Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
God and Caesar
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden has said a lot of interesting things lately, including recent remarks on taxation, patriotism, and social doctrine. WORLD political reporter Jamie Dean writes that these comments should prompt both parties to present their best case for helping those in need:
If government really does work best, Democrats should point to the evidence. If taxpayers should keep more of their own money to direct to organizations doing effective work, Republicans should highlight those organizations and explain what role government should play. So far, neither party has made a compelling case during this election cycle.
Jamie adds that Christians should keep digging for biblical answers to these hard questions, as well:
Ultimately, Christians know the government won’t solve poverty: Jesus promised we’d always have the poor with us. But Christians also know something else: Jesus charged His followers with providing for the poor, just as He provides for the spiritual poverty of His followers.
That means Biden is right about at least one thing: If you’re a Christian, you help people who need it the most. Even on the eve of a series of highly anticipated presidential debates, that much is not debatable.
Read all of Jamie’s report here.
back to top46 Comments to “God and Caesar”
Of course: The duty to provide for the poor is much better done by thousands of different, tiny, private, unsecurely funded, and quirky little efforts than by anything as silly as a government which sets standards and has a steady income flow.The poor can certainly rely on the same soup kitchen or private clinic being funded and open, day in and day out, than they can rely on a food stamp card or a public hospital. Right?
Report comment to moderator
Jesus didn’t charge the government with this duty, he charged all of us as individuals. At least write a check or get off your duff and get some goods and take them to the local food bank. That’s how it’s done — using one’s heart, making an effort.
Report comment to moderator
If you really want to make a difference, be the one who ladles the soup in the soup kitchen. Get your hands dirty and really help. Interact with those whom you are helping.
Report comment to moderator
The Democratic party did the work of God when LBJ bravely and nobly stood up to honor the promises that the Declaration of Independence made to African-American citizens.
Whether or not the government can “ultimately” solve all the problems of the poor whom Jesus said we will always have with us, McCain’s management of the economy will certainly be very bad while Obama’s management of the economy will likely be quite good and produce the following government-enabled achievements:
– Reduce income disparity, enhance opportunity, restore fiscal balance, speed up productivity growth, try to fix our health care system, invest in our future, and engage with the global economy.
– Obama’s health care program will boost minimum-wage and near minimum-minimum wage employment dramatically, perhaps by $100 billion, by reducing the costs of employer health coverage; free up a million workers to find jobs they like better because they can keep their health insurance; shift at least a million workers into the capital-intensive industry sector; and boost wages by an average of $1,500 per year for workers whose employers provide coverage.
– Obama’s economic policy will boost all incomes by $2,000 to $3,000 per worker and create a couple of million new jobs.
By contrast, McCain is unengaged in the economy and has a “hands-off” philosophy. We know that is bad stewardship.
Back in 2000, Democrats argued that either most of Bush’s tax cuts wouldn’t be delivered or they would destabilize our fiscal situation again, negligently undoing the good work of the previous administration. They were right.
Back in 1996, Republicans argued that Clinton’s tax increases were crushing the economy like an egg and would cause slow growth, recession, and higher unemployment. They were wrong.
Not only is Republican foreign policy horrible, Republican domestic policy is addicted to tilting the income distribution radically in favor of the already well-off and is not concerned with true opportunity. Never has the distribution of income growth looked more like 1929, with the poor actually loosing income while working harder.
Lord knows, Democrats have some vices and bad impulses, but nowadays they are doing the work of God, not Caesar.
Report comment to moderator
Every time Biden opens his trap the R’s gain new material for their ads. The Dem VP candidate who stands for change in DC has been there now for how long?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, if the govt takes step to reduce income disparity who would even want to seize any additional opportunity if the earnings they make are confiscated and redistributed?
Report comment to moderator
More sunshine and happiness for LODDY DODDY EV-REE-BODY!
Report comment to moderator
No matter how much money you give the poor, the people with the least will always be called ‘the poor’. So the poor will always be with us.
NJL is right. Jesus essentially ignored the government other than to pay his taxes.
The liberal view of the world is all about stuff, who’s got more or less stuff and how to redistribute the stuff to achieve equity so-called. It is thought that taking from the haves and giving to the have nots would make everyone happy. But everywhere on the planet where this has been tried has made the people very unhappy.
But Jesus taught a radically different message,
“Be on your guard against all kinds of greed. A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
“Do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the nations run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you.”
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, I tend to think that private charity benevolence folks are much more likely to point blank call my bluff if I’m there trying to scam them for money to play lotto, buy cigs or brewskies.
A govt bureaucrat putting checks into envelopes is statutorily bereft of the cajones needed to call me out on my scam attempts. Benevolence without accountability, thy name is govt.
Report comment to moderator
As a libertarian who supported the welfare reform (which I think was an astounding success) I think we’d be better off lowering taxes, lessening the safety net for the poor AND having religious charities step up and doing what the government used to do in providing the safety net. In short, I think nuns would make better social workers than social workers.
Report comment to moderator
Upon further consideration, it is my belief that Biden is a Trojan Horse. I hope the rumors aren’t true and Biden stays on the ticket.
Report comment to moderator
Obama isn’t going to “manage” anything as president, which I’m not so sure he will become anyway. And the legislation our socialists seek will be opposed vigorously.
I find myself joining Jon Rowe and Klasko. Hands on charity work is what we really need, a way to connect people to people. Didn’t Jesus say something about working together, or was that just a line of dialog in Jesus of Nazareth?
Report comment to moderator
Every soup kitchen I’ve ever seen is private. Is there such a thing as a public soup kitchen?
The public answer is to hand out cash. Welfare is how the poor in our town get XBoxes, Color TVs, Computers and beer. One poor family got a loan for a smokin’ Mustang and a brand new ski boat right off the lot. They couldn’t pay of course, but this new government bailout should cover that. I’m not against a safety net, but paaahhleeeeese!
As SawGunner said, with personal one on one there is more of an opportunity to provide assistance to solve the real problem, which is not really about money after all.
Report comment to moderator
. . . if the govt takes step to reduce income disparity who would even want to seize any additional opportunity if the earnings they make are confiscated and redistributed?
It sounds like you are the most supply-inspired supply-sider and the most Laffer-curved believer in the harm of tax increases.
Tax increases can create economic activity that raises revenues by amounts greater than the tax increases while creating opportunities to be seized. Conversely, tax decreases can create declining employment, declining medium incomes, and very rich rich people. We can observe the results of the opposite experiments with these approaches in 1996 and 2000.
Morally, I object to your use of the word “confiscation.” That’s prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Taxes are “our” money not your money or my money. Look, you can oppose government for lots of reasons without giving bad reasons.
Here’s a story of opportunity for you: Every Democratic president from Roosevelt’s third term onward presided over greater employment growth than any Republican president. Even the scorned Jimmy Carter presided over higher employment growth than any Republican president in this period. Due to the particularly bad Republican policies that came in with Ronald Reagan and decimated the job markets during the two Bushes, the average Republican performance is only a third that of the average Democratic performance.
If you want to oppose government, you’re better off using other arguments. Remember the marketeers who argued at the time of Bush’s tax cuts that the dow would reach 36,000 within five years? Woo-hoo. The real problem with government is in church, not on Main Street.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was not against a person enjoying the fruit of his or her labor. Perhaps, however, someone can explain what Jesus meant when he told the rich young man to sell all that he had to follow him.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution gives the power to tax, not the power to redistribute the wealth through taxation.
Report comment to moderator
Christian marketeering Republicans should notice a feature of the libertarian critique of government. Libertarians — those very high brow and meticulous theorists of ideal ethical relationships. Libertarians focus their critique of government on their notions of right and wrong rather than on whether the results of government are beneficial or harmful. They say that even if the government can do good, it has no right to, as government.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Jon Rowe #10.
Report comment to moderator
“The Democratic party did the work of God when LBJ bravely and nobly stood up to honor the promises that the Declaration of Independence made to African-American citizens”
The Republican party had been bravely and nobly honoring those promises against Democrat opposition since its inception. The 1964 Civil Rights Law, very similar to the 1957 Law introduced by Eisenhower and voted down by Democrats, is the first time in our political history that the party of Orval Faubus and Bull Connor allowed legislation to pass that protected the rights of African Americans.
“the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.”
Report comment to moderator
Those who are rich are obviously able to help others. I think we would all agree – The problem is, it is THERE CHOICE, it is not the right of government to take away huge chunks of their wealth and distribute it as they see fit.
I’ve never been in a church that didn’t help the poor and those in need. I started an organization which helped anyone, in whatever they had need. There are organizations which do great work in the area of helping those who are UNABLE to help themselves. The interesting thing here is; Christian organizations often CHECK OUT the real need, they don’t hand out money, and they do expect people to work, to participate in programs that will lead them out of their problems.
Though Christ spoke so strongly, few that have riches do not trust in them. How few that are poor are not tempted to envy! But men’s earnestness in this matter is like their toiling to build a high wall to shut themselves and their children out of heaven. It should be satisfaction to those who are in a low condition, that they are not exposed to the temptations of a high and prosperous condition. If they live more hardly in this world than the rich, yet, if they get more easily to a better world, they have no reason to complain. Christ’s words show that it is hard for a rich man to be a good Christian, and to be saved. The way to heaven is a narrow way to all, and the gate that leads into it, a strait gate; particularly so to rich people. More duties are expected from them than from others, and more sins easily beset them. It is hard not to be charmed with a smiling world. Rich people have a great account to make up for their opportunities above others. It is utterly impossible for a man that sets his heart upon his riches, to get to heaven. Christ used an expression, denoting a difficulty altogether unconquerable by the power of man. Nothing less than the almighty grace of God will enable a rich man to get over this difficulty.
Who then can be saved? If riches hinder rich people, are not pride and sinful lusts found in those not rich, and as dangerous to them? Who can be saved? say the disciples. None, saith Christ, by any created power.
The beginning, progress, and perfecting the work of salvation, depend wholly on the almighty power of God, to which all things are possible. Not that rich people can be saved in their worldliness, but that they should be saved from it.
Report comment to moderator
RE: post 20
The words below Scripture above was taken from Matthew Henry’s commentary. Sorry for not adding that to the post.
Report comment to moderator
Ken #19 Yep, in those days America still had great liberal lions in the GOP like Jacob Javits. Voting for civil rights laws (ie, repealing all the Jim Crow laws enacted in the south) carried little cost to the GOP in much of the US. Liberalus Republicanus (note last 4 letters) descended into parody with Jim Jeffords (Vt) and Linc Chafee of R.I.
Report comment to moderator
#3 Klasko.
My daughter didn’t want to work in the soup kitchen or like it after she was forced to do so – at first. But she is now a driven woman and has her whole school doing it as a regular cause. I am very proud of her. She is even learning how to cook, clean and sanitize too
Report comment to moderator
#8 XION,
I would like to ignore the government and not pay the usurious taxes some of us have to pay. But, even if I pay my taxes as i do, they will not leave me alone to pursue happiness and are constantly in my face trying to rip me off one way or another and make my life as miserable as theirs. So I fight them at ever turn but, I am not alone in theis quest here on earth – or in heaven. Jesus was for being fair, decent and honest, as well as, being empathetic and generous.
Report comment to moderator
#13 XION,
Yes, the government does have soup kitchens but they are called different names. Earned income tax credits, progressive tax policies, welfare of all kinds, stimulus checks, aid to dependent children, unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing subsidies, energy subsidies, Medicaid, etc etc etc.
Report comment to moderator
Yep llama, the whole purpose of the gov’t, which is constituted entirely of liars and thieves is to make little old you miserable.
Is it working?
Or didn’t you get your $700 billion handout yet?
Report comment to moderator
KEN: . . . the first time in our political history that the party of Orval Faubus and Bull Connor allowed legislation to pass that protected the rights of African Americans.
Not true, technically. Congress passed and Pres. Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which guaranteed equal access to “public accommodation.” The Act was one of the glories of the career of Republican Sen. Charles Sumner. Democrats, having gained control of the House in the elections of 1874, allowed passage.
Nevertheless, all the more praise to LBJ and the Northern Democrats who took the next step further from Pres. Truman’s purge of Dixiecrats from the Democratic party, even though they understood the historic political sacrifice! It was a glorious and heartbreaking American achievement.
The Democratic party fatally split itself over civil rights with 63% of House Democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats supporting passage of the bill against the near universal opposition of Southerners. Republican support was somewhat higher, 80% and 82% respectively, but by no means universal. Altogether, more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill — and all but a handful of the Republican supporters were Northerners.
By that time, thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt, Truman, and continuing Republican opposition to the New Deal, Blacks were dramatically shifting their support to the Democratic Party. Shamefully, Nixon and Reagan exploited the racist discontent of Democratic voters. Cynical and ideologically zealous Republicans alike drove out the Eisenhower wing of the party. Ken Mehlman has apologized for this modern turn in the Party of Lincoln. But of course, Mehlman also could have apologized for the fact that the Republican Party didn’t try to replace the Civil Rights Act of 1875 after it was declared to be unconstitutional in 1883.
As fine as Eisenhower’s proposed civil rights legislation was for the times, it guaranteed voting rights but did not offer protection against discrimination, so Republicans are disingenuous when they claim they tried in 1957 to give African Americans “their rights”.
Report comment to moderator
Jon said what I was going to say, only better. I will add, though, that the major difference is that private organizations require response and responsibility to remain on the program. With government programs, all you have to do is qualify.
It reminds me of the 53/20 club some WW II veterans joined when they returned. $20/wk for a year, if you were unemployed, no other questions asked.
Report comment to moderator
#15 NJL “Jesus was not against a person enjoying the fruit of his or her labor. Perhaps, however, someone can explain what Jesus meant when he told the rich young man to sell all that he had to follow him.”
One important thing I’ve learned about interpreting the Bible is that everything God says to one person does not necessarily apply to everyone.
There are a number of lessons here, but fundamentally the rich young ruler was bragging about how well he kept the law. Jesus just cranked it up a notch and the guy folded. Self reliance wasn’t going to get that man to heaven. He needed to learn to trust in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus just cranked it up a notch . . .
How could we ever negate without the prosaic diminutive, “just”?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Xion, for post 29. I notice in post 30 that our friend didn’t get your point but rather chose to make a snarky, sarcastic remark.
Report comment to moderator
And Victoria, too, thank you.
And I would add that having it handed to you if you are poor doesn’t do much good for you either.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #10
The problem with Libertarianism (like all “isms”) is that if it were put into practice in it’s purest form, it would be an oppressive, corrupt system. No matter what governing philosophy or system you look at, it’s got it’s problems and shortcoming.
Libertarianism is basically an “every man for himself” kind of outlook on life. Given that people are basically greedy, it would result in society of a few “haves” and many “have nots”. Those that “have” would be under no compunction (moral or otherwise) to help out those less fortunate.
Being a socialist myself, I think the government should guarantee all of our citizens a minimum level of care. If that help is done by the government or by charitable organizations or by both, that’s fine as long as the help is given without regard to anything like race, religion, etc. Of course, I’d slap a big tax on corporate bonuses, golden parachutes, and other perks of the wealthy to pay for it. And yes, I know some folks would take advantage of it and mooch off it. Socialism isn’t perfect either.
Bottom line is, currently, most charitable organizations involved in meeting the needs of the poor (Red Cross, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, etc.) receive a combination of funding from the government, corporate donations, and individual contributions. The government help usually comes in the form of grants for specific programs like job training, after-school programs, parenting classes, etc.
As for which party has the better plans to help people, I’d definitely have to say the Democrats have the advantage, for one big reason: empathy. They don’t look down scornfully on the less fortunate or kick them while they’re down. Their hearts are in the right place, even if some of the things they do are boneheaded. Republicans? They look down on the poor and are always lecturing them. They can’t just feed a person because they’re hungry – they gotta make them feel guilty about it.
Report comment to moderator
If government really does work best, Democrats should point to the evidence.
Every child who has a meal because of food stamps is evidence.
Every lower-income family who owns a home because of the FHA program is evidence.
Every senior citizen who has health coverage through Medicare is evidence.
Anlir says: As for which party has the better plans to help people, I’d definitely have to say the Democrats have the advantage, for one big reason: empathy. They don’t look down scornfully on the less fortunate or kick them while they’re down. Their hearts are in the right place, even if some of the things they do are boneheaded. Republicans? They look down on the poor and are always lecturing them. They can’t just feed a person because they’re hungry – they gotta make them feel guilty about it.
I say, amen.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The liberal view of the world is all about stuff, who’s got more or less stuff and how to redistribute the stuff to achieve equity so-called. It is thought that taking from the haves and giving to the have nots would make everyone happy.
With all due respect, that’s utter crap. It’s the lie that conservatives tell themselves to salve their consciences.
Maybe you should try living in poverty before you go spouting off about “equity.” I can promise you that a single mother raising two kids on a low-income job and food stamps does not feel in any way equitable to someone earning $85,000 a year.
The liberal view of the world is that people who have more should contribute to helping those who have almost nothing. NOT to make them equal and certainly not to make them “happy.” In a great many cases, this is about survival.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – The government largesse model is not able to (or at least has not in it operative modes of the last few decades been able to) require the personal responsibility aspects of dealing with poverty – thus generating a chronic multigenerational underclass with no life skills sufficient to get out of the poverty cycle.
The private charity mode, with its uncertainities and tenousities, can require the needed personal choice changes as well as the incentive go get out of poverty and become self-sustaining (if the person is capable of that).
Report comment to moderator
God’s welfare system:
“And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:9-10
Helping the poor it the responsibility of individuals, not government. However, most of the time people need to be responsible for themselves rather than waiting for someone to help them. So many of the problems that plague our nation are the result of a system that rewards idleness and punishes people who try to break the cycle of poverty. If the government is your provider and your ‘god,’ you’ll never see your need for the true God of the Bible. This, unfortunately, is the aim of the socialist system.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps I’m too “soft”, but when I see a person waiting for a bus in the pouring rain, my heart goes out to them because I know what it’s like to not have a car and have to rely on the bus to get everywhere.
When I see the young women walking the street in the morning (!) on my way to work trying to score a trick to get some money, my heart goes out to them because I know what it’s like to do desperate things like sell my plasma or turn in aluminum cans to get money to buy food or pay the rent.
When I see elderly folks who spend so much of their money on medicine that they can only afford just a few basic groceries or even go without, I think that someday that could very well be me.
When I see the list of personal bankruptcy’s in the paper and know that at least half of them are there because they had medical bills they could never pay, I am thankful that I haven’t gotten that sick yet.
When I see homeless people sitting on the benches in the park downtown or shuffling along the street in freezing weather, I think “that could easily be me”.
When I see folks going into a “payday loan” shop to get money just so they can pay their rent or fix their broken car, I remember what it’s like to be desperate and have no options.
When I see folks lined up outside the free dental clinic or the county health department, I remember what it was like to be without any insurance and having to go to the health department or just put up with being sick because I couldn’t afford to go to a regular doctor.
In so many ways, every day I’m reminded of how fortunate I am and how unfortunate so many of my fellow citizens are. It’s called “empathy”, and it’s I’m a Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
and it’s why I’m a Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
#3 Klasco
“If you really want to make a difference, be the one who ladles the soup in the soup kitchen.”
I think most of us know a single parent (female, usually) who needs guidance, help and TLC. Many/Most are there because of poor choices. Many/Most have no idea how to handle their situation. Many/Most have a child/children they need help with. Many/Most don’t know how to handle money. Many/Most have trouble with interpersonal relationships with those of the opposite sex.
They need parenting and they often need parenting skills. This is not a short term project. They are needy to the extreme. Often, there will be little thanks. Others in your church may think you are wasting your time. Your family will wonder what is wrong with you.
It will be as hard as any job you have ever done.
God says to take care of the widows and orphans.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Scroop Moth, Anlir and SteveG
For all the reasons you gave for being a Liberal and a Democrat your answer is always more government.
While your hearts are usually in the right place, your solutions are usually something I don’t agree with. To me, you are just wrong.
Arguing with you is a waste of time. You just don’t get it.
Your problem is that you think we conservatives and Republicans don’t get it, but we do! We are beyond you in understanding. You think we just don’t get it, but we do!
Report comment to moderator
I, too, empathize with people who don’t have enough money. But the reason I am not a democrat is because I don’t want the government to take more money than they are already doing from not just me, but from YOU. So, you see, I not only care about the poor, but I care about everyone else as well.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #41
Arguing with you is a waste of time. You just don’t get it.
We could say the same thing right back, Bob. But then where are we?
Or try this on for size:
Your problem is that you think we liberals and Democrats don’t get it, but we do! We are beyond you in understanding. You think we just don’t get it, but we do!
See how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
*****
At heart, I’m a Socialist. But I’m also practical enough to realize that I live in a country where people have all kinds of political views. So you do the best you can with what you have to work with. No one party has all of the answers or the perfect solution.
Report comment to moderator
. . . your answer is always more government . . . We are beyond you in understanding. You think we just don’t get it, but we do!
Could you just please forget the G-word for a moment, BOB. You are correct in form, but mistaken in substance. You are correct that liberals’ answer is always more something of the people, by the people, and for the people. We want that something to provide people with real — not just theoretical — opportunities. Further, we want that something to allow individuals to chose the answers that make sense to them and protect them from Christians who will try to impose the answers that are supposed, according to the Bible, to make sense for them. You understand what we mean, of course.
Here’s the part you don’t demonstrate any understanding of: the quality of that something isn’t fixed. Liberals don’t want more bad and wasteful something any more than you do. Everyone should prosper. We’re in agreement there!
The difference between us is that you don’t want anything of the people, by the people, and for the people, except basically the police, the army, and interstate highways. You won’t even talk about it. You won’t even listen to the story of how doing something has been beneficial and doing away with something is harmful.
The reason you are “beyond” talking about how that something can help us all prosper is that, admit it BOB, you are addicted to assigning blame to individuals for whatever goes wrong as an alternative for helping to fix things.
You are burnt out and you need to sit under a redwood tree and wait for your golden chariot to swing.
Report comment to moderator
#35 SteveG “With all due respect, that’s utter crap.”
Well, after that assessment you go on to correct me by saying exactly what I said.
You say, “The liberal view of the world is that people who have more should contribute to helping those who have almost nothing.”
Exactly! Isn’t that what I said? The rest is a matter of degrees. Just how equitable you make it is a matter of political will and social policy. Democrats propose taking a little more and Republicans a little less. Luckily they both usually fail.
We both agree that the poor should be helped. Conservatives would say let individuals and churches take care of it for the most part.
Your answer is to use the strong arm of government to forceably remove wealth from those who earned it and redistribute it to people who did not.
What’s funny here is that you admit that entitlements don’t make anyone happy. Exactly! The road to happiness has to do with other factors like contentment, achievement, cooperation.
Wealth redistribution kills the motivation of the earners and the pittance that actually makes to the people who need it is despised. Politicians and lawyers get the lion’s share along the way.
Report comment to moderator
I have watched a crew of men working on building my new house this week. They run to get things. When a problem arises they run to fix it. They work together without rancor. They don’t tell each other what to do. They give in to the one with the experience. They just work hard, very hard.
I see no reason why they should have to give a dime to someone who doesn’t work. How much money they make has nothing to do with it. They work hard to make their wages. No one should make them give money to someone who has made bad choices.
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!