Can you be a Christian and support the Prez ?

[HawgZWylde]

HawgZWylde- you are so right! we do need reform!
This kind of thing REALLY PISSES ME OFF!!!!

I always plan out my journeys- adventures, but this one- breast cancer and anemia- i didn't plan and have left me home bound... Somewhat bed ridden...(medication and treatments). Before all of this, I CHOSE not to watch or read about politics because I feel, for the most part, they are all on their own private agendas, wasteful with my tax money, and in my simple opinion- the President is putting his nose in other people's business- where it does not belong.

I've watched almost every episode of Law and Order, Bones, House, and the Big Band Theory.... So, I started watching some of the political stations. I have to stop... All it's doing is pissing me off! It seems, no matter what race, religion, or belief system our "leaders" have- they are ALL wasteful! And get away with it- meanwhile, taxes continue to rise to pay for their lack of knowing how to stay with in a budget! This has to stop. They are raping us of out hard earned money while they- regardless of what race, creed, or party, are frivolously spending!

The question asked was, " Can you be a Christian and support the Prez?" ---- the question should be, "Can you be Christian and support politicians?" The president is only one man- with many working under him and around him- all human- with beliefs, judgements, and values- does their personal ideology match your personal belief, moral and value system?

Man, I gotta get better and hit some water!!!! No more political stations for me! I'm going back to fishin' porn, fishing how too's, and maybe 48 Hours!!!

Live simple- simply live :)

Karen, I'm so sorry you have to go through that. I have complete confidence and faith that you will make a complete recovery and be back on the water and trails in short order. Right now, you need not dwell on the political and social debates, you just need to worry about yourself and healing. Leave it to others until you are 100%, then please keep informed. Perhaps if our society as a whole were more informed, we wouldn't have the corruption we are currently enduring. Sadly, we have a very misinformed public.

I rarely ever watch tv unless it's racing or fishing. Pisses me off too!


"The question asked was, " Can you be a Christian and support the Prez?" ---- the question should be, "Can you be Christian and support politicians?" The president is only one man- with many working under him and around him- all human- with beliefs, judgements, and values- does their personal ideology match your personal belief, moral and value system?"

Certainly. But if and only if they are honest, respect the law, and honor our INDIVIDUAL freedoms and liberties and the constitution that guarantees them otherwise I cannot support them regardless of race, party, or religion. When those that work for the government use their position in that government to further a certain government's, and their own personal and political ideology(and wealth) at the expense of the taxpaying private sector, by force, it's a problem. This is called government tyranny. The government works for us, not the other way around. In one of your earlier posts on this thread you stated that classroom spending went from $300.00 down to $30.00. Did you know that while in Africa, Obama pledged 7 billion $$$ to African programs? How far would that 7 billion $$$ go in our classrooms? I suspect a very long way.

Karen, my prayers are with you, now get back to healing and when you are well go stick some fish!

[DEVOREFLYER]

I just heard that the pResident announced that today July 4th has been changed by pResidential order to "DEPENDENCE DAY" from "Independence Day". Seems only fitting I would have to say considering the direction of the country under his leading from behind.

I think I will go out and hang the "Pirate Flag" to celebrate.

[Lady Quagga]

certainly. But if and only if they are honest, respect the law, and honor our individual freedoms and liberties and the constitution that guarantees them otherwise i cannot support them regardless of race, party, or religion or sexual preference.

ftfy......

[HawgZWylde]

HawgZ, an honest question for you.

As it relates to this thread, someone who is opposed to statism should oppose government licensing of all marriages, if they followed the logical course of their beliefs. After all, government licensing of marriage of any kind is by definition controlling social policy. Would you not agree?

Honest answer. First, one must take into context the definition of "statism". Like "socialism", statism's true definition is general and broad. In other words, by definition, all forms of government can be considered "statist" or "socialist". In modern debate though, both terms are used to define a "progressing" totalitarian entity or state. So with that being said, yes you are technically correct. But reality? Exactly how does the government control marriage or "social policy" by charging a $15.00 Marriage license fee? The info just sits in a hall of records file or databank to be used for proof of marriage for legal purposes...

[HawgZWylde]

ftfy......

Someone's sexual preference is of no concern of mine. But I do like hot Asian gals and brunettes...

[HawgZWylde]

Flooded the economy with newly printed money? Flooded? And of course you can show how this flooding has caused inflation rates to skyrocket, right? Oh wait:



But, surely this flood of printed money has devalued our currency at a greater rate than any other time in history, right? Uh oh:

Cumulative rate of inflation from 2000-2004: 9.7%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 2004-2008: 14.0%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 2008-2012: 6.6%

Just for giggles, let's go back 3 decades, breaking it down by Administrations!

Cumulative rate of inflation from 1980-1988: 43.6%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 1988-1992: 18.6%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 1992-2000: 22.7%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 2000-2008: 25.0%
Cumulative rate of inflation from 2008-2012: 6.6%

EDIT: Now, if you had argued that we've merely kicked the can down the road, and have put off addressing our debt and deficit issues in order to stabilize our economy now (such as it is), I might actually be inclined to agree with you. Or if you (in the same breath) pointed out how Americans lost $6 trillion in wealth due to big business engaging in irresponsible speculation, you would have won my heart. And policies that are hostile to business? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The deregulation brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1990 plunged us into the Great Recession (don't say the D word!) that we find ourselves in now. So much for being business friendly.

There is an interesting article on this subject from the Washington Post. This article hardly paints the Executive or our lawmakers in a flattering light, but does point out that inflationary spending couldn't begin to cover non-discretionary programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-debt-problem

"kicked the can down the road".

That's an understatement. Think things are expensive now? Which indeed they are. Soon the piper will come calling and it's going to be downright ugly.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1990? That's 1999 Quagga(ftfy) and only a part of the overall cause of the market crash. One could indeed argue that it all was set in motion in the '70's, with some arguing as early as the Wilson administration in the early 1900's. The final vote for the GLB Act was 362-5, senate 90-8. Bill Clinton then signed the bill. So yes, democrats were heavily involved. This crash was basically everyone's fault, left/right, corporate/private.

From your favorite source of info wikipedia;

"Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLB stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements."

In other words a mandate for subprime loans or face punitive action by the FDIC.

More wiki;

"According to a 2009 policy report from the Cato Institute authored by one of the institute's directors, Mark A. Calabria, critics of the legislation feared that, with the allowance for mergers between investment and commercial banks, GLB allowed the newly-merged banks to take on riskier investments while at the same time removing any requirements to maintain enough equity, exposing the assets of its banking customers.[28][non-primary source needed] Calabria claimed that, prior to the passage of GLB in 1999, investment banks were already capable of holding and trading the very financial assets claimed to be the cause of the mortgage crisis, and were also already able to keep their books as they had.[28] He concluded that greater access to investment capital as many investment banks went public on the market explains the shift in their holdings to trading portfolios.[28] Calabria noted that after GLB passed, most investment banks did not merge with depository commercial banks, and that in fact, the few banks that did merge weathered the crisis better than those that did not.[28]

In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, also defended his bill:

[I]f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.[29]

Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[30][31] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[32] An article in the conservative publication, National Review, has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[33] A New York Times financial columnist and critic of GLB conceded that GLB had little to do with the failed institutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

By 2003, both Bush and McCain came out in public speeches (you tube) warning of pending fiscal calamity if congress did not act. They didn't and here we are. Democrats fought the hardest against reform, including reforming Fannie and Freddy and then used the crash for political gain in the 2008 election cycle...

[Lady Quagga]

Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1990? That's 1999 Quagga(ftfy)

GAH! Typo!!!!

"Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLB stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements."

In other words a mandate for subprime loans or face punitive action by the FDIC.

And yet! Sub-prime loans were still issued, due to another act which I am too lazy to look up right now....

In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, also defended his bill:

[I]f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.[29]

Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[30][31] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[32] An article in the conservative publication, National Review, has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[33] A New York Times financial columnist and critic of GLB conceded that GLB had little to do with the failed institutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

By 2003, both Bush and McCain came out in public speeches (you tube) warning of pending fiscal calamity if congress did not act. They didn't and here we are. Democrats fought the hardest against reform, including reforming Fannie and Freddy and then used the crash for political gain in the 2008 election cycle...

Heh heh, so the lines (and risk) that banks take on gets obscured, by our legislature's own doing, then they raise a concern over what they've passed? The claim that a superregulator will now be overseeing is pointless, since the rules banks had to follow were thrown out the window. Cutesy. Mr. Graham's argument is nonsense - I will not try to compare our economy with those of European countries on an FNN forum. And Clinton? How exactly did the act soften the blow of a $6 trillion loss of our wealth?

[Lady Quagga]

Honest answer. First, one must take into context the definition of "statism". Like "socialism", statism's true definition is general and broad. In other words, by definition, all forms of government can be considered "statist" or "socialist". In modern debate though, both terms are used to define a "progressing" totalitarian entity or state. So with that being said, yes you are technically correct. But reality? Exactly how does the government control marriage or "social policy" by charging a $15.00 Marriage license fee? The info just sits in a hall of records file or databank to be used for proof of marriage for legal purposes...

Yes!

And yet here we are, in a situation where millions of dollars have been wasted over whether Adam and Steve can call themselves "married" or not....

[DEVOREFLYER]