One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.
The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.
As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.
While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.
RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:
In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.
While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.
What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.
Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.
This is truly one of the most comical things to happen in this election so far. I’m literally laughing out loud and am having a hard time containing myself. It never ceases to amaze me how people fall for stuff like this.
If this is all they have on Obama (and I’m quite confident it is not) they can kiss the presidency goodbye right now. I’m still waiting for them to pull out the big guns, but thus far most of their attacks have been quite petty.
The Republicans are whining again about Barack’s decision to forgo public financing-“SO WHAT! It’s almost comical the way John McCain and the Republican Party is acting. You would think Barrack committed a “terrible crime” . Didn’t McCain just “flip-flop” on Off Shore Drilling! Isn’t that breaking a promise to environmentalist! I can assure you if McCain could get that much financial support from supporters he would have forgone public financing as well. After all, isn’t the “Right saying Barack is out of touch with “Hard Working” Americans? I find it interesting that his donors average under a $200 donation! You think those donors make in excess of $250K annually? What’s McCain’s average donors? Bet it’s more than $200! Darn, I forgot- the Republicans hold fundraisers behind close doors so we’ll never know! Another option for McCain is solicit those voters in TN, KY, and W VA that still use the term “Colored”! Can you believe it? It’s 2008 and we still have Americans that use the word “Colored”-unbelievable! The Republicans need to get a grip and come up with better arguments rather than crying about someone saying tax dollars, because there’s a new movement going on-so they can sit back and watch the Democrats make changes or help get America back as a leader in the “Free World”. The current administration has burned a lot of bridges and should McCain be elected, I can see our economy collapsing due to corporate greed and a VERY WEAK DOLLAR overseas. We need change –NOW!
I agree-everyone has a skelton of some sort, but yes thus far very amusing. They should really focus on jobs, economy, & “IRAQ”, rather than he has more money than me! Sorry, had to laugh again
Zeke, corporate greed built this country up from a few trees and thatched-roof houses.
Colin, I know better than to try to argue economics with you, but I can’t help but think that corporate greed is behind things such as the sub-prime housing scandal, etc. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil. It’s not wrong to make a profit, but it is wrong to make profits by unscrupulous means. Wouldn’t you agree?
Chris, you know why we have housing problems - FED created bubbles because of the artificially low interest rates. There is nothing wrong with offering people crappy mortgages - if they take them and then lose their jobs, that’s their problem. In fact, they are just as “greedy” in trying to obtain a mortgage that they couldn’t handle. We don’t feel bad for millionaires who do the exact same thing.
Also, you are misquoting scripture. The rendering is “all kinds of evil” - loving money is not an evil thing, but it can lead to many evils. It is wrong to automatically presume the sellers of mortgages were the greedy ones and the buyers were the victims. Both were looking to get rich quick, without applying wisdom. Both were greedy.
No one disagrees it is wrong to make a profit by fraud or theft.
You’re probably right about the Fed, but scripture argues against usury as well as fraud and theft. I don’t expect the corporate world to follow biblical business practices, but I do think we need to understand the implications of greed - corporate or otherwise.
I did not misquote scripture, but you can argue that I misapplied it. I will still have to disagree. Here is the rendering from Young’s Literal Translation of the entire chapter (I Timothy 6):
1As many as are servants under a yoke, their own masters worthy of all honour let them reckon, that the name of God and the teaching may not be evil spoken of;
2and those having believing masters, let them not slight [them], because they are brethren, but rather let them serve, because they are stedfast and beloved, who of the benefit are partaking. These things be teaching and exhorting;
3if any one be teaching otherwise, and do not consent to sound words — those of our Lord Jesus Christ — and to the teaching according to piety,
4he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and word-striving, out of which doth come envy, strife, evil-speakings, evil-surmisings,
5wranglings of men wholly corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, supposing the piety to be gain; depart from such;
6but it is great gain — the piety with contentment;
7for nothing did we bring into the world — [it is] manifest that we are able to carry nothing out;
8but having food and raiment — with these we shall suffice ourselves;
9and those wishing to be rich, do fall into temptation and a snare, and many desires, foolish and hurtful, that sink men into ruin and destruction,
10for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows;
11and thou, O man of God, these things flee, and pursue righteousness, piety, faith, love, endurance, meekness;
12be striving the good strife of the faith, be laying hold on the life age-during, to which also thou wast called, and didst profess the right profession before many witnesses.
13I charge thee, before God, who is making all things alive, and of Christ Jesus, who did testify before Pontius Pilate the right profession,
14that thou keep the command unspotted, unblameable, till the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15which in His own times He shall shew — the blessed and only potentate, the King of the kings and Lord of the lords,
16who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom [is] honour and might age-during! Amen.
17Those rich in the present age charge thou not to be high-minded, nor to hope in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, who is giving to us all things richly for enjoyment; –
18to do good, to be rich in good works, to be ready to impart, willing to communicate,
19treasuring up to themselves a right foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life age-during.
20O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge,
21which certain professing — concerning the faith did swerve; the grace [is] with you. Amen.
It is not wrong to have money and lots of it, but it is wrong to love it. Verses 9 and 10 make that clear. Verse 9 says that those who wish to be rich fall into temptations that lead to destruction. Verse 10 says those that longed after money (because they loved it) strayed from the faith and impaled themselves with many sorrows.
Bottom line: God does give us richly all things to enjoy (verse 17), but he expects us to be willing to use our wealth to bless others (verse 18).
What was the fault of the rich young man who came to Jesus in Matthew 19, asking him about eternal life? He was unwilling to part with the wealth he had; he didn’t want to share what he had been blessed with. He loved his money too much. Indeed, loving money is bad. You cannot adequately love God and money at the same time; you’re going to be forced to serve one or the other (Matthew 6:24). You can’t trust in uncertain riches, but you can trust in God who gives us richly all things to enjoy. In other words, love the one who makes you rich, not the riches he gives you; they are temporal and he is eternal.
Chris,
You did misquote scripture. You said:
But the verse reads (in all literal translations) some variant of “many” evils - that is a major distinction. If it means anything, most people I have encountered who have tried to quote that verse, get it wrong - substituting “all” for “many.”
As for usury, we can argue that one separately somewhere else. In the meantime, I highly recommend Laurence Vance (who is a hard-core Christian that actually understands a thing or two about economics).
I quoted from the King James, which says:
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
So if quoting the King James is misquoting scripture then I guess I am guilty.
Either way, the fact still remains that loving money is bad.
Ouch. Well, the KJV is wrong in this case (as it is in others, but another time…).
No “ouch” intended. The KJV could quite possibly be wrong, but either way there isn’t much difference in the meaning. Whether we say “all evil” or “all kinds of evil” is really besides the point. Bottom line: its bad, real bad. And it doesn’t “lead to” all kinds of evil, it is the “root of” or we could say the basis for evils.
Well, it is important because “all” provides no possibility of redemption, while “many” would be referring to certain kinds of “money love” being evil and others not.
Colin, I’m actually a little surprised you weren’t aware of the poor word choice made by the KJV there. It is one of its more famous misstatements.
Chris, the problem with the sub-prime mortgages isn’t usary, but rather people taking on debts they cannot pay. Nobody HAS to take on a mortgage in the US. There are plenty of rental options in most markets. I would agree that short term thinking put the squeeze on financial institutions though, since they ended up owning mortgages on houses worth less than the debt owned. I sincerely hope that the high level decision makers who decided to make bad loans are having problems finding work in their field.
It is dishonest to borrow money you can’t repay though, and that was the biggest wrongdoing committed. The Bible has many warnings about debt, since the debtor gives up freedom to the one they owe in many ways. A Christian should NEVER take on debt they are going to be unwilling or unable to repay (and should avoid even that debt where possible).
Note regarding campaign financing: McCain’s position on this subject was one of the main reasons he was stated to be “non-conservative” during the primaries. Both McCain and Obama are fairly moderate relative to their parties, meaning there really is no physically conservative candidate in this race (though I still think McCain is incrementally better than Obama).
Atanamis, point well taken with respect to debt. Its a two-way street really. Both the victim and the victimizer are to blame from a biblical perspective - the victim for being unwise and the victimizer for taking advantage of someone unjustly. Its all in Proverbs.
Economics certainly isn’t my forte so you’ll excuse me if I don’t know what I’m talking about as far as sub-prime goes. All I have to go on is what the “experts” say. And they’ve been saying a lot that leaves them to believe there was some foul play on the corporate side. The Department of Justice seems to think so.
But my initial point was this: the love of money as manifested in corporate and other kinds of greed is a moral factor to consider as a Christian. I’m not arguing for government to police that; its just a matter of putting things into their proper perspective. So even if we are talking about the Fed’s policies, the love of money still factors in.
Chris, your word choice still betrays an error in bias. Who is the victim? Atanamis argues the bible actually places “victim” status on the creditor who was reneged on by the borrower.
“Well, it is important because “all” provides no possibility of redemption, while “many” would be referring to certain kinds of “money love” being evil and others not.”
I’m really not following you here, Colin. Maybe we are just misunderstanding each other. But certainly the context of this verse provides no shades of gray where the love of money is concerned. There are no separate kinds of “money love” being referred to at all. Money is not to be loved - period. It is to be viewed as a tool to bring about the blessing of God, nothing else. Only then is God honored by it.
The verse is actually rendered (roughly)
“for the love of money is a root of many kinds of evil.”
Moreover, he is not talking about business but the love of money of teachers and church leaders (and probably individuals as well). Paul echoes this sentiment in 2 Corinthians 2:17 (NKJV):
This topic is important to me because I see a lot of Christians using verses like this an an excuse to loathe business and capitalism (not yourself) and often to promote a social gospel.
You are correct about people using this verse to loathe business and capitalism in favor of the social gospel. This perspective fails to take into account the whole counsel of God with regards to wealth.
Make no mistake about it, I believe in being healthy and wealthy - these result from wisdom as the scriptures plainly teach. But I think we need to be somewhat cautious not to adopt some of the world’s business practices that are clearly based on greed, and therefore bring a reproach to the name of Christ. I know that I personally (and this may not apply to everyone the same way)have to guard myself against thinking the way the world thinks about money. This passage always helps me to get the right perspective (and pardon the quotation from the [superior] King James Bible):
15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
(I John 2:15-17)
Proverbs teaches us that wisdom is to be valued above wealth. Wisdom is eternal, not temporal like wealth. It was with the Father in the beginning. It will bring us wealth, but to love the material wealth itself is a sin because it is temporal. It will pass away.
13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom,
the man who gains understanding,
14 for she is more profitable than silver
and yields better returns than gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies;
nothing you desire can compare with her.
16 Long life is in her right hand;
in her left hand are riches and honor.
17 Her ways are pleasant ways,
and all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to those who embrace her;
those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;
Proverbs 3:13-19
The “sub-prime scandal” is that banks loaned money to people who lacked the financial history and means to be reliably expected to repay the debts. Nobody was scammed or lied to, they made dumb choices. I talked to friends a year ago who thought that getting interest only loans they could barely pay the interest on was a great idea since they expected to make money on the value of the house increasing. This is what the entire scandal is about.
The federal government is bailing out people who borrowed money that they should have known they couldn’t repay. They are blaming the lender for not warning them that they might not be able to repay it. Interestingly, the government is ALSO bailing out the lenders for their bad loans. I wish that someone would give ME money when I make bad financial decisions!
If you ask to borrow money from me, is it foul play if I don’t tell you that you might not have a high enough income to repay me? Isn’t that your responsibility to know? If any fraud DID take place, I haven’t heard about it. Misrepresenting what a contract contains is indeed “foul play”, even if the buyer might still bear responsibility for not reading carefully enough. Note that I fully agree that no believer should love money more than they love other people (who they should love as much as they love themselves).
“The “sub-prime scandal” is that banks loaned money to people who lacked the financial history and means to be reliably expected to repay the debts. Nobody was scammed or lied to, they made dumb choices. I talked to friends a year ago who thought that getting interest only loans they could barely pay the interest on was a great idea since they expected to make money on the value of the house increasing. This is what the entire scandal is about.”
Atanamis, I’m not saying you’re wrong or the government is right. I just know that there are many allegations of fraud, and the government is prosecuting a lot of people in connection with it. You might be 100% correct or you might be 70% correct. Many of the specific government charges have not been brought to light yet, so I think it would be premature to make any judgments as to whether anyone was scammed or lied to. This might be a situation where there was illegal exploitation of an already volatile situation. My sense is that bad monetary policy probably should shoulder much of the blame, but I don’t think that’s the whole story. I guess time will tell…maybe.
Fair enough. When you have any evidence of actual fraud, let us know. The government bailouts which WERE announced though were to help borrowers who agreed to terms they could not uphold and to lenders who made loans they should have known might not be repaid. No indication has been made that anyone (borrower or lender) was forced to sign a mortgage against their will or under false pretenses. Part of living in a free country is allowing people the freedom to make a mess of their own finances if they choose to do so. I don’t want to need a government approval to borrow or lend money, and neither should you.
Last I checked, the accusing party needed to prove their charges before we start making conclusions. Governments have often brought up charges against certain individuals and groups to smear them and or build legislation to later drop all charges (or discover none).
“Last I checked, the accusing party needed to prove their charges before we start making conclusions. Governments have often brought up charges against certain individuals and groups to smear them and or build legislation to later drop all charges (or discover none).”
I totally agree. I’m not making conclusions one way or the other. I’m just saying the full story hasn’t come out yet. I just think when you’ve got something like 400 indictments, the probability is that they’re not just going out on a limb here. Someone will almost certainly be prosecuted, justly or otherwise.
Holy de-railment Batman!