The Presidential Vote

[Matthew1323]

1 Corinthians 5:20

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

You guys make some pretty good arguments, if we as Christians were truly a part of this world. Christ is our King, IMO! Shouldn't we be contending with our best arguments and energies for the true King and kingdom that we represent?

We can go to our political rallies and ball games and have a good time! There is nothing wrong with living life, enjoying yourself, and having a few interests.  Only, don't get so worked up every election cycle about who is in the White House or the State House at the expense of our main focus.

Ahhhhhh, now I feel better after getting that off my chest.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This:

Time for a better capitalism

Over the past few decades, the US economy has undergone a profound change.

This change has helped rich Americans get richer. But it has also contributed to growing income inequality and the decline of the middle class. And, in so doing, it has fueled populist anger across the political spectrum and slowed the growth of the economy as a whole.

What is this change?

The complete embrace of the idea that the only mission of companies is to maximize profit for their shareholders.

Talk to people in the money management business, and they?ll proclaim this as a law of capitalism. They?ll also cite others, including the idea that employees are ?costs? and competent managers should minimize these costs by paying employees as little as possible.

These practices may help boost stock prices, at least temporarily. But they aren?t actually laws of capitalism.

They?re choices.

Not long ago, America?s corporate owners and managers made different choices?choices that were better for average Americans and the economy. They also had a profoundly different understanding of their responsibilities.

?The job of management,? proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, ?is to maintain an equitable and working balance among of the claims of the various directly interested groups? stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.?

By paying good wages, investing in future products, and generating reasonable (not ?maximized?) profits, American companies in the 1950s and 1960s created value for all of their constituencies, not just one. As a result, the country and economy boomed.

Over more recent decades, however, this balance has radically shifted...

...Corporate profit margins have been rising for 15 years and are now near their highest levels ever. Corporate wages, meanwhile, have been declining for 4 decades.

The richest 1%? of Americans now own nearly 45% of all the country?s wealth, near the highest level since the "Gilded Age" of the 1920s, with an average net worth of $14 million in 2013. Meanwhile, the average wealth of ?90%-ers? has plunged in recent years to just above $80,000, the same level as in the mid-1980s. Millions of Americans who work full time for highly profitable corporations earn so little that they're below the poverty line. The bottom 50% of Americans own nothing.

Beyond fairness and decency ? the ethical decision to share more of the economic value a company creates with the people who devote their lives to creating it ? the problem with the profit-maximization obsession is that it hurts the economy.

And here is the issue in a nutshell:

Company owners are choosing to maximize short-term profit by paying their employees as little as possible.

As proven, capitalism, just a socialism, is NOT the answer. In the meantime, I am for helping those who need it both personally and through my government.

 

[sword]

This:

Time for a better capitalism

Over the past few decades, the US economy has undergone a profound change.

This change has helped rich Americans get richer. But it has also contributed to growing income inequality and the decline of the middle class. And, in so doing, it has fueled populist anger across the political spectrum and slowed the growth of the economy as a whole.

What is this change?

The complete embrace of the idea that the only mission of companies is to maximize profit for their shareholders.

Talk to people in the money management business, and they?ll proclaim this as a law of capitalism. They?ll also cite others, including the idea that employees are ?costs? and competent managers should minimize these costs by paying employees as little as possible.

These practices may help boost stock prices, at least temporarily. But they aren?t actually laws of capitalism.

They?re choices.

Not long ago, America?s corporate owners and managers made different choices?choices that were better for average Americans and the economy. They also had a profoundly different understanding of their responsibilities.

?The job of management,? proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, ?is to maintain an equitable and working balance among of the claims of the various directly interested groups? stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.?

By paying good wages, investing in future products, and generating reasonable (not ?maximized?) profits, American companies in the 1950s and 1960s created value for all of their constituencies, not just one. As a result, the country and economy boomed.

Over more recent decades, however, this balance has radically shifted...

...Corporate profit margins have been rising for 15 years and are now near their highest levels ever. Corporate wages, meanwhile, have been declining for 4 decades.

The richest 1%? of Americans now own nearly 45% of all the country?s wealth, near the highest level since the "Gilded Age" of the 1920s, with an average net worth of $14 million in 2013. Meanwhile, the average wealth of ?90%-ers? has plunged in recent years to just above $80,000, the same level as in the mid-1980s. Millions of Americans who work full time for highly profitable corporations earn so little that they're below the poverty line. The bottom 50% of Americans own nothing.

Beyond fairness and decency ? the ethical decision to share more of the economic value a company creates with the people who devote their lives to creating it ? the problem with the profit-maximization obsession is that it hurts the economy.

And here is the issue in a nutshell:

Company owners are choosing to maximize short-term profit by paying their employees as little as possible.

As proven, capitalism, just a socialism, is NOT the answer. In the meantime, I am for helping those who need it both personally and through my government.

Thank you smellin, Bernie could not have said it better himself.

 

[sword]

You talk about how great it was in the 1950's & 1960's. Maybe you need to go talk to grandpa again. The standard of living for most families improved greatly starting in the 80's. Want proof lets give it a try.

Not sure how you measure national business success but we will use GDP.
check out page 2 of this data.
40's 50's & 60's were slow compared to the Reagan 80's & post Reagan 90's.
https://ourworldindata.org/gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries/

Same is reflected in the U.S. stock market growth chart since 1929. Check out the post 1980 years.
http://www.findyourannuity.com/images/usstockmarket.png

OK lets go with household income by decade adjusted for inflation. Lets see what those greedy corporations did to household income.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-income-money-illusion.gif

Feeling the burn yet, lets try home ownership
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
Of course the banks and poor government loan rules have hurt these numbers for at least a generation.

How about car ownership;
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights38_registrations.PNG
http://tweedlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/vehicle-ownership-rates.jpg

Note: These are not the best sources of data, but the dept. of trans, the census bureau & the federal reserve web sites will verify the data above if anyone cares to look it up.

Except for the last ten years things have got progressively better for most people since 1929. The Bush / Obama recession has taken its toll on many.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You talk about how great it was in the 1950's & 1960's. Maybe you need to go talk to grandpa again. The standard of living for most families improved greatly starting in the 80's. Want proof lets give it a try.

Not sure how you measure national business success but we will use GDP.
check out page 2 of this data.
40's 50's & 60's were slow compared to the Reagan 80's & post Reagan 90's.
https://ourworldindata.org/gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries/

Same is reflected in the U.S. stock market growth chart since 1929. Check out the post 1980 years.
http://www.findyourannuity.com/images/usstockmarket.png

OK lets go with household income by decade adjusted for inflation. Lets see what those greedy corporations did to household income.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-income-money-illusion.gif

Feeling the burn yet, lets try home ownership
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
Of course the banks and poor government loan rules have hurt these numbers for at least a generation.

How about car ownership;
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights38_registrations.PNG
http://tweedlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/vehicle-ownership-rates.jpg

Note: These are not the best sources of data, but the dept. of trans, the census bureau & the federal reserve web sites will verify the data above if anyone cares to look it up.

Except for the last ten years things have got progressively better for most people since 1929. The Bush / Obama recession has taken its toll on many.

Again, growth is only as effective as those who have risen above it. IOW, are wages keeping up with inflation? Is cost of living keeping up?

I know it is fiction but it is a sign of the times. On the Andy Griffith Show, there was an episode where the Alan Hale character was a farmer from the sticks, came into town to look for a wife and attaches himself to Thelma Lou. In trying to persuade him to look elsewhere, Andy explains what it would be like to take care of Thelma Lou. He told the farmer that he would have to buy a house in town and get a local job to provide for her instead of his farming. There were openings as a clerk in the hardware store, shoe store and an opening for a night guard at the bank.

As a sign of the times, those jobs were adequate enough for a man to work them and provide for his family along with a mortgage. Is that possible today? Can you be employed as a floor person at Home Depot, get paid enough to pay for a mortgage, have several kids and have his wife be a stay-at-home mom? That is a VERY difficult possibility in today's society. Certainly impossible in some parts of this country.

So wages and the GDP rise. So do wages. On the flip side, so do the cost of things that support living like modern technology and medical care. Don't get me started on the use of debt now days. But have those wages kept up with the inflation that goes along with the other rise in costs? Not hardly. Hence, the middle-class is disappearing. No question, some of the middle class is disappearing because they are moving up and not down. But on the converse side, there are others who are moving into poverty and sinking deeper.

Here is a chart from 1975 to 2014:

Source

And from 2000-2014:

Yesterday, I was with a man who is terminal with cancer. In order to sustain his life possibly another year+, he has to get a treatment done where his blood is removed, scrubbed and put back in his body. For his body to even potentially accept this without infection, he needs to get his teeth removed. So when I took him to the oral surgeon, he was told he had to have $6700 up front for them to remove his teeth. Credit isn't accepted because he isn't expected to live long enough to pay it off. It's stuff like this that pisses me off. (Sorry, I rarely cuss but am angry at this situation and this is how I really feel.) I understand not doing it pro-Bono, but have mercy on the gentleman. I know he is broke and living off Social Security and a very small pension of less than $300 per month and has a disabled wife he supports. He can't afford to do this procedure. No stocks, bonds, 401K funds to tap into. Even with Medicare, the costs of his prescriptions/medications and treatments is enormous. The cost of his life is too much that society is telling him to die sooner.

This is just one example of where we are as a society. Yeah, he is making more than most people in the world but his debt is up the wazoo with no recourse. If this were a single instance, I understand. But with many elderly, they have to choose between their meds, mortgage or food for a particular week/month. Even WITH government help. Talk to homeless people to see what they did before they got in their situation. Go into the slums and ask poor families to tell you their stories. Watch grandmothers bawl their eyes out when you show up with a bag of groceries at their door. Look at the incredible smile on the face of a 4-year old when you give her a bike because her single mom could never afford one for her. Listen to the stories of the homeless teen girl, pregnant with twins because she was date-raped by a "friend" from school. Talk to the teenager who kidnapped his sister to live on the streets because his mom's drunk boyfriend would put a cable on the stove, heat it up and chase his little sisterl around the house whipping her with the hot cable. Look into their eyes and tell me how Walmart CEOs can take YOUR government monies so their kid's car can move from a 2015 Jaguar to a 2016 model, while there is hopelessness. I know government funding doesn't fulfill that need, but it can help sustain an individual and help them through.

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people? Why shouldn't governments be allowed to initiate domestic humanitarian efforts for its citizens?

Yes, for many, things HAVE gotten progressively better. Others, not so much. There are still too many that have been left behind.

 

[Twisted]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin:
As proven, capitalism, just a socialism, is NOT the answer. In the meantime, I am for helping those who need it both personally and through my government.

Proof positive is the fact that you see multitudes fleeing Capitalist countries on floats made from milk containers or any means possible to reach Socialist and Communist countries!

Oh, wait......

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

The problem is that low or no information voters keep putting loons into office that can actually intact the idiocy Smellin propagates....to keep the freebies coming!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

Really? Yet YOU want to have the government restrict gay marriage. It doesn't affect you one bit for two other people of the same sex to marry yet you want government to restrict it.

And don't you believe Paul? He said in Romans 13 that government was put in place by God to be an arm of justice, to make and enforce laws.

The term I used was "a" government, not just the US. Then why did God's OT Law make governmental procedures for the caring of the poor, widows, orphans and immigrants (sojourners) if doing so were not of God's intention of government? Why were the prophets throughout the Old Testament continually harping on Israel for their neglect of social programs?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

 

[Twisted]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

Really? Yet YOU want to have the government restrict gay marriage. It doesn't affect you one bit for two other people of the same sex to marry yet you want government to restrict it.

And don't you believe Paul? He said in Romans 13 that government was put in place by God to be an arm of justice, to make and enforce laws.

The term I used was "a" government, not just the US. Then why did God's OT Law make governmental procedures for the caring of the poor, widows, orphans and immigrants (sojourners) if doing so were not of God's intention of government? Why were the prophets throughout the Old Testament continually harping on Israel for their neglect of social programs?

LOL!  Your reasoning is so warped you MUST be drinking decaf!

First, I've never said anything about queer "marriage".  The government (are we talking federal or state?) should have nothing to do with marriage.  God has ordained who is to marry and He didn't list queers.

Second, yes, I do believe Paul.  Aren't you the one who has issues with Paul?  So you invoke him when it fits your agenda?  Does that not make you a hypocrite?  Yes, government is ordained by God.  OUR government has restrictions by law, which God has ordained.  Don't like it?  Move to Sweden.

Third, we do not live under the OT.  We are not Israel.  Point #2 takes care of this also.

You are one really screwed up person.  But I love you in Jesus' name.

 

[LongGone]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

Really? Yet YOU want to have the government restrict gay marriage. It doesn't affect you one bit for two other people of the same sex to marry yet you want government to restrict it.

And don't you believe Paul? He said in Romans 13 that government was put in place by God to be an arm of justice, to make and enforce laws.

The term I used was "a" government, not just the US. Then why did God's OT Law make governmental procedures for the caring of the poor, widows, orphans and immigrants (sojourners) if doing so were not of God's intention of government? Why were the prophets throughout the Old Testament continually harping on Israel for their neglect of social programs?

LOL!  Your reasoning is so warped you MUST be drinking decaf!

First, I've never said anything about queer "marriage".  The government (are we talking federal or state?) should have nothing to do with marriage.  God has ordained who is to marry and He didn't list queers.

Second, yes, I do believe Paul.  Aren't you the one who has issues with Paul?  So you invoke him when it fits your agenda?  Does that not make you a hypocrite?  Yes, government is ordained by God.  OUR government has restrictions by law, which God has ordained.  Don't like it?  Move to Sweden.

Third, we do not live under the OT.  We are not Israel.  Point #2 takes care of this also.

You are one really screwed up person.  But I love you in Jesus' name.

If government should have nothing to do with marriage why did you go to your county government to get a marriage certificate? Are you actually saying that one must be part of a church to get married? There are two parts of marriage. One part is the civil contract you enter into under law and the second is the blessing that a person may want as a marriage performed in a church or by a Christian minister.

Nice dodge on the question about God and government. Namely you never answered the question but attacked Smellin instead. If you believe what Paul wrote was inspired what difference does it make what Smellin believes about Paul.

We all know we are not Israel but it just demonstrate that God is not against government playing a role in taking care of the vulnerable.

Somehow telling a person based on a difference of opinion that they are a screwed up person and telling them that you love them in Jesus' name doesn't appear to denote rational thinking.

 

[Twisted]

If government should have nothing to do with marriage why did you go to your county government to get a marriage certificate? Are you actually saying that one must be part of a church to get married? There are two parts of marriage. One part is the civil contract you enter into under law and the second is the blessing that a person may want as a marriage performed in a church or by a Christian minister.

Nice dodge on the question about God and government. Namely you never answered the question but attacked Smellin instead. If you believe what Paul wrote was inspired what difference does it make what Smellin believes about Paul.

We all know we are not Israel but it just demonstrate that God is not against government playing a role in taking care of the vulnerable.

Somehow telling a person based on a difference of opinion that they are a screwed up person and telling them that you love them in Jesus' name doesn't appear to denote rational thinking.

Who said I have a marriage certificate?  Member of a church?  Two parts of marriage?  Wow.  As far as I know, marriage and how its done is dictated by local custom and traditions.  There's nothing in scripture about any local church wedding or having any minister perform it.  Of course there's nothing wrong with it either.

I didn't "dodge" anything.  My answer is there.

Rational thinking??  Did you read my forum name?

Excuse me, but the nurse is here with  my meds.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

Really? Yet YOU want to have the government restrict gay marriage. It doesn't affect you one bit for two other people of the same sex to marry yet you want government to restrict it.

And don't you believe Paul? He said in Romans 13 that government was put in place by God to be an arm of justice, to make and enforce laws.

The term I used was "a" government, not just the US. Then why did God's OT Law make governmental procedures for the caring of the poor, widows, orphans and immigrants (sojourners) if doing so were not of God's intention of government? Why were the prophets throughout the Old Testament continually harping on Israel for their neglect of social programs?

LOL!  Your reasoning is so warped you MUST be drinking decaf!

First, I've never said anything about queer "marriage".  The government (are we talking federal or state?) should have nothing to do with marriage.  God has ordained who is to marry and He didn't list queers.

Second, yes, I do believe Paul.  Aren't you the one who has issues with Paul?  So you invoke him when it fits your agenda?  Does that not make you a hypocrite?  Yes, government is ordained by God.  OUR government has restrictions by law, which God has ordained.  Don't like it?  Move to Sweden.

Third, we do not live under the OT.  We are not Israel.  Point #2 takes care of this also.

You are one really screwed up person.  But I love you in Jesus' name.

If government should have nothing to do with marriage why did you go to your county government to get a marriage certificate? Are you actually saying that one must be part of a church to get married? There are two parts of marriage. One part is the civil contract you enter into under law and the second is the blessing that a person may want as a marriage performed in a church or by a Christian minister.

Nice dodge on the question about God and government. Namely you never answered the question but attacked Smellin instead. If you believe what Paul wrote was inspired what difference does it make what Smellin believes about Paul.

We all know we are not Israel but it just demonstrate that God is not against government playing a role in taking care of the vulnerable.

Somehow telling a person based on a difference of opinion that they are a screwed up person and telling them that you love them in Jesus' name doesn't appear to denote rational thinking.

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

And you should not be forced to go against your beliefs in this matter.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

And how many of those countries are democratic in government? Or are they all dictatorships?

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

Yep. We need to get rid of the government helping people. Let's rid the country of the FDA. No need for the government to put any restrictions on our food quality. Food manufacturers should be able to put what they want in their foods and not need any quality control. Kids get sick and die? So be it. Free market at its best. No "gubming" controlling our food supply. Water? No need to test that either. The "gubmint" should just let those poor people in Flint die due to water contamination. It isn't "gubmint" business what people drink. If they can't boil their own water, they are just lazy slobs anyway. Collecting them "gubmint" checks while sitting on their lazy keesters, too lazy to boil their own water for their own health.

And ambulance/fire services? No need for them either. Neighbors should be helping neighbors, so if your house is on fire, they can grab their garden hoses and spray down your house. The well being of citizenry should be with the citizens along and the "gubmint" should use those funds used to protect our citizens should go to develop weapons to bomb the crap out of the Middle East instead.

Nope. Government shouldn't exist for the benefit of its citizenry. It goes against our freedoms to be restricted like this and to have them suck away our hard-earned dollars to help homeless kids and the elderly. We don't owe them anything but to tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

And you should not be forced to go against your beliefs in this matter.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

And how many of those countries are democratic in government? Or are they all dictatorships?

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

Yep. We need to get rid of the government helping people. Let's rid the country of the FDA. No need for the government to put any restrictions on our food quality. Food manufacturers should be able to put what they want in their foods and not need any quality control. Kids get sick and die? So be it. Free market at its best. No "gubming" controlling our food supply. Water? No need to test that either. The "gubmint" should just let those poor people in Flint die due to water contamination. It isn't "gubmint" business what people drink. If they can't boil their own water, they are just lazy slobs anyway. Collecting them "gubmint" checks while sitting on their lazy keesters, too lazy to boil their own water for their own health.

And ambulance/fire services? No need for them either. Neighbors should be helping neighbors, so if your house is on fire, they can grab their garden hoses and spray down your house. The well being of citizenry should be with the citizens along and the "gubmint" should use those funds used to protect our citizens should go to develop weapons to bomb the crap out of the Middle East instead.

Nope. Government shouldn't exist for the benefit of its citizenry. It goes against our freedoms to be restricted like this and to have them suck away our hard-earned dollars to help homeless kids and the elderly. We don't owe them anything but to tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Thanks for illustrating my point.
Building that raft to take you to Cuba? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

And you should not be forced to go against your beliefs in this matter.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

And how many of those countries are democratic in government? Or are they all dictatorships?

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

Yep. We need to get rid of the government helping people. Let's rid the country of the FDA. No need for the government to put any restrictions on our food quality. Food manufacturers should be able to put what they want in their foods and not need any quality control. Kids get sick and die? So be it. Free market at its best. No "gubming" controlling our food supply. Water? No need to test that either. The "gubmint" should just let those poor people in Flint die due to water contamination. It isn't "gubmint" business what people drink. If they can't boil their own water, they are just lazy slobs anyway. Collecting them "gubmint" checks while sitting on their lazy keesters, too lazy to boil their own water for their own health.

And ambulance/fire services? No need for them either. Neighbors should be helping neighbors, so if your house is on fire, they can grab their garden hoses and spray down your house. The well being of citizenry should be with the citizens along and the "gubmint" should use those funds used to protect our citizens should go to develop weapons to bomb the crap out of the Middle East instead.

Nope. Government shouldn't exist for the benefit of its citizenry. It goes against our freedoms to be restricted like this and to have them suck away our hard-earned dollars to help homeless kids and the elderly. We don't owe them anything but to tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Thanks for illustrating my point.
Building that raft to take you to Cuba? 

So yes or now. Should the government play any role in the development and maintenance of the health and safety of its citizenry?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

And you should not be forced to go against your beliefs in this matter.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

And how many of those countries are democratic in government? Or are they all dictatorships?

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

Yep. We need to get rid of the government helping people. Let's rid the country of the FDA. No need for the government to put any restrictions on our food quality. Food manufacturers should be able to put what they want in their foods and not need any quality control. Kids get sick and die? So be it. Free market at its best. No "gubming" controlling our food supply. Water? No need to test that either. The "gubmint" should just let those poor people in Flint die due to water contamination. It isn't "gubmint" business what people drink. If they can't boil their own water, they are just lazy slobs anyway. Collecting them "gubmint" checks while sitting on their lazy keesters, too lazy to boil their own water for their own health.

And ambulance/fire services? No need for them either. Neighbors should be helping neighbors, so if your house is on fire, they can grab their garden hoses and spray down your house. The well being of citizenry should be with the citizens along and the "gubmint" should use those funds used to protect our citizens should go to develop weapons to bomb the crap out of the Middle East instead.

Nope. Government shouldn't exist for the benefit of its citizenry. It goes against our freedoms to be restricted like this and to have them suck away our hard-earned dollars to help homeless kids and the elderly. We don't owe them anything but to tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Thanks for illustrating my point.
Building that raft to take you to Cuba? 

So yes or now. Should the government play any role in the development and maintenance of the health and safety of its citizenry?

Of course they do.
Fire, health and safety are legitimate roles of gubmit.

Now, why don't people ever flee capitalistic countries for communist, socialist countries?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Personally, since the SCOTUS' ruling on marriage I will not sign a gubmit marriage license bu perform Biblical Marriage Covenant ceremonies. The government doesn't define marriage as I do, based on Scripture.

And you should not be forced to go against your beliefs in this matter.

It is clear in the NT that the church should provide a safety net for her body. The government historically is filled with waste and corruption, not a single gubmit controlled success story to be found.....USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela......

And how many of those countries are democratic in government? Or are they all dictatorships?

An argument you, Smells and liberal idiocy have no answer for is that no one ever built a cardboard boat to escape capitalism for socialism. 

Yep. We need to get rid of the government helping people. Let's rid the country of the FDA. No need for the government to put any restrictions on our food quality. Food manufacturers should be able to put what they want in their foods and not need any quality control. Kids get sick and die? So be it. Free market at its best. No "gubming" controlling our food supply. Water? No need to test that either. The "gubmint" should just let those poor people in Flint die due to water contamination. It isn't "gubmint" business what people drink. If they can't boil their own water, they are just lazy slobs anyway. Collecting them "gubmint" checks while sitting on their lazy keesters, too lazy to boil their own water for their own health.

And ambulance/fire services? No need for them either. Neighbors should be helping neighbors, so if your house is on fire, they can grab their garden hoses and spray down your house. The well being of citizenry should be with the citizens along and the "gubmint" should use those funds used to protect our citizens should go to develop weapons to bomb the crap out of the Middle East instead.

Nope. Government shouldn't exist for the benefit of its citizenry. It goes against our freedoms to be restricted like this and to have them suck away our hard-earned dollars to help homeless kids and the elderly. We don't owe them anything but to tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Thanks for illustrating my point.
Building that raft to take you to Cuba? 

So yes or now. Should the government play any role in the development and maintenance of the health and safety of its citizenry?

Of course they do.
Fire, health and safety are legitimate roles of gubmit.

Now, why don't people ever flee capitalistic countries for communist, socialist countries?

So you are for government responsibility for the well being of its citizens. But I guess it is only on 'your' terms. And if anybody disagrees with you, he is automatically a socialist/communist.

How many of those "socialistic" countries which are being avoided are democratic (little "d") in their structure? Or are they programmed to keep the same personnel in the position of ultimate power for decades?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Shouldn't it be a role of a government to care for its people?

Only under the guidelines given in the Constitution, which is primarily defense.  Otherwise, no.

Our country is ruined with thinking like yours.

Really? Yet YOU want to have the government restrict gay marriage. It doesn't affect you one bit for two other people of the same sex to marry yet you want government to restrict it.

And don't you believe Paul? He said in Romans 13 that government was put in place by God to be an arm of justice, to make and enforce laws.

The term I used was "a" government, not just the US. Then why did God's OT Law make governmental procedures for the caring of the poor, widows, orphans and immigrants (sojourners) if doing so were not of God's intention of government? Why were the prophets throughout the Old Testament continually harping on Israel for their neglect of social programs?

LOL!  Your reasoning is so warped you MUST be drinking decaf!

First, I've never said anything about queer "marriage".  The government (are we talking federal or state?) should have nothing to do with marriage.  God has ordained who is to marry and He didn't list queers.

Second, yes, I do believe Paul.  Aren't you the one who has issues with Paul?  So you invoke him when it fits your agenda?  Does that not make you a hypocrite?  Yes, government is ordained by God.  OUR government has restrictions by law, which God has ordained.  Don't like it?  Move to Sweden.

Third, we do not live under the OT.  We are not Israel.  Point #2 takes care of this also.

You are one really screwed up person.  But I love you in Jesus' name.