diverborg

Not necessarily. There are those of us that actually are able to believe and understand the scientific community's discoverings and still have what could be defined as a "literal" interpretation of the bible. Sounds strange, but I do believe the God of the bible is the same as the God of science, and although many Christians would call me a heretic, I don't feel that scientific findings have to conflict with Genesis when given the context of who, how, and why the book was written. So as impossible as it may sound, I believe in a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, but I also believe in the evolution of species and that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to explain all my reasoning in one post, but here's a link that best sums up what myself and many of us have come to believe, and why. Keep in mind the discussion in this link was meant to address Christians that want to deny scientific findings, not try to convince scientists that Christianity can fit into their view. I'm only referencing the article to show that some of us aren't as illogical as you may think, unless you believe it is impossible to believe in both a creator and science. http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html Anyway this is getting off track a bit and probably deserves a thread of its own.

Very well said. I almost hate to use the term "Christian" anymore because it's such a relative term, but as a Christian I think I'm more appalled at the reaction of the society that considers themselves "Christians", than I am the kid. Sure, he sounds like perhaps a spoiled brat that just wanted some attention. Sure it would be much more practical for him in life to relate to the society he lives in if its not actually "harming" him in a realistic way. But.... why the hell does anybody that wants to or claims to preach the "love of Jesus", find justification for their actions of demeaning and shunning this kid? I just don't get it. I think if we were following what Jesus preached, we'd be reaching out to this kid and making your kids invite him over supper, or take him on a family vacation. Engage in some entertaining theological discussion with the chap. Just goes to show how disconnected the traditional American culturized Christianity, especially in the bible belt (I can say that since I live in MS), is from the reality of Jesus's teachings. I'm sickened by the dogmatic, pharisitical (if thats even a word) attitude of a society that as a majority classifies themselves as Christians. Sad, that I gotta call out my own here. But I'm not going defend people belittling others on the account of a religion that I supposedly share the same faith with them.

Pretty regressive. The percentages paid (of net worth or income) would be worse than they are now. Poor would pay huge percentages and rich would pay small. Rich people don't buy that much more clothes or food or cars. Yes, more and yes, more expensive, but I doubt that the Gates household buys several million times the stuff that the "Smith" family does. In my experience, most people spend relative to their income. Keep in mind sales tax isn't just "stuff". Its services as well which include everything rich people use as well to even create business. Its not like they can write off their expenses as "business" related like they can now and work the system to their advantage and dodge taxes. Everything they pay including expanding their business or empire is taxed. Also the term "regressive" is a bit up to interpretation. Do you think a family with 3 kids in the public school system and a combined income of 40,000 should have to pay any taxes? There's a good chance now they wouldn't be. I'm of the opinion that EVERYBODY needs to pay at least something in taxes. Whether the fair tax is the way to do that, I don't really know. But as of now there's a huge portion of our population that doesn't pay taxes. And again its all relative to what they spend, so I don't necessarily see it as regressive or favoring the wealthy. In fact as a middle class guy that doesn't buy tons of junk, I kinda like the sound of it. I just don't know how realistic of a collection method it would really be. Could turn out fantastically, or could really hurt tax collection if everybody sees it as a reason to quit spending.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere where he said his denomination is the only right one. I'm pretty sure the cover of the book is meaningless to God. I'm sure he's more concerned with the condition of your heart.

Any opinions on the "Fair Tax". I think the numbers they've crunched would be a 23% sales tax across the board, and no income tax. Seems it would solve a lot of problems on people whining about certain people carrying all the tax burden. Only drawbacks I see, is I wonder how much a tax like that will curb consumer spending and in effect the 23% wouldn't be an accurate number. Then I would be afraid if it was raised to compensate, then you can create a snowball affect in locking up the economy. Perhaps that would be an illegitmate fear seeing that everyone will have a whole bunch more $$ in their pockets to spend when their is no income tax. And of course states and cities will need to find other tax revenues unless they want to add an additional 7% to that 23%. But then a little higher state income tax rate instead would be no big deal if you're not paying any federal income tax. Thoughts?

there was no chance of the poor paying back. and remember that if the rich hadn't of had so many tax cuts it wouldn't be us paying now for their bailout - or borrowing so much from china... And around and around we go... Anway this could go on forever. Good talk, I think I've said all that I feel like saying. Cheers

that's when the money in the financial system couldn't cover all the promises the rich had made with one another and more money had to be created - hence quantitative easing to cover those promises. I feel I should clarify one thing. I did not support the "bailouts". But, you can call it what you want (passing money around between the rich), the bailouts purpose was to free up credit so you and I can keep buying stuff we can't afford and also extend lines of credit to businesses to keep them from closing up in order to keep our economy from freezing up. Also normally those defaulted investements would've been insured so banks would've collected lost money anyway, but when the financial insurance company runs out of money to pay those claims, then they fail along with the banks which is exactly what happened. A lot went wrong, far beyond what you're willing to accept. Blame whoever you want, but dont forget that, if everyone would've paid the banks back what they borrowed from them in the first place, there would never have been "bailouts".

I'm sure its all lumped in there, and yes some churches are horrible stewards of it, but I've really noticed lately in my area that churches are popping up like crazy where they are more a gathering of people in an establishment that they are borrowing for the day, and other than maybe one or two modest salaries, most the money is going to helping the needy in one form or another. Yes a little off-topic, but I think it's one thing to look forward to. The younger generations just aren't buried into the stagnant American Christianity traditions, and I don't think they'll tolerate a pastor making multi-millions and spending millions on marble pillars and floors. It's directly contrary to Jesus's teachings and its good to finally see people waking up a bit.

like those bankers that we bailed out. they really worked hard didn't they? You're right, they barely got their GED, got hired at daddy's bank somehow and sit behind a desk all day in a fancy suit twittling their thumbs and thinking about how they can screw the next guy over and not have to do anything. I'm sure they never had to put in any hard work or time to get to their current status in life.

the rich don't consume all their money (they have an excess over needs) and want - at all times - to get a return on their savings. when the post war worker/non worker tax balance tilted too far to the rich they got their hands on too much money for the financial market to give them all a return. hence they squeezed and squeezed for the market to be de-regulated in their favour and squeezed and leveraged (another way of saying they created more 'money') into every market inflating it until the promised returns on their 'investments' couldn't be delivered (not enough money in the system) and the whole shebang crashed. the housing market was just the last note in the melody - sure we can make money out of poor tenants, just watch us - not. I do follow your logic, but I think you're logic is based on a lot poor assumptions, while ignoring many other facts. I really think you could remove the whole "tax-cut" portion of that arguement and say the same thing "its the riches fault". As much as I try to connect your dots, the tax-cuts you mention don't seem to be the smoking gun to me. A few things to ponder.. If I have 500 jumps and I go out and buy a velcity67, and kill myself on the next jump, am I responsible for any of my actions, or do you feel that PD should take all the blame, and I'm just a victim of a ruthless canopy designer trying to make money? So we could go into a long drawn out debate on what triggered the housing bubble in the first place, and probably come up with very differing opinions. You say tax cuts, I don't want to ignore fannie and freddie and the fact that we originally pressured banks to loan to "everybody". Yes I'm aware once the bubble began banks saw $$ and took advantage of that. But lets keep it basic and say in order for there to be a crisis in the first place, many folks would have to be foreclosing on their homes rapidly. Assuming I'm facing foreclosure I either... 1. Took out a loan for a primary home that I simply failed to pay back (sounds like I might share in some of that blame) 2. I never had the money in the first place to pay the loan, but I was riding the housing bubble hoping that the rise in value then flipping the house would exceed anything I had to pay on the house. Sounds like I was taking a gamble and lost (which would mean that I share the blame). Sure the banks gave me the loan assuming that the revenue I made off the house would be enough not to foreclose not caring whether my current income was enough to make the payments. So yeah they share the blame, but I still took the loan, and I made the gamble. However, this isn't really any different to business loans banks give out. If I present a business plan to the bank and ask for $100,000 to start my own cafe, they don't care if I have the current income to pay that #100,000, they are gambling on whether my business will be successful. I don't think it would be good for this country to cease all business loans because we feel banks are evil and greedy. The housing market wasn't really different, people had business plans that were paying off like mad, till it all goes pop!! Plenty of blame to go around from the homebuyer, to the lender, to the govt for originally pressuring banks to expand their lending. Tax cuts? That's a hard game of connect the dots to fit that into the equation, but it seems you've been able to do so in your mind.

Something to ponder as well... First I'm a fiscal conservative, I know it sounds outrageous that I'd even support any notion that somebody get something that they don't work for, but ponder this first. We live in a country that doesn't refuse emergency treatment, and I think most everybody would like to keep it that way. Because of that, where do you think somebody's going to go when they need to see a Dr if they're uninsured. To the ER where its waaaay more expensive. Who's paying for that now? . . . . Drumroll..... WE ARE!! We are paying for it both in taxes and the cost of our insurance being higher to cover for it. One way or another that money is going to be moving around. Now if everybody is covered regardless of who is paying for it, the cost per person on my theoretical scenario would be even less, and further decrease what an insurance company would be able to bid the job for in the future. And we won't have people going to the ER for the sniffles ringing up a $500 bill when a family doctor could've handled that for around $75. Yes the rough draft may sound a little utopian, but letting private insurance companies compete for it sounds way better then the gobs of administrative waste and inefficiency with a govt run system. Not to mention avoiding all the fears of invasion of privacy, rationing when you're on your own plan, and control of our lives. Just need to make sure we don't kill the incentive to remain on your own private plan. This plan would definitely need to have limitations to coverage. There is no way to get around some level of rationing on the govt plan when you need to stay within a budget.

Correction, the $765 is what my employer pays. I pay an additional $200. So basically 1000 for my wfie and I, plus however many young'ns we wished to have. Either way, there's no reason the uninsured needs a plan as expensive as ours and I don't think the realistic projections would be that far off from the numbers I'm coming up with.

I just did some basic math to come up with an idea of how my ideas might compare to the new govt plan. Based on several articles I've read it seems that the new plan will cover about 30 million more people for the cost of an additional $100 billion a year. Those are modest projections, and I say its unlikely that they'll come in under budget. Ok, I'm on a group plan with a few thousand people and most would consider it far more luxurious than any plan that the govt should be offering as free healthcare. For my wife and I combined I checked my benefits statement and the cost is $765/month (keep in mind that stays constant regardless if we have 10 kids). But lets just play with high estimates here to give some illustration on how much better this bill could've been handled. If we take those figures (surely a group plan of 30 million would get a slightly better discount), and just say $300 per person per month. (even though it would be a lot lower than that for a family plan, not to mention a more basic coverage plan) Thats 3600/yr per person. Take that times 30 million and thats $108 billion a year. So basically for the same cost as the current bill, we could've covered everybody under a giant group "cadillac" plan that I pay for at work. Everybody gets to keep their current plan, hospitals are getting paid, nobody's defaulting on bills except for maybe co-pays and deductibles. No govt control over your healthcare, no rationing, just a private insurance for everybody at the same price as the current plan. Now figure in what an insurance company could actually bid for that job, you're looking at a lot lower number. Subtract however many people from that 30 million that have turned down group plans through their employer to save a few bucks at our expense. Make that plan a much more basic in its coverage. And also subtract all the families that are making 75,000 plus a year that could afford it on their own. And I bet we're looking at a number less than half of that. Plus imagine what decline in the cost in healthcare, when basically every patient is covered. I'll stop there for now.

Ahhh, healthcare discussion, knew there was a catch. Well to put it frankly, I'm all about taking care of the helpless, and I think most conservatives are (Keep in mind I don't necessarily consider myself conservative because I distance myself on a lot of their agendas as well). Its just that determining who is actually "helpless", and the means in which to do that are what is up for debate. I'd love to dive into that discussion, but not sure if I have the time an energy to do so. I will go ahead and say, I don't mind the idea of govt healthcare programs for those that need it. Especially children, I'm just not particularly happy in the way we did it with the current bill. I think there were better ways to address our current problems that would cover more people and reduce cost, but that's a whole long discussion. Edited.. What the heck, got a little time to blow. I will go a little further and say that I think we would've been further ahead just purchasing private insurance for all the uninsured in the country rather than the bill we came up with. Just have a contract with a private insurer thats up for bid every few years, that has some very basic coverage that will keep folks and the healthcare industry out of bankruptcy. It would be like one gigantic group plan, but there needs to be relatively significant co-pays so the system doesn't get abused. Anyway, thats my basic solution, determining how one gets covered under that massive group plan would still be up for debate. But I think it would be much more efficient than clogging up our ER's with Medicaid patients. Have you seen what an ER visit costs compare to a basic Dr's visit, yet we push medicaid patients through there instead of primary care physicians. If I had all the time I'd love to crunch all these numbers and see how covering the current medicaid patients under a private insurer with a very basic plan with co-pays would compare to the current system. Then I'd love to take it a step further, and just see what it would cost to take all the nations uninsured (noting that of course some of these shouldn't qualify for this plan if it ever existed) under that same concept and compare that to the newly adopted healthcare bill. Or... Take a specific amount say $300/person or family to use as a voucher toward whatever plan they want. Believe it or not there are some basic high deductible plans you can get cheaper than that. Lots of other options than the cluster of the current system or bill we just adopted, but if these folks are covered under private insurers, hospitals and practitioners would be much more likely to setup in these low-income areas because they will get paid. You saying that they tend to avoid these areas should tell us one thing. Medicaid is not paying enough to cover their expenses.

Who's balking at helping their neighbor? My state has been nothing but a giant disaster zone all year long and I've been astounded at how generous people have been with their time and money to help out a complete stranger in a time of need. They're literally coming from all over the country as well.

Don't you mean "Here's your 10 beers for $100".

How did the tax cuts on the rich contribute to the financial collapse? From my memory, it all began with Countrywide, followed shortly by the rest of the housing market and then the banking and financial insurance instituitions. But I won't rule out that there's likely stuff going on behind the scenes that led up to this. Seriously I will do my best to keep an open mind on this one, if you can give me a legitimate arguement.

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was really thinking. I have several dimmable led flashlights and headlamps for outdoors. I guess I was mainly thinking comp flour, don't dim. I do know the dimming features on LED's is a little more limited. They can basically only get so dim before they black out, where as an incandescant is not limited to how you dim it. There is something nicer about the light and incandescant bulb puts out, but other than the dimming circuits in my house, I already have everything changed over to compact flourescents, so changing a few dimming circuits to LED won't be that big of a deal to me, and I'll probaby do it eventually either way.

I'll be damned, they're one step ahead of me already. And those things are alot cheaper than $50.

this is the group that crashed the financial system and got us to bail them out... Could you elaborate on this? That seems like a very broad generalization. Are you referring to the start of it all, the housing market? Lets face it individuals buying homes way beyond their budgets are just as responsible as the entity providing the loan. Plenty of blame to go around on that one, but saying that all the wealthy are to blame for a crisis started in a very small sect of our economy seems a little silly to me. But then again I don't hate wealthy people. A rich guy in my town is the reason I have a place to put my skills to work in exchange for a salary. And since the wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the tax burden, I'd say they mostly bailed themselves out.

There are plenty of cheaper options besides a $50 LED bulb, but I gotta admit, I like having my dimmers. Those will be a thing of the past.

Nope. Creeping things included. You're right, I just went and looked it up. There was one verse that said everything on earth that breathed air through its nostrils was killed or something along those lines. Though insects breath through their skin, I'm not sure the purpose of the verse was to be that technical.

I don't feel like looking it up, but didn't the bible say something about only animals that breath air through their nostrils or something like that. I think that would rule out insects. Just sayin.. don't blame Noah for finding a cockroach in your home. There's just simply nothing on earth that can kill those bastages.

I'm probably in the wealthiest 50% (i really don't know, just guessing since I'm about as middle class as they get), and my wealth continues to grow each year through managing my money properly and working my ass off. Is it not fair that anybody that works for it regardless of income level can still grow their wealth? Why should I care if the wealthiest 1% are getting wealthier? Lets say I get 5% of a wealth pie among a handful of people from broke to uber rich. If the size of that wealth pie doubles over 10 years (a theoretical but realistic figure), should I be upset if I now only get 3% of that pie and the richest in the group are getting a bigger cut. I'm still wealthier than I was before. Or should I be angry that somebody is getting more than me regardless of how much I have?