Remove this ad
avatar

bachguy

Posts: 1,476

Creative Genius

Lead

Apr 9 08 12:43 PM

Tags : :

This is a cover story for time Magazine dated March 24, 2008.

The last idea #10 may also be of interest. It's entitled "Re Judaizing Jesus" which would also be a good topic of discussion. For this post, I'm choosing idea #1 called "Common Wealth". It is a bit on the topic of a New World Order that has been discussed so much.

The 21st century will overturn many of our basic assumptions about economic life. The 20th century saw the end of European dominance of global politics and economics. The 21st century will see the end of American dominance too, as new powers, including China, India and Brazil, continue to grow and make their voices heard on the world stage. Yet the century's changes will be even deeper than a rebalancing of economics and geopolitics. The challenges of sustainable development—protecting the environment, stabilizing the world's population, narrowing the gaps of rich and poor and ending extreme poverty—will render passé the very idea of competing nation-states that scramble for markets, power and resources.



And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.
ESV Numbers 33:53

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

bachguy

Posts: 1,476 Creative Genius

#2 [url]

Apr 9 08 1:10 PM

Well, I've talked with many conservatives here who say the U.S. was never meant to be a democracy but a republic. In truth, it's a hybrid.

And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.
ESV Numbers 33:53

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Apr 9 08 1:22 PM

Actually you are right... It was initially set up as a republic...

I see we have really shifted through liberalism to the far left... some people have no idea how far we have shifted, unless they read how things were and what people said only 100 years ago. It would shock you to think someone would make a statement they did, and during this time would be very offensive, but this nation had different goals and morals than today.

Through liberalism, we have really slipped into more of a socialistic society. I mean my uncle and another friend of mine had separate discussions not too long ago about the exact same topic. And they are really liking the idea that in a sense if everyone goes and works they all get paid the same.

I just about died... But it is becoming more and more common place to think of these things because of our society and how it has lead us to think this way. Whether it be through education, politics, media, or the last movie they saw, these ideas would have been completely blaspheming our country and laws just a lifetime ago.

Today it is open-mindedness... and we are so dependent on government that every one making the same amount of money (to a certain degree) would solve the rich/poor division and poverty all together. It would give poor people hope (a delicious ride) and possible increase education and decrease crime.

Don't laugh... cause this is catching on like wildfire.... It goes right along with the popularity of going green and being spice.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bachguy

Posts: 1,476 Creative Genius

#4 [url]

Apr 9 08 1:35 PM

Well, in all honesty, John might be able to answer this more than I, but I think what we think of as "liberalism" today (in economics) came about as a result of the Great Depression. I only know what I've heard from my dad and mom, but a lot of people were hurting back then and the government came in and gave people "make work" jobs and assisted with getting people back on their feet.

The REAL problem is, though, that even if we all agreed that these programs like medicare, social security, medicade need to end how do you get there from where we are now? I remember when I was in college 30+ years ago they were talking about how the baby boomers would affect social security, etc., but no one was willing to address it and chose to push it on to another generation. Now, with the boomers about ready to hit retirement age, social security and medicare are going to be pushed to the limit.

MY belief is that it's up to the conservatives to take a stand. That's what they preach. The liberals won't be cause they believe in it. The conservatives alone could actually address it, but they won't because they think it's political suicide. I personally think that the American people are looking for courage and leadership. Something sorely lacking today and in all candidates upcoming.

And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.
ESV Numbers 33:53

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#5 [url]

Apr 9 08 1:48 PM

Good post. I am not sure what liberalism was initially but I do use that term quite loosely as a way to convey my message. So I might be a bit off but I am referring to the liberalism of today or what people so commonly call the far left way of thinking...

Secondly, a lot of these programs are not bad, and were initially fine. And of course we get people who abuse the system...

But I think we find it too easy for citizens to rely so heavily on the government to bail them out every time some sort of crisis arises.

Now there is a trade off. You may have to work harder or go through some tougher times when you are independent and not so reliant on the government. Most people call that 'old fashioned' or 'old school'. Today we are always looking to do it better and faster and better our way of life, God forbid we break a sweat.

Now I am not against progressing as a society and making things better in our daily lives. The only problem is we are dependent on them rather than using what we have as a luxury. Luxuries have become necessities. If there was a way to keep all of what we have built, and the programs we have set in place to be more of a luxury and less of a dependence then we would be much better off.

But we have come to a point where if our oil furnace dies on us we would freeze to death. We wouldn't know how to survive.

Not to get off the point of the thread but because of our attitudes and way of thinking that has been taught through our shifting society we feel that things such as having an oil furnace, a toilet that flushes, hot water, cable tv, and X Box is the right to every citizen. If we don't have those things then our right to live just like everyone else in America has somehow been stripped from us.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bachguy

Posts: 1,476 Creative Genius

#6 [url]

Apr 9 08 1:55 PM

Oh, yeah, I agree totally with you Snowflake. Especially Christians need to realize that materialism is a sin, first and foremost. We certainly don't have an excuse.

To get back to the other. I think that getting rid of those programs would still have to be a phased in approach. You can't just yank social security out from under old folks who are dependent on it. I am 52 and would gladly give up my social security. I haven't given THAT much to it anyway. Then, you could make medicare "income dependent" somehow. People who can afford doctors appointments shouldn't be letting the government pay for them. That's just some initial thoughts. But the politicians are too afraid to make ANY changes. So here we sit.

And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.
ESV Numbers 33:53

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Apr 9 08 2:03 PM

Yeah we don't want to start pulling the rug out from under people. I don't think we will. But I think this actually supports our discussion a bit. You said you might be willing to give up your social security to help someone else. I think there are others out there who feel the same.

It may start out this way. Those willing can hand over their share of SS to someone more needy.

But would it ever get to a point where someone above a certain income level gets their SS revoked so it can go towards people in a lower income bracket?

When the government starts putting plans in place and then tried to regulate the economy and morphing these programs into something they weren't initially intended to do, we start getting into trouble. We start digging a hole soon to find out that hole is our own grave.

Then we need some other program to completely bail out that program and a web of a mess.

So in our society wouldn't it be easier to take from the rich and give to the poor...

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bachguy

Posts: 1,476 Creative Genius

#8 [url]

Apr 9 08 2:14 PM

Well, I would say we could yank it out from under the rich but only during the process of getting rid of it altogether. I think the key thing is that everyone feels like that everyone is losing something. Part of the problem we have is, that people don't like these programs but they themselves don't want to give up anything. We have to make everyone feel that they aren't being singled out. So if the rich felt that they were part of the process of eliminating it they might be more inclined to go along. (hopefully).

And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.
ESV Numbers 33:53

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help