It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
okay, so, for you it is about religion. I see.
But, "God" isn't doing a damned thing about people starving or being homeless and unemployed, as far as I can tell. Not one thing. And it is not Unconstitutional for the people robbed of their homes and livelihoods to need help, nor is it Unconstitutional for the government to pull up the slack when the wealthy turn their backs on the poor.
God is allowing people who are rich to enable each other to rob, cheat, gamble, lose, and then get "bailed out" by the very people they robbed.........
God is allowing people to make their own decisions, and people are deciding not to give a crap about other people. Worse, they are deciding to take advantage of other people's faith in them to do the right thing. Which they aren't doing.
That wasn't a message from "America's God" (the Abrahamic one) as far as I know.
edit on 9-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by wildtimes
What a load!
The most telling part is when you said ”Evolve” as if Obama and liberals are an enlightened bunch.
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by NavyDoc
You are correct. From my limited understanding, Jesus would not have "taken" anything from anyone. He would have been rather pleased though at those that would have chosen to give.
The problem with this scenario...and there is no simple resolution...is that people are innately selfish. They are so consumed with clawing their way up a ladder or supporting their "McMansions" that they do not give anymore. A couple of dollars in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas time does not do the work of Christ. People that think it does are in denial.
The Jewish life of the old testament days was an odd thing in a way. Did you know...if you had a big garden or orchard, you could not get enraged or punish someone if the poor came into it and ate freely. Now if they brought a basket and tried to "stock up" that was stealing. You were expected to let them eat and sustain themselves. The modern equivalent would be if someone goes into 7-11 and scarfs down nachos and hot dogs while in the store and doesn't pay for them. If they try to box up a dinner and leave, that is stealing...if they eat it there, you are supposed to let them. No BS...that was the rules. How far do you think that would go in today's world?
I am for freedom and de-regulation with sanity as a backdrop. I know folks will squawk about environmental issues...blah-blah-blah....that is the common sense thing...you don't dump toxins in playgrounds and you don't poison the wells and groundwater of other people. But we have become so ridiculous on regulations...you know in some places...cow manure...often considered a positive fertilizer...is considered a hazardous waste...wtf?edit on 11/9/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Once again -- it seems like the actual stake-holders already have ownership of this problem. The spoilers in the under-performing red states, notwithstanding.
Is it any wonder that 52% of us didn't trust Romney's business experience? He never even tried to teach his people fundamentals with regard to the "national debt."
The econnomic mess derived form the idea of pushing for loans on those who could not afford them due to leftist ideals of "social jsutice." Like any leftist wealth redistribution scheme, when the bill finally comes due for all of the handouts used to buy votes, the results are bad.
The story is laid out in detail in The Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry and The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. Here it is in a nutshell.
Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.
Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.
Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.
But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.
Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.
Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.
With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.
Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.
In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.
Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.
The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.
When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate. (A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.
Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations! (Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)
Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by NavyDoc
You're right. I was making a point of how the actual doctrine...be it Christian or Judaic...is not followed anymore...it is twisted to meet the goals of the individual. Community and goodness have left the building. (not considering that most 7-11's are owned by folks that do not recognize the Torah or the New Testament...OMG!...did I just say that?)
I can live with that. I personally have the tools and skills to survive. It might not be dripping with opulence, but me and mine will do ok. As a Libertarian/psuedo-anarchist...I have a potential to say "screw all of you...I got mine"...but I also have a soul and a conscience. I have volunteered at soup kitchens. I have collected food for the poor. Not because I want to make a statement to others, but because I think it matters. I think we are all called to a point of humility where we put the good of others before our own. If we can do that, we can do anything.
What I find to be most dismaying is the need for over regulation. I find the "everyone wins" idea to be a false idealism. Everyone does not win...everyone does not get a trophy. The truth is and always will be...you have winners and you have losers...it's sad, but it is how this world is set up to operate. Can it ever be different? Maybe. I hate to use this as an example...it shows my nerdiness....but yes, greed could be overcome in a special place and special time. Let's just say we learn how to make "replicators" like in that TV show...we won't say it's name. If someone could bring a lump of matter to a machine and have it's atomic code re-written to create something else...win-win.
Science will one day defeat greed....science will one day overcome poverty and want. There are some damn clever people out there working on this problem as we speak...and God's speed to them...they need all the help they can get.
I'm not much into "God," but you fail in the basic premise that someone must be wealthy because the "robbed" "stole" or "cheat" and don't seem to be able to understand the fact that many people are wealthy through skill, talent, and good luck. How many people has Stephen King robbed? J.K. Rowling? George Lucas? Steve Jobs?
1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.