Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Happy Saturday!
Today’s quote is from a philosopher: “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top62 Comments to “Whirled Views 2.2”
Everyone must be sleeping in today! The quote brought to mind the phrase “a herd of independent thinkers”.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been awake for an hour. I just have nothing to say yet.
Report comment to moderator
I joked the other day about not having any barefoot in the snow stories to tell my kid to make him more grateful for what he has. That got me thinking about the question for real. How do you teach a modern American only child kid who does have almost anything he wants and definitely had everything he needs to be grateful for what he has.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, for us Tiajuana is a great teacher. It is sort of shock-and-awe though. We have to help the kids deal with the desparity. And all our kids go to the inner-city where my husband works. They are involved in his students lives. And all the older ones have become aware of the blessings they have in undivorced parents and in each other by way of their friends.
I caught my 19 year-old sneaking food out of the house for a friend of hers who was thrown out of her home by her mom’s boyfirend as soon as she turned 18. So I scolded my daughter, “What, that’s hardly enough! Get another bag. Here, this is Michelle’s favorite . . .” And I was grateful for what my daughter was grateful for.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: A few years back both of my grandchildren went on a mission to Mexico with their church youth group. They saw first-hand what it’s like not to have everything they needed/wanted, but more importantly, they learned how to reach out to others who need a helping hand. They’ve both learned to become compassionate, caring almost-adults.
If a mission trip of that sort is out of the question, perhaps some time spent helping out at a nearby shelter or children’s hospital would open his eyes a bit.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been thinking lately about ‘pet peeves.’ Not the serious things that disrupt our lives, but the little, perhaps silly, things that annoy us.
Mine, currently, are all those things tv stations put on the screen that block out part of what you’re trying to watch. It started with small translucent logos in one corner, now you see things like a character from another program walking across the screen and distracting you from whatever you’re watching.
I think the worst example I’ve seen was this past week: While resting my sprained knee, I was watching a rerun of “Home Improvement” when an advertisement for another program was inserted over Tim Allen’s face! There was another ad on the bottom of the screen, so that was the only place they could fit it. Grrrr
So, cyber-pals, what’s your pet peeve?
Report comment to moderator
My guess for the quote is B.F. Skinner. I believe he asserted that human beings are only poorly trained animals that need retraining. Of course, I’m not inclined to take the word of a poorly trained animal.
Report comment to moderator
Adios & Kayvee, I was already think along those lines. We’re planning on taking him on mission trips and back to the homeless shelter where we used to volunteer when he is old enough and I let him help me shop for our Samaritans Purse boxes. He has a generous heart to the point where I have keep a close eye on him to keep him from giving his good toys away to his friends. Some of the kids in the neighborhood are learning that if they ask for it he will give it to them.
And Kayvee I hate that too. I saw one the other day that took up ¾ of the screen.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes those annoying ads cover up subtitles. Some have sound, that can obscure a portion of dialogue.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
If your son is real young I wouldn’t worry about gratefulness. Kids grow into it.
Kayvee,
Tivos and DVRs are to blame for those annoying ads. People can skip the commercials now. When they take a two hour movie and make it three with progressively short spans of movie and longer commercial spans, c’mon! And the pop-ups are so annoying they become anti-ads. We were watching a very suspensful movie and the ads kept popping up and killing the moment. We finally turned it off and decided to rent the movie. So the only thing the ads convinced us to purchase was the movie.
One of my pet-peeves are people not using their turn indicators. I always tell my kids you can tell a lot about a person by the way they drive. Are they aware of others? Are they courteous? One daughter turned down a date because the guy drove like a jerk.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Kayvee, I agree. The stations here put weather warnings and advisories on the screen. The ironic thing is that those graphics cover the stations’ own graphics, such as who is the person they are interviewing for the local news. What I find really distracting are all the different graphics on 24 hour news channels. How can I pay attention to the main news story if I am trying to read the banners across the bottom.
Report comment to moderator
Another of my peeves is the misuse of English grammar. I never noticed before the prevalence of plural pronouns used for singular antecedents, even in journalism! Such as: “someone” (singular) linked to “their” (plural). I am a teacher, and am amazed at how often notes from the office come loaded with grammatical errors.
Another error common here in the Midwest is using past verb forms when a participle is needed, such as “I have went there often.” I here it daily, especially from my carpool-mate. He teaches as well, and often comments about how he hates to hear Pres. Bush ruin the English language (he is a Democrat). He then proceeds to do the same. To me, mispronouncing words by politicians is not as serious teachers using incorrect grammar.
Report comment to moderator
#3, I think young kids learn gratefulness at least partly by example, and that Adios is right in #10 that kids will grow into it – IF they see it modelled at home. Judging from what you’ve posted on here, your son definitely sees thankfulness demonstrated at home.
Oddly enough, the Veggie Tales’ “Madame Blueberry” and the Berenstain Bears “Get the Gimmes” have been useful in our house to help teach the older boys (5 & 2) thankfulness to God for what they have and contentment with it.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
I’m not saying goodbye. I have gotten lots of great feedback on my research and feel that on the basic issues, I’ve gotten about as much out of you as I can. I will post here when I discover new, groundbreaking sources.
But to wrap things up, I may have failed to show you — as conservative evangelicals — the value in rejecting the Christian America thesis as put forth by folks like Barton, Federer, Eidsmoe, and the late DJ Kennedy. Perhaps this is because I am not an orthodox evangelical Christian. But my chief influence on this issue is. He is as conservative and fundamentalist as it gets on both theological and political issues, and in this address made at his college chapel he explains his thesis as a whole and the importance for believers in rejecting the “Christian America” notion. If interested, check it out.
http://www.masters.edu/podcast/chapel/The%20Religious%20Faith%20of%20America%27s%20Fou.mp3
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
Might I suggest taking in foster children. There is a world of hurt right in our own backyard and when these kids arrive at your house with all of their worldly possessions in a grocery bag, he will begin to learn the value of sharing. The rest will come with time. This suggestion not to be taken lightly or by the unconcerned. These are real people with real hearts and cares, to be treasured for who they are not where they have been or what they have. But it was good for my first four to see that their own lives, though maybe not up to the Jones’s next door, was a world of plenty. It did not actually sink in until they became adults.
Report comment to moderator
RobHays, if you’re around today… I just saw your post on yesterday’s WV – praying for you! May God grant you his peace.
Report comment to moderator
Second on MMacMurray’s post. Rob — that just has to [vulgarity goes here]. My prayers are with you.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, though I usually skip over your posts, I will say we agree on one thing, this is not a Christian nation. It is a nation with a Christian majority and Christian influences in its Constitution, but I don’t think we would want to live in a Christian nation, as there would be conflicts as to what that would mean. With all the debates about how to interpret our current Constitution, could you imagine the debates about how to interpret the Bible as law of the land? I do not want to even think about it. Would we stone children for talking back to parents? Would stoning even be used for civil punishment? Would we indeed have freedom of religion as we now have? I do not even want to think of the logical ramifications of it!
A good article on just such ramifications is one I read years ago (from 1980) by an itinerate pastor I know, called “Christian Government”. It can be found here: http://tiny.cc/8J1P3
Especially of interest might be this paragraph:
Report comment to moderator
Wow! I got here this late, and nobody has correctly named the source of the quote. Bertrand Russell (I think). I used to read him a lot in my pre-belief days and use his stuff as a source for laughs at other people, like Bible-believing Christians. Later, I didn’t think he was so funny anymore, mostly because the Holy Spirit convicted me that laughing at other people was not Biblical, and I should instead laugh at myself. But occasionally, as in this case, he was wise. This particular quote is unfortuanately oh, so true.
Report comment to moderator
Janie wins! Bertrand Russell is correct. Please enjoy your digital hot chocolate…
~~@)
Report comment to moderator
PeterL:
The poor grammar bothers me, too. Recently I heard the host of a landscaping program refer to the homeowners thusly: ‘Her and her husband decided to …’ I always think, if the bad grammar jumped out at me, why didn’t the program’s editor see it and correct it? Answer: He probably went to the same sort of school as the host.
Report comment to moderator
Aargh! I lost a long post to Jon Rowe, agreeing with him about this not being a Christian nation. I will not retype, in case it reappears. Anyway, I linked to an article written in 1980 by a pastor friend, arguing against the then popular issue. Here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/2lx3yg.
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee #20- I taught at a school where the English teacher had similar bad grammar. Example: When asked what she and her sister did over the weekend, she replied, “Me and her went shopping…” No wonder some people use bad grammar, if English teachers use it!
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
So it’s a Midwest thing? We’ve been surprised, since we moved first to Michigan and now to Iowa, how often we hear well-educated people make grammatical errors – especially the verb tense one. I work in an IT department, which means I work with a bunch of smart people – and a college degree is pretty much required. It amazes me how often the documentation I am reviewing says something like “this program has ran already” or “we should of done this first.”
I think the mismatch between “someone” and “their,” though, is because using masculine pronouns in a generic sense doesn’t sound right to people anymore. It started out as a deliberate attempt to combat gender discrimination, but now it’s so widespread that it’s simply become the way people think and talk. No matter whether we like the change or not, once enough people use it that way, that becomes the way the words are used – that’s the way language changes.
Report comment to moderator
PeterL–I can’t get anywhere with your link. Is it me (probably)? I’d love to see what it says.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe–so that’s what all that stuff was about. Sorry I was rude and said you were boring. I never did believe that this was a “Christian” nation. It used to have a more Christian CULTURE, to be sure, but how could it be a “Christian nation”? Wouldn’t that have violated the “establishment of religion” clause in the constitution? Just asking–I’m not real sharp on this kind of thing.
Report comment to moderator
Yum, hot chocolate!
This Russell quote is basically part of what I was trying to say for two days on Lynn’s “ex-gay” thread. Just sterotype a group, whip up some hysteria, and watch people start being really hateful.
Report comment to moderator
RobHays–So sorry about your job! That can be so scary, to say the least. I’m praying that the Lord is right this very minute working on a great new job for you.
Hang in there.
Report comment to moderator
Janie,
No, it wouldn’t have violated the establishment clause for this to be considered a Christian nation. The first top justice of the Supreme Court said clearly it IS a Christian nation. The establishment clause says only that Congress can’t make laws favoring one religion–a law making Muslims pay higher taxes, for instance. (I’ve heard it argued that they assumed it was a Christian nation, but had in mind more whether it was legitimate to favor one denomination over another.)
But interestingly, states WERE allowed to establish state religions; many had done so by the time of the first amendment, and they stayed in place afterward. (States established a particular denomination–Catholicism in Maryland, Mary land, is the only one I can think of offhand.)
Read Ten Tortured Words, a new and excellent book on the first amendment, if this subject interests you.
Report comment to moderator
Rob Hays: I’m Sorry. Looking for a job is the hardest job around. I’m praying for you. I hadn’t noticed your post and had to go back to read the late 2.1 posts.
Jon Rowe, come back when you can. I realize that there was a spiritual decline about the time of the American Revolution. (My professor in religious history concludes his history book with a section called: “The Period of General Secularization (1789 to present). (That was a 1959 book and he has since died.) But there have been awakenings and revivals during that time, and America has been a saving force to the world, in more ways than one.
My oldest granddaughter taught our little ones until her first (she’s pregnant again) was born. Every time she spoke, I said, sometimes aloud, “She’s teaching our kids ?”.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue,
I happened on the “Anti-homosexual Christianity” thread by mistake, and found a question by you as to why sexual sin is considered the worst kind, and specifically why one can divorce for sexual sin and not for murder. See my personal answer (not a theologian’s answer) at post 212.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Cheryl D. I’ll take a look at that book when I finish the one I’m now reading. Perhaps I can fill in some holes in my grasp of civics and American history. (My husband considers me hopelessly uninformed in this area.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D is correct. In the previously referenced book (#29, Robert A Baker, A Summary of Christian History Broadman, 1959), he states that Conn, NH, and Mass had state religions until 1817, 1818, & 1833 respectively.
It’s interesting, in his final chapter, “The Contemporary Outlook”, he says, “Undoubtedly this century will witness a bold effort to separate Christ from the Christian movement.”
An article in today’s local paper, under the headling “‘Open, affirming” congregation.
“Members of the Hendersonville First United Church of Christ voted overwhelmingly to become and “‘Open and Affirming’ congregation” … adopting the following statement: ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, threre is no longer slave or free, (etc.) …. Gal 3:28.
‘As Christians and members of (FCUCH) we are a diverse group of people. We are people of various ages, races, gender identities, accomplishments, goals, abilities, sexual orientations, theological and political beliefs. etc.
“In our diversity, we find strength and a way to understand the inclusiveness of God. We welcome all people to join our common missison through participation and leadership in this communion of faith.”
I’ll have to admit, it sounds good. Maybe we can all get together and build a tower whose top may reach to heaven.
Report comment to moderator
The typos above are because I hit “post” when I meant to hit “preview”..None of you do that.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
There’s a preview button?
Report comment to moderator
“The first top justice of the Supreme Court said clearly it IS a Christian nation.”
And who was that?
It would violate the Establishment Clause for the United States to officially be a “Christian Nation,” or at least the Founders who passed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli didn’t believe America was so. It said: “the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?”
However the original EC did not apply to the states and many of them had established churches. Mass. was the last to disestablish in 1833.
Report comment to moderator
Chas., Janie, and Peter L, thanks for your comments.
As I noted, I will post here, but will try to only when I uncover new notable things, not “rehash,” old arguments or facts.
Jon Meacham’s book “American Gospel” is much better than Mansfield’s by the way on this topic.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a good primary source for the Treaty of Tripoli and the quotation in context.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm
Reading the history of disestablishment in Mass. is interesting because it relates to my interest in unitarianism. The Congregational Churches were established legally and some (a minority) preached theological unitarianism from the early-mid 1700s. Yet, because such was “heresy,” it remained in the closet. This “heresy” began to transform into a socially respectable form of liberal Protestantism in the early 1800s in the NE and hence could “come out of the closet.” Harvard officially became Unitarian around 1805 with the appointment of an open Unitarian to their top theology professorship. Around then, the Calvinists in the Congregational Church began to actively disfellow themselves from the Unitarians, but to their chagrin, the Calvinists lost a number of legal decisions leaving church property and establishment rights in Unitarian hands. In the most notable of those decisions, the Calvinists complained that the Unitarians won became the Mass. Supreme Court was stacked with Unitarians (and it was; Unitarians, though a minority tended to be from the educated elite class). What caused Mass. to abolish its establishment in 1833 was that this “heresy” that denied the Trinity was part of the legally established church; taxes directly supported heresy.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee post 15. That has crossed my mind. I have even thought about the possibility of adopting an older child. That is the first time I have said that out loud. (sort of) Along with all the reason you mentioned, my son so desperately wants siblings he has made a couple up. He talks about his imaginary brother and sister all the time. But I doubt my husband would go along with it. The problems of course, our age, our unsteady income, the uncertain health of both our mothers, our rather small house, the fact that the one we have is not an easy child and to be honest I don’t think I’m really very good at this. Still who know what God has in store for the future.
Report comment to moderator
A better question to ask about the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli might involve the origin of the phrase of the Treaty (it was written in Arabic and translated into English by an American consul, Joseph Barlow) and why, when the Treaty was reworked 11 years later, then language from Article 11 was noticeably missing. Even a skeptical website says the following about Article 11:
“The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,’ does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”
Here are a couple of websites that actually explain the historical context (with links and references to sources) surrounding the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-12-04.asp
Quoting from the latter of these two articles:
“In drafting the 1797 treaty, the United States had to assure the Dey (ruler) of Tripoli that in its struggle with the pirates, to use the language of the treaty, “it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” that “the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation” due to religious considerations.
A survey of our nation’s state constitutions, charters, national pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that America was a Christian nation. The American consul in Algiers, Joel Barlow, had to construct a treaty that would assure the Dey of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.”
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
It’s great to know you’re even thinking adoption. (I know, you probably don’t want to be “labelled” as doing so, but it is an important first step, and God may lead your heart that way and also your husband’s.)
I know there’s a difference between birth and adoption–with adoption you’re taking a child who has already been born, and who may end up being adopted by someone else if you don’t take him. (Though some kids stay in foster care forever and never do get adopted, so that can’t be assumed.)
But do you know what struck me as I read your list of reasons? Every one of them was true in my family before my birth, and all the more true by the time the last child was born three years later. God provided, however. (Quick summary: Dad worked a blue-collar job, with a very low income; Dad was 53 and Mom 45 by the birth of the last child; our home was 1,200 square feet or less for a large family. If by uncertain health of mothers you mean the possibility of needing to provide care, that’s relevant; if you mean loss of grandparents, all mine had died before I was born, and I survived that though I would have liked to know them. I don’t know if any of my siblings was unusually difficult, but I can say that a total of seven is harder than one–and also that parents of more children often find that two are easier than one.)
In other words, if God gave you a child by birth, you’d cope. If He leads you to adopt, He’ll provide the means as well.
I do think that children need a sibling whenever possible, for many reasons–among other reasons, someone to share life with, someone with whom to learn negotiation and get rid of some ingrained selfishness (and be a little better prepared for marriage, ideally), and a family member to have after one’s parents are dead. Obviously God hasn’t granted you more than one by birth, so one may be the right number for your family. But it has never seemed the ideal number, or anywhere close to ideal, to me.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. My one is adopted, but we got him when he was only two days old. As I said I am open.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
From my understanding of the facts, the language in question was in the 1797 English version that was unanimously voted by the Senate and signed by President Adams, and that’s chiefly what mattered. I can’t read Arabic and am not sure why the language would not have made it into the Arabic version.
Report comment to moderator
Rob Hayes,
Sorry about the job loss. That’s always tough situation, especially if it was unexpected. I have been through that several times (I’ve had 14 jobs in the last 20+ years). Apply for unemployment and hit the street. You’ll have a new one before too long, as long as you make the job hunt a full time job.
Praying for you…
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I would think that the historical circumstances and and historical context would likewise matter. The links I posted discuss this.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t quite see eye to eye with American Vision’s analysis. There was an historical momentum — at the state level — of disestablishment and recognizing the rights of conscience for all (that is treating everyone equal without regard to religion). But it drew out over time. Trying to do everything all at once, i.e., as in France, can lead to society going into convulsions, which is what did happen in America as of 1861-65, a war, like American and French Revolutions, fought according to the abstract ideals of Liberty and Equality.
As noted, by 1833 Mass. had disestablished, the last to do so, and without the need for a civil war. Even by 1797 — I’ll have to double check — about 1/2 of the states had disestablished. And VA and RI were secular governments from the time the US Constitution had ratified onward. So re: establishment policy at the state level during America’s Founding era, it was neither “secular” nor “established Christian,” but mixed with states having the final say and Mass. being the last to disestablish by 1833. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, constrains states and their ability to violate civil rights. So after the 14th Amendment, states no longer have the final say on matters of religious civil rights.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, I did know that, but just forgot it. May God grant you and your husband wisdom and unity on this.
Report comment to moderator
Janie (and others)-
I guess the period copied as part of the link. Sorry. Try this one http://tinyurl.com/2lx3yg . (I tried it, it works.)
Here is a key passage, which states the case for this not being a Christian nation:
Report comment to moderator
47 -
That’s a great passage and I think it illustrates the value in what I’ve put forth here over the last few years: Christianity is not the same as “Americanism,” and orthodox Christians should think long and hard about the two and do their best not to conflate them else they risk corrupting the purity of their faith.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, the early Americans were willing to separate their religious beliefs from government because they knew then — as they should know now — that fixing the streets or sewers or anything else common to all has nothing to do with religion. Who cares what the differences are in religious sects when it comes to sewers, etc.? No one cares. The overwhelming majority of people were Christian, they attended services regularly. They figured the Christian “culture” would always be in place. The US was never a Christian government. It would be a big “what if” and we will never know if they had been able to foresee the way our society is today if they would have been so willing to allow sin the upper hand by “separating church and state.”
Report comment to moderator
In his sermon today, entitled “May I Speak Freely” our interim pastor said some survey reported that the hardest job is to be head of a non-profit organization. The second hardest job is being a pastor’s wife. Judging by some of the insights I’ve gotten here, I’m convinced that is true.
God bless each of you.
Report comment to moderator
#3 KBells,
You just have these fine youngins repeat over and over again. No, you can’t have that. No, No, it’s not to be yours – at least not now – unless you want to waste your own money on it. No, No No, you will not die if cannot be yours. Be grateful for this fine advice instead.
Then pay to have it tattooed on their foreheads backwards so when they see it then mirror they remind themselves when they least expect it. No sense you having to do all the reminding forever – you will one day have grand kids to spoil
Report comment to moderator
I found out to late for yesterday’s rants and raves. Single Americans that make over $75,000 a year or married couples making over $150,000 a year will not get any of the government’s latest government handout to stimulate the economy – even though they funded it with their taxes since they actually pay taxes. But, illegal alien families of 2 adults and 4 kids (they have bigger families) will each receive $2,400 from the IRS in a check.
It now pays way, way much more to be an illegal alien rather than a tax paying American citizen who creates jobs and owns businesses. American citizenship is now virtually worthless, and there are incentives in place for Americans to be illegals instead. Ooooopppssssss!. I forgot illegal aliens are put in jail, deported, tortures, fined, hanged or shot in other countries. My mistake.
But this will not stop socialists from taxing the heck out of oil companies to steal their profits. Yes Exxon did make $40 Billion in profits, nearly the average for an American company based on a % of sales – but Exxon also paid $28 Billion in taxes which took their net income from $68 billion to $40 Billion in net profits. This is a tax rate of 41% – 5% higher than any American pays today.
But the lefties want to raise taxes on the richest Americans by 5% (and the richest Americans already pay 84% of all income taxes)and give it to those that do not pay any taxes at all. These socialists also want to raise the taxes on capital gains too to punished the evil rich who pay the vast majority of the taxes now. Yes, socialists think the rich are evil even though they the vast majority of all taxes and debt while creating the jobs everyone else that hates them need to survive.
Yes, no good deed goes unpunished. By the time the socialists get through with America and its evil, rich capitalists that have, in the past, been responsible for America’s greatness, America will be called Nuevo Norte Mexico for good reason, and all old Americans will know what socialism really means for all – that everyone will be equally morally and financially bankrupt and corrupt.
Report comment to moderator
It now pays way, way much more to be an illegal alien rather than a tax paying American citizen who creates jobs and owns businesses.
So creating jobs and owning businesses pays less than $600 (the maximum rebate that an individual gets?) Because that’s the only way your statement makes any sense.
The wealthier people get less or no rebate because they don’t need the money.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G:
Yep, your last sentence is true–but it shouldn’t be called a “rebate” if the people who pay the most taxes don’t get any, and people who don’t pay taxes at all get a lot. From a “rebate” perspective it struck me as quite ironic that families with more kids (and thus more deductions) get more money. I know someone who makes about the same as me (he doesn’t have a mortgage and I do), but pays little in taxes because they’re a family of six; they will get four times as much as I do. (And I pay very little in federal taxes; mostly I pay self-employment taxes, because I don’t earn enough to pay a lot of taxes. So from a “rebate on federal taxes” standpoint, I shouldn’t get much.)
“Rebate” by definition means “return of money paid” not “redistribution of wealth.” Am I personally happy about the “rebate”? Sure–it will help me pay my June self-employment taxes. But I’d rather just keep my own money and not pay self-employment taxes at all!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: the illegals shouldn’t be getting a dime. This is even MORE incentive — as if they need it — to come here. This past week I saw a news report about the wall supposedly being built on our southern border. The showed a bit of that wall: metal sheeting from the Vietnam era. I got the feeling that we’re not putting in a wall like the one the Israelis have because we’re not planning to leave it up for long. They don’t take the immigration problems seriously at all. Indeed, Utah has passed legislation to stop benefits for illegals. Enough already. If we’re going to “give” them that money, let’s put in the form of a plane ticket.
When I read that Exxon paid 28 billion in taxes, and let’s remember that Exxon is but ONE large company, one wonders why they are taxing the “people” at all! How much money do they need?
And now Hillary wants to FORCE me to buy health insurance by garnishing my wages.
For the average person in this country — I should say, the average person BORN here — it doesn’t really pay to work.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, everyone. It was a pretty jarring way to wrap up my week, but God is faithful and has provided me with a great family, a loving girlfriend (”I’ll love you the same whether you have a job or not”), and already there are some exciting opportunities starting to surface.
I’m gonna watch the Super Bowl this afternoon and just not worry about it too much until tomorrow. Then I can start hunting more actively.
Besides, this way I can spend more time at the gym, reading the postings here, and catching up on reading.
Report comment to moderator
Another day, another Jesus related homicide.
http://snipurl.com/1ywjf
Report comment to moderator
Some people can use a little exorcise!
Report comment to moderator
Praying for you too, Rob! The Lord will lead you where He wants you.
Someone mentioned pet peeves earlier–mine is when bathrooms in restaurants have signs that say employees MUST wash their hands–must they be reminded?
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, must they remind the rest of us that they are being reminded? And isn’t it awful when you’re in there with an employee, you’re in the stall, and the employee leaves before you without washing her hands? It happens.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, the signs are probably legally required.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!