap Capitalism, ban derivatives immediately, or hate on bankers, but we have to recognize the level of complexity is not an easy and rosy fix.

Bankers cannot be free to do whatever to the detriment of the country in the same way I should not be free to go and purchase a small army or buy a missle launcher. There's a point where individual rights are trumped by the greater good. It's not good for me to own a destructive force of that magnitude. The Conservative struggle is where is that at in each issue. The free market might naturally dictate good prices on a missle launcher, but that doesn't mean I need one to threaten that left-hand laner in the morning. Thus, government arrests me if I were to acquire such a weapon - and rightfully so.

My issue is that I don't know that being "Pro-Business" (as nice as that sounds) is being a good Conservative. My political theory is that government and business (moreso big business) need to work together yet be wary of one another to a degree. They simply should never be too friendly, or garner too much power. Crony-capitalism works both ways.

I think that reasonably into the Christian sphere of render unto Caesar.

 

[aspen]

Foreigner said,

-- Wall street bankers have Master's degrees, are responsible for the correct handling of millions of dollars of other people's money, and must have vast amounts of financial, legal, and investment information at their fingertips at any one time.

So, they have to be intelligent......and have the means to get a higher education.

The salary for that justifiably trumps the salary for someone who does nothing but picks lettuce and sticks it in a cardboard box several hours a day.

Nothing but......? Have you ever picked crops? I have and I know for a fact, I could not do it every day - it is too hard on my back. I have two Master's degrees - I have been blessed - thankfully, because manual labor is no longer an option for me

Or to put it another way, do you really believe that a job that requires a minimum of a Master's degree should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a job that has no other requirements than a strong back and a pair of work gloves?

Ha! I see you are not familiar with the field of social service....

All your comment illustrates is our societies values - money is more important than people.


-- A doctor graduates from college and medical school, can diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, and preform a wide variety of medical procedures. They are held accountable for their knowledge and can be sued for millions for malpractice.
Do you really feel there should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person wearing a headset answering car insurance questions in a call center?

I worked as a speech therapist for years - I worked with people with traumatic brain injury; my education was eye-opening, especially when I learned why speech therapists (outside the school system) make so much money. You see, we have a lobby called ASHA; they set the standards for all speech therapists AND they limit the amount of speech therapists that are trained each year - which, of course, drives up demand and artificially increases wages.

Yes, I had to have a considerable amount of knowledge to perform my job effectively, but it was hardly back breaking work! My most effective skill was patience and the ability to measure progress on a small scale. For me, after growing up poor, becoming a professional was like winning the lottery.

Our society rewards intelligence, and privilege as if it was earned.

-- A teacher gets a four-year degree, in many cases even a master's degree, and obtains a license to teach in a specific state. They are responsible for instructing children and ensuring they actually learn what is being taught them. They prepare lesson plans, multi-media presentations, create and grade tests, provide individual tutoring, etc. etc.
Do you really feel they should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person at McDonald's asking you if you "wish to superize that?"

Interesting that you would compare the two jobs - many teachers, especially teachers in poor districts, make comparable salaries with fast food workers. Effective teachers work 12-14 hour days - no one become a teacher to get rich. I would choose teaching over field work any day - no matter the wage.

To answer your question - I believe all workers in this country should earn at least a living wage. So, if you are a field worker, you should make enough money to raise an average family.

Well, let's look at it in more realistic terms, because most workers are not wall street bankers. I worked for 20 years as a software engineer and worked my way up to senior management. I went to college to acquire skills so that I could better support my family and help others (though for much of my life I wasn't much concerned with helping anyone but myself, but that's another story). I did not steal from anyone or abuse anyone. I merely created a lot of value for the companies and shareholders for whom I worked and they compensated me well for it. Someone who is skilled and very productive in creating value deserves to be compensated more highly than someone who creates only slightly more value than what they are paid. If I hire you to produce vegetables and you produce $15 worth of vegetables for every hour you worked, how could I pay you $20 an hour? You see, compensation is tied to the value that job produces. That is why some make more than others.

I might agree that a CEO is not worth $10 million a year, but that is the business of the shareholders. It is not the business of the production line worker.

Interesting - my cousin just got a job as a senior software manager at Amazon - the job requires a Master's Degree and at least 5 years experience as a manager - he never finished college and he is only 28. By the time he is my age, he will be retired. Our society rewards intelligence.

 

[Brother James]

I don't believe there is any such thing as a bank that is too big to fail, just as I don't believe that there is an auto manufacturer that is too big to fail. Lehman failed. And if GM had been taken through a normal bankruptcy, there would still be Chevrolets being manufactured and sold today. Bankruptcy did not mean that the company ceased to exist. It would have, however, meant that the union would have had to accept contract terms dictated by a bankruptcy judge, and that was what was unacceptable to the administration.

When you "Wall Street Bankers" can you clarify what you mean? Do you mean Goldman Sachs? Do you mean all of their lines of business or just some? Do you not like the trading unit, the investment banking unit, the asset management unit, or all three? If companies want to issue stock to raise capital, who would you have underwrite the issues? If investment banking went away, how would you propose raising capital for industrial and economic growth?

The free market did not create 2008. There were many places to lay blame. The packaging of mortgages into bonds is not evil. Laying off risk through CDS instruments is not evil. Freddie and Fannie, well, they and their political benefactors share a good deal of blame. Consumers deserve a great deal of blame as well. Many people could not stand to have a dime of equity in their homes, so when their homes appreciated dramatically they pulled all the equity out with the loose money being lent based on underwriting criteria from Freddie and Fannie that said people could lie on their mortgage applications with "stated income" loans (i.e. where you say you make a certain income but can't, and don't have to, provide any documentation for it.) When the housing market collapsed, people walked away from loans. There was insanity in the markets, but CDS instruments played only a small role in it. Now, the fact that AIG was deemed "too big to fail" and the government bailed everyone out is another political move, not a market-based one. If the market had been allowed to collapse, we would already have realized the corrections to valuations that needed (and still need) to occur. We could have moved on and would be in an economic growth cycle right now. As it is, the correction is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing for the rest of this decade it seems.

This is my view, and I understand others can have different opinions. If you want to get to underlying economic theories to back up opinions, we can do that as well. I have no problem backing up anything I assert, but it does sometimes get laborious in a discussion board setting. I believe Milton Friedman was an economic genius, and Keynesian economics has failed every time it has been substantially applied. I very much believe in private enterprise, market liberty, and personal liberty. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has not corrected market inefficiencies because governments have never been able to keep their fingers out of things long enough to see it occur.

 

[aspen]

I don't believe there is any such thing as a bank that is too big to fail, just as I don't believe that there is an auto manufacturer that is too big to fail. Lehman failed. And if GM had been taken through a normal bankruptcy, there would still be Chevrolets being manufactured and sold today. Bankruptcy did not mean that the company ceased to exist. It would have, however, meant that the union would have had to accept contract terms dictated by a bankruptcy judge, and that was what was unacceptable to the administration.

When you "Wall Street Bankers" can you clarify what you mean? Do you mean Goldman Sachs? Do you mean all of their lines of business or just some? Do you not like the trading unit, the investment banking unit, the asset management unit, or all three? If companies want to issue stock to raise capital, who would you have underwrite the issues? If investment banking went away, how would you propose raising capital for industrial and economic growth?

The free market did not create 2008. There were many places to lay blame. The packaging of mortgages into bonds is not evil. Laying off risk through CDS instruments is not evil. Freddie and Fannie, well, they and their political benefactors share a good deal of blame. Consumers deserve a great deal of blame as well. Many people could not stand to have a dime of equity in their homes, so when their homes appreciated dramatically they pulled all the equity out with the loose money being lent based on underwriting criteria from Freddie and Fannie that said people could lie on their mortgage applications with "stated income" loans (i.e. where you say you make a certain income but can't, and don't have to, provide any documentation for it.) When the housing market collapsed, people walked away from loans. There was insanity in the markets, but CDS instruments played only a small role in it. Now, the fact that AIG was deemed "too big to fail" and the government bailed everyone out is another political move, not a market-based one. If the market had been allowed to collapse, we would already have realized the corrections to valuations that needed (and still need) to occur. We could have moved on and would be in an economic growth cycle right now. As it is, the correction is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing for the rest of this decade it seems.

This is my view, and I understand others can have different opinions. If you want to get to underlying economic theories to back up opinions, we can do that as well. I have no problem backing up anything I assert, but it does sometimes get laborious in a discussion board setting. I believe Milton Friedman was an economic genius, and Keynesian economics has failed every time it has been substantially applied. I very much believe in private enterprise, market liberty, and personal liberty. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has not corrected market inefficiencies because governments have never been able to keep their fingers out of things long enough to see it occur.

Even Alan Greenspan changed his ideas about bank regulation, laissez-faire economic practices, and the free market. after the 2008 crisis.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner said,

-- Wall street bankers have Master's degrees, are responsible for the correct handling of millions of dollars of other people's money, and must have vast amounts of financial, legal, and investment information at their fingertips at any one time.

So, they have to be intelligent......and have the means to get a higher education.

-- They do have means. But if they don't finish high school, it is not anyone else's fault that college and additional opportunities aren't available to them. If they graduate high school, there are trade schools, tech schools, business schools, colleges, universities, etc. etc. etc.
Military service offers full tuition, books and a monthy stipend for just four years of service. It also pays back student loans.

I worked almost full time while in college. 35-36 hours a week. Couple of nights a week and often long shifts on both Sat. and Sun.
Worked over summer to save for college, as well.
Paid for the majority of it myself. Didn't earn my first scholarship for academics until my junior year.

States like FL offer guaranteed college acceptance for the top 10% of every high school. This is outstanding in that the the top 10% in inner-city or poor district schools wouldn't make the top 30% in other schools across the state.

And you ignore the fact that "working the fields" is not the only option for someone who does not have a college degree.
My best friend worked at Sears while going to college. Shoes and electronics. Minimum wage. No commission.
Come his 3rd year they offered him a big promotion but it meant he then had little time for college.
He is 37 now, no college degree, but managing a Sears at a low six-figure salary.
Work and willingness to show initiative and take on additional responsibilities goes a long way to success in this country.



The salary for that justifiably trumps the salary for someone who does nothing but picks lettuce and sticks it in a cardboard box several hours a day.

Nothing but......? Have you ever picked crops? I have and I know for a fact, I could not do it every day - it is too hard on my back. I have two Master's degrees - I have been blessed - thankfully, because manual labor is no longer an option for me

-- Honestly, no one has questioned how hard the work is. I am questioning why you think someone who works hard in one field (no pun intended) should make the same as a person who works hard in another field that has much more responsibility and requires additional skills and possibly schooling to perform it.



Or to put it another way, do you really believe that a job that requires a minimum of a Master's degree should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a job that has no other requirements than a strong back and a pair of work gloves?

Ha! I see you are not familiar with the field of social service....

All your comment illustrates is our societies values - money is more important than people.

-- Ha! I see you are not familiar with the world outside the field of social service.....
All your comment illustrates is your desire to engage in class warfare.

There are MILLIONS of examples in the US of people being born dirt poor with what appear to be zero options, no rich parent, no silver spoon in their mouth, who have said that they won't be kept down, and have gone on to be successful and financially secure. Why? Because they sacrificed and instead of whining that adversity isn't fair, they refused to let it stop them and overcame.

Colin Powell was born in Harlem in 1937 to Jamaican immigrants, faced racism even through his time in Viet Nam, yet went on to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State of the United States.

From a dirt poor beginning in a tenement building in Harlem in the middle of the Depression - a black man to boot - to becoming the chief representative of the United States the world over.

He achieved that because he DIDN'T do what you seem to feel is just fine: Sit back, claim the world isn't fair, and wait for someone to realize they need to give you more money because it isn't fair they have found opportunities you haven't.

He did it because he worked hard, sought additional responsibility, and refused let racism and "the world" keep him down.

Or closer to home:
My father is number seven of 12 kids (I am HIS seventh child), grew up speaking German on a farm in S.D. son of a 'Germans from Russia' immigrant. He had to learn English in order to start school in the 4th grade.

Served in WWII, went to college, worked through college because the GI Bill didn't pay housing and food, started in a bank as a bank teller, moved up through loans, and retired a bank President.
He didn't retire with a huge nest egg, though because he had nine children.
That was also why he couldn't do much to assist with college education for us.



-- A doctor graduates from college and medical school, can diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, and preform a wide variety of medical procedures. They are held accountable for their knowledge and can be sued for millions for malpractice.
Do you really feel there should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person wearing a headset answering car insurance questions in a call center?

I worked as a speech therapist for years - I worked with people with traumatic brain injury; my education was eye-opening, especially when I learned why speech therapists (outside the school system) make so much money. You see, we have a lobby called ASHA; they set the standards for all speech therapists AND they limit the amount of speech therapists that are trained each year - which, of course, drives up demand and artificially increases wages.

-- You make an outstanding argument for the dangers of unions and how they have likely outlived their usefullness.




Yes, I had to have a considerable amount of knowledge to perform my job effectively, but it was hardly back breaking work! My most effective skill was patience and the ability to measure progress on a small scale. For me, after growing up poor, becoming a professional was like winning the lottery.

Our society rewards intelligence, and privilege as if it was earned.


-- Close. Our society rewards intelligence....and hard work combined with initiative.



-- A teacher gets a four-year degree, in many cases even a master's degree, and obtains a license to teach in a specific state. They are responsible for instructing children and ensuring they actually learn what is being taught them. They prepare lesson plans, multi-media presentations, create and grade tests, provide individual tutoring, etc. etc.
Do you really feel they should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person at McDonald's asking you if you "wish to superize that?"

Interesting that you would compare the two jobs - many teachers, especially teachers in poor districts, make comparable salaries with fast food workers. Effective teachers work 12-14 hour days - no one become a teacher to get rich. I would choose teaching over field work any day - no matter the wage.


-- Ummm...no.
Chicago teachers (who just ended their strike) average - depending on who you talk to - between $71,000 and $76,000 a year.
Among other things they were offered a 16% raise over four years but wanted 30%.
Please show list for me the fast food companies that have workers behind the counter earning in that range.
Many of those schools in Chicago fall into what you call "poor districts."
A chicago teacher with a bachelor's degree and one year experience starts at an average $47,000/year.
This is a very good salary when you consider it is pay for NINE months work and not a full year.
That salary is made even better when you consider that most have their healthcare covered for them so that allows for even more take home pay.

Many teacher's say "but I have to get additional education over the summer." So what?
If you pro-rated your salary you are still getting a check for that time and in many cases the school district picks up the tab for the schooling.
And the additional education means an EVEN HIGHER salary for them later on.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to either take time off from work or go to night school to get additional education/training.

And I hate to break it to you but LOTS of people have to work 12-14 hour days (but most teachers who have done their job for some time don't work anywhere near that on a daily basis. You are exaggerating).

When I maintained the servers for a tech company I was salaried and worked many 10-12 hour days. I was also on-call and was called in to address issues late at night and on the weekends. Yet I still had to come into work the next morning. Comes...with...the...territory. I had many a 60 hr workweek.

I am number seven of nine children. Four of them are teachers. Two in Seattle. One in Minneapolis. One in Okalhoma City.
And my wife is a Para at a school here in N.D. They have worked between 12 and 26 years as teachers.
None of them face the hardships you talk about.
Long hours sometimes, yes.
Correcting papers at home sometimes, yes.
Additional work when the textbooks are changed, yes.
Preparations for parent-teacher conferences, yes.
But not a one faces regular 12-14 hour days.


To answer your question - I believe all workers in this country should earn at least a living wage. So, if you are a field worker, you should make enough money to raise an average family.

-- So, just to make sure I have this right:
A person who does nothing but cut and box lettuce every day should be given a salary that allows him to pay rent on a multi-room apartment, gas for his vehicle, a possible car payment, clothing for his whole family, and food for himself, his wife, and however many children he has? (this of course leaves out cable, cell phones, etc. right?)

There are SO MANY reasons why that is not a reasonable expectation.
- Even minimizing company profits, the additional expense to companies would drive food costs through the roof for all Americans.
- There would be an "upward ripple" where those who do jobs within the company that require actual skills, training and schooling would then demand (rightfully) an upward adjustment in their salaries. This would bankrupt the company.
- It would reduce the number of people that a company would be willing to employ, thus ensuring that even larger numbers of people will be out of work.

Economics 101.
Those that push this idea have obviously not thought it through without wearing their rose-colored glasses.



Interesting - my cousin just got a job as a senior software manager at Amazon - the job requires a Master's Degree and at least 5 years experience as a manager - he never finished college and he is only 28. By the time he is my age, he will be retired. Our society rewards intelligence.

-- Societies prosper because they reward intelligence. Why is that foreign to you?
Society also rewards hard work and initiative - being willing to seek additional responsibility and live up to it.

Your cousin was given the position because he had EXPERIENCE in an area that required extensive skills beyond picking and boxing lettuce.
Experience is a proven filter as to who can learn, who can show up for work, who can provide what you require.

That is why many college graudates end up taking jobs that do not require a college degree after they graduate.
To pay expenses, but also to show that they can actually get up and get to work on time regularly, work well with others, etc. etc. etc.
Exployers want to know that you can actually DO what will be expected before they hire you and give priority to applicants that can show that.

But you really need to invest in some reality time:
- A seasonal migrant worker (legal or illegal) does not do the work that justifies a salary to support every facet of providing for a family
- A person who made poor choices in life and finds themselves working as a full-time pizza delivery person at age 35 has no justified expectation that his salary will cover rent, clothing, food, car payment, gas money, etc. etc. etc. The work simply doesn't justify the salary.
- A person taking an entry-level position at K-Mart as a stocker does not perform the duties that justify a comfortable living wage. Staying with the company for a couple of years does however lead to that.



.

 

[Brother James]

Here is the issue. Some people want to see more and more poor people receiving government assistance. Others would like to see less and less poor people needing government assistance. There are policy alternatives that will yield each of these results. Which is better?

Okay, let me put it another way. Which party benefits from more and more people needing public assistance? Under the guise of "helping" people, of course.

 

[Foreigner]

[sup]Great question:[/sup]



[sup]http://nation.foxnews.com/food-stamps/2012/09/19/adults-food-stamps-doubles-after-obama-suspends-work-requirement[/sup]


[sup]Adults on Food Stamps Doubles After Obama Suspends Work Requirement[/sup]







[sup]

AP Graphics [/sup]
[sup] [/sup]

[sup]CRS report: number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after Obama suspended work requirement[/sup]
[sup]By Philip Klein, Senior Editorial Writer - The Washington Examiner[/sup]


[sup]Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps. [/sup]
[sup] [/sup]
[sup]In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.[/sup]
[sup] [/sup]
[sup]“This report once again confirms that President Obama has severely gutted the welfare work requirements that Americans have overwhelmingly supported since President Clinton signed them into law,” Cantor said in an emailed statement. “It’s time to reinstate these common-sense measures, and focus on creating job growth for those in need.”[/sup]
[sup] [/sup]
[sup]Under the rule adopted in 1996, food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependents were limited to three months in a 36-month period unless the participant in the program “works at least 20 hours a week; participates in an employment and training program for at least 20 hours per week; or participates in a (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) ‘workfare’ program for at least 20 hours per week.”[/sup]

 

[aspen]

Here is the issue. Some people want to see more and more poor people receiving government assistance. Others would like to see less and less poor people needing government assistance. There are policy alternatives that will yield each of these results. Which is better?

Okay, let me put it another way. Which party benefits from more and more people needing public assistance? Under the guise of "helping" people, of course.

I disagree. Being in favor of funding for social service does not mean that I want more people (people who have been supporting themselves) to quit their jobs and start receiving money from the government.

 

[Foreigner]

I disagree. Being in favor of funding for social service does not mean that I want more people (people who have been supporting themselves) to quit their jobs and start receiving money from the government.

-- But if they do, what do you think should be done about it?

 

[aspen]

-- But if they do, what do you think should be done about it?

Same thing that would happen if pigs started flying - mass hysteria.

 

[maccauk11]

I agree. All posessions are an illusion and a deception. Its funny how those who have lots are the ones who tell others to live simply. Owning stuff is not wrong though its having an emotional attachment to them like people do have with their mmobile phones and cars ehhee. If our leaders asked us to follow the early Chrisitans and bring your belongings and share them out wiht each other . How many people would do it. In relaity we lov eour possessions more thna we love God and our neighbour

 

[Brother James]

Nobody asked the early Christians to do that, their possessions were theirs to do with as they chose. They personally chose to live communally and share things in common. That is different than proposing that others decide for the individual.

When he lied about the price of land he sold, Peter said to Ananias, "[sup] [/sup]Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”" It was not the failure to share all that was the sin, but the lying about it. Ananias was free to do what he wished with his own property, but he was not free to lie. Further, they met in each others' houses. Yes, from time to time some would sell land or houses and bring the money to the apostles' feet, but certainly not all.

 

[Strat]

I agree. All posessions are an illusion and a deception. Its funny how those who have lots are the ones who tell others to live simply. Owning stuff is not wrong though its having an emotional attachment to them like people do have with their mmobile phones and cars ehhee. If our leaders asked us to follow the early Chrisitans and bring your belongings and share them out wiht each other . How many people would do it. In relaity we lov eour possessions more thna we love God and our neighbour

Applying christian principles to secular society does not always work,the christian principle of work and responsability must also be present...without it you have the corrupt welfare state where able bodied people capable of working do not and feed off the one's who do aided by corrupt politicians,the other beffect is that people see what is going on and those who are truely in need are often scorned.I remember the debates a couple of years ago over extending unemployement benefits,those who opposed it said it would destroy the incentive to work.....realy ? how come we don't apply that to people who have never worked a day in their life and have been on welfare,some for 2 generations.I would much rather help someone who just a short time before was working and paying taxes than someone who has never done either....except for the taxes on cigarettes and booze.