# Answering a President - Webisode 1



## Peter Alexander (May 7, 2011)

We just came out with a new book, one on politics, called Lessons In Governing. To support it, ala Lucasfilm, we're creating an entire webisode series called Answering A President. This is #1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1C_hIB-dts

I know most of you won't agree with the premise, but I hope you enjoy the video.

Feel free to comment about the subject material!

Peter and Caroline Alexander


----------



## Ed (May 7, 2011)

Intended for Christians I guess


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 7, 2011)

Anybody.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2011)

I enjoyed the video and the music was not what one would expect for such a venue.
I totally agree on how since 2003 our Government has spent every nickel it takes in, and then borrows more like a sick drug addict.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fau.ibtimes.com%2Farticles%2F142069%2F20110506%2Fdeutsche-bank.htm&ei=L5jFTaX4CYjUgAfF38zMBA&usg=AFQjCNGwoGvvcPxF9cdJO6QaZ-LEnwEdSA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=w ... Z-LEnwEdSA)

Here's something the media won't mention, but this Bank is finally being exposed as the fall bank for the trillions in equity we transferred.
I mentioned this bank a few years back, as they colluded with Fannie Mae, Indy Mac, and Freddie Mac. Liberal and Conservatives feasted on this partnership.

The miniscule 1 billion the Federal Government seeks is a guise. The Federal Reserve and Deutsch Bank are in collusion so this is fodder for the sheep.

Both of the false parties that represent us in DC always agree on spending and raking in revenues, there's no division there, it's a 2 headed serpant.
One claims to be for the poor and elderly, and uses them shamelessly to increase revenues, the other represents the downtrodden civilians of other countries, which in turn means trillions on defense.
At the end of the day both games continue unabated, yet use the media to brainwash millions into thinking they differ from each other.
Their common goal is increased revenues and spending.

The lawsuit against the Deutsch Bank is 6 years late, and a diversionary joke at best.

Nice Job.....Hope it isn't just about Bush or Obama, they are merely spokespersons who purposely mislead us as the trillions to banks are transferred.

God Bless The USA............... o=?


----------



## JJP (May 7, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sat May 07 said:


> God Bless The USA............... o=?


And long live.... 

...the Theocracy?


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2011)

Indeed.
In my next life, I wish to be a DC elitist so I can have private jets fly me where a 28 foot limo picks me up, to take me to a meeting where other elites and myself can figure out what to do with the rest of the peasants... _-)


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 7, 2011)

I work with some employees of EPA, FTC, and DOE as part of my job. Believe me, they don't fly on private jets. They don't ride in limos. And, in general, they try to do what's best for the citizenry.

In fact, they miss many meetings due to budget restrictions and when they hold meetings at their facilities, they can't even provide coffee, unless the funds come out of their own pockets or they can get an attendee to sponsor Joe and Donuts. Lunch? You're on your own.

And you can't buy so much as a cheap burger for a staffer.

Just to be clear, I believe the DC elitists you're referring to would be CEOs. The lobbyists I know don't ride in private jets and limos. They take cabs. The staffers ride the Metro.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2011)

Okay Peter.

First, you did a very good job of producing the video.

But you're right, I totally disagree with your premise - or I should say what I think are the implications of your premise, since it's exactly what today's conservatives pretend to believe: that we have uncontrolled government taxation and spending, that our problems are caused by that..and that it's bad because God commanded it to be thus.

I've posted all this before, of course.

Our problems today don't fit a simple religious theme; they exist in a totally different realm. That's for openers.

Next, spending is not even the real crisis in this country - unemployment is. And that has nothing to do with uncontrolled government spending but (at its root) with tax policies that created the income inequality we have, which in turn created the need for people below the top to borrow in order to keep up. We also had a financial system collapse related to a popped housing bubble around the world.

And the problems we will have with government spending (if we leave them unchecked) are mainly related to the cost of healthcare. Yes the Bush tax cuts for the rich and two wars recently turned a budget surplus into a deficit, but the big fish is healthcare. (I don't include Social Security in the budget, because it's funded separately by a dedicated tax.)

What we need today is massive public works coupled with massive investment in our future - i.e. much more government spending. That will support the economy until it picks up again, and paradoxically raise government revenue in the long term (the important figure isn't the dollar amount of the national debt, it's the percentage of the economy - i.e. you have to look at the numerator and the denominator). 

And the way to finance that is with increased taxes at the very top, and unfortunately with borrowing. The only way around borrowing would have been if the government didn't squander the surplus but instead held onto it so that they could use it this way when the chips went down.

I could go on, but my main response is that taxing and spending is not ungodly per se; the devil is in the details.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 7, 2011)

Well first of all, Caroline and I just want to say thanks for taking part of your weekend to watch the video and give us feedback. I personally appreciate it, and again, I thank you.

As follows is some feedback in return.

*1. It's an historic fact that Israel split into two separate nations over heavy taxation.* It's also an historic fact that that both countries were later taken into captivity, and that Israel did not become an independent country again until 1948. The lesson, at any level of government in any country, is you have to watch your budgets. Any of us here who run are our businesses have to watch our budgets. If we don't, we know what ultimately happens. The principle is universal and it's there to read and learn from in Scripture should anyone want to.

*2. Separation of Church State is rooted in British history.* Sorry, Ed, you're off on this one (cough!). The separation of church and state in the American Constitution was to avoid the current situation still in Great Britain where the head of the monarchy is also the head of the Anglican Church. In the U.S., the President of the United States, regardless of his faith (or lack of) is not the head of any church. Separation of church and state doesn't mean you leave your personal faith at the door, it means that no head of government is also the leader of a particular denomination which is then selected as "the" national religion of that country.

*3. I did not say as a personal position statement that America is a Christian country.* There are several positions on that subject even within Christendom. Whether the US is a Christian nation or not, is directly dependent on those who are Christian doing what Jesus taught. To see what that is in summary, read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 in the New Testament. [http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+5]

*4. I didn't say that the answer to the size of government debate is theological.* Everything in the book is rooted in historical timelines along with highly reliable Hebrew and Greek translations to determine what a "Christian" position should be. Looking at the historical perspectives in Scripture, the Christian position should be, "watch your budgets." 

Part of the paradigm shift that occurred when Saul became king was that prior to that, there was no central government. Therefore, there were no government employees. 

With the formation of a central government, ANY central government, taxes of some sort must be raised to pay government employees. This is a financial fact. 

So, by default, any government, city, county, state, or national, becomes an employer and if budgets aren't watched, quite a large employer.

To support duties and services provided by any central government takes cash. The cash has to come from somewhere. Ideally, the money comes from a large local entrepreneurial base, that en toto, becomes a larger employer than the local government. If it goes in reverse, and the government becomes a larger employer than the entrepreneurial base, then the potential is quite high to have financial shortfalls which then creates budget deficits. 

One of the points of the book is that we have an historical lesson before us with ancient Israel to learn from.

I believe the oft spoken statement is, "Those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it." 

If you're uncomfortable with that, then read Barbara Tuchman's book, _The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam._ There you'll find lots of historical lessons to learn from.

*5. Parts of the 10 Commandments should be read from the position of Deuteronomy 8 where Moses instructs the Israelites that to fulfill the covenant with Abraham they're empowered to create wealth for themselves with no limits placed as to how much they can earn (this is balanced with Leviticus 25, the social justice chapter of the Old Testament).* Therefore, since the Israelites are empowered by the covenant to acquire wealth, there's no need to steal, and coveting is counterproductive because you're focusing on your neighbor's achievements vs. pursuing your own potential achievements.


Thanks again, fellows.

PA


----------



## RiffWraith (May 7, 2011)

Peter Alexander @ Sun May 08 said:


> *3. I did not say that America is a Christian country.*



I never said you said that.  

What you did say was, "Especially for a country that considers itself to be Christian." Exact words. 0:22. Which, of course, I was refuting. 

But thanks for the clarification on everything else.

Cheers.


----------



## snowleopard (May 7, 2011)

I find myself agreeing with Jon's first post. 

The comment at the end, "Danger of excessive..." is so broad, and argued so much already. It's devoid of specifics. Which taxes? What spending? With a lack of specifics, more directly specific solutions, I felt like I walked away empty handed. 

On a technical level I thought the VO was a little flat, but the graphics flowed well with it all to tell the story.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 7, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Sat May 07 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sun May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > *3. I did not say that America is a Christian country.*
> ...



This was the finding of a 2009 Newsweek poll where 62% of the US population agreed with that statement. So in the context of the video, it was appropriate to say that I was observing the lack of response to Obama's question since statistically, that is the majority held opinion. Thus, "Since this is the majority held opinion, why didn't anyone offer an answer to the question?" 

Since no one did answer the question, I took three years to do so.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 7, 2011)

Peter Alexander @ Sat May 07 said:


> *1. It's an historic fact that Israel split into two separate nations over heavy taxation.* It's also an historic fact that that both countries were later taken into captivity, and that Israel did not become an independent country again until 1948. The lesson, at any level of government in any country, is you have to watch your budgets. Any of us here who run are our businesses have to watch our budgets. If we don't, we know what ultimately happens. The principle is universal and it's there to read and learn from in Scripture should anyone want to.



There is a big difference between then an now. Were the peasants taxed to support the whims of the powerful? Today, we debate the taxation of billionaires. How many billionaires were there 1,000 BC?

Jubilee is also celebrated in the bible. It doesn't really square with modern capitalism. If anything, it is the ultimate tax. In simple terms, every fiftieth year or so is a Jubilee year when all major property reverts to the commonwealth. It prevents hoarding and indefinite slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Biblical)

*Leviticus 25:23*
_The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers._

*Leviticus 27:21*
_When the field reverts in the Jubilee year it shall become holy unto the LORD, as a field set apart; and it shall become owned by the priests [owned by the (theocratic) government]._

Today, 400 individuals own half the wealth of the United States. The country is not poor nor broke. But things are definitely imbalanced. How can 400 people hoard half the country's wealth? An how can that imbalance be corrected?


----------



## bryla (May 8, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sun May 08 said:


> ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
> 
> Well there go the Muslims, Hindus and Ancient Alien Theorists.


Just so you know, the Muslims God is the same as the one the Jews and the Christians. They just call him Allah


----------



## re-peat (May 8, 2011)

All gods are the same in that they don’t exist. They’re all a projection of men’s incapability to accept/understand his own limitations (and those of his fellow men) and as such the concept of a god (or gods) is both a comfort, convenience and, often, a necessity. The only things that make ‘gods’ different, throughout the ages and around the world, is (1) how various cultures have interpreted and developed the idea, and (2) the various ways in which the belief in a godlike presence has helped to create, enforce and maintain the hierarchical organisation of society (the socio-political aspect).
God only exists because there are very smart people (for whom ‘god’ means power, inspiration and justification) as well as very stupid or weak ones (who are invariably told that ‘god’ means strength, comfort and solace). That’s the whole paradox of every religion (and a very clever one it is too): _the more its ‘word’ would become a reality, the less need there would be for it._ The unhuman absurdity (or absurd unhumanity) of religion is precisely the very thing that makes it such a 'human' succes. It thrives and succeeds because its dicta are so far removed from human reality: if all men were _truly_ the same (a goal that most ‘holy’ books instruct us to strive for), religions (and the need for one or more deities) would have far less reason to exist than they do now.

_


----------



## bryla (May 8, 2011)

Totally agree with you Piet, I was just saying that theological God, Jahve and Allah are one and the same fictional person.


----------



## chimuelo (May 8, 2011)

I had a great Uncle who was the most kind, caring, sharing man I ever met.
He really was influenced by scripture and often read the Bible to us as it was better than bedtime stories at putting kids under.
Surely if there were a God he would have admired such loyalty.
So entrenched in faith was he that he refuesed medicine, and placed himself in the hands of the Lord when he was stricken with Colon cancer at 78 years old.
I watched him shrivel away and die waiting for his Lord to take him home.
I'll never forget how frustrated he was and shocked that his years were over.
I pretty much figured out the whole God thing at a young age.
But I will always be fascinated at the temples, shrines built, and cultural myths that were created by these absentee dieties..

The tax issue shouldn't be clouded by those who have brought us nearer to poverty.
The vast amount of wealth accumulated has long been placed outside of our borders and cannot be taken back. THe laws these people purchased from the very same class warfare politicians should be repealed though.
As I see it, whenever a politician gives a speech about redistribution, it's a noble cause, but they don't care about you, only the cause they want fulfilled, and shaking down the rich is an art perfected by Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow coalition.

Our leaders are basically beggars with exspensive tastes. And if the 400 wealthy families give back more money for these whores, what do they get in return,,,?
New legislation, since they're paying for it once again.

Money will never fix anything, just like violence begets more violence.
But going after the rich guy will get the poor guy to vote for you, then you have 4 more years of shaking down anyone with cash.

Pretty pathetic way to govern IMHO.
Since campaigning is much easier than actual governing, this is what we get.

God Bless The USA...........Praise The Lord.. 0oD


----------



## Mick Emery (May 8, 2011)

> I work with some employees of EPA, FTC, and DOE as part of my job. Believe me, they don't fly on private jets. They don't ride in limos. And, in general, they try to do what's best for the citizenry.
> 
> In fact, they miss many meetings due to budget restrictions and when they hold meetings at their facilities, they can't even provide coffee, unless the funds come out of their own pockets or they can get an attendee to sponsor Joe and Donuts. Lunch? You're on your own.
> 
> ...


WOW!! That's brutal! They have to buy their OWN coffee? No limo? Cabs? The metro? You mean like the peasants have to? Every day?


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 8, 2011)

Not brutal. Just not the glamor life that some people think that Washington bureaucrats live. 

Corporate workers make more money. And when we host meetings, we provide water, coffee, tea, and pastries. Lunch is usually provided. By contrast, going to government hosted meetings feels pretty austere.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2011)

> 4. I didn't say that the answer to the size of government debate is theological. Everything in the book is rooted in historical timelines along with highly reliable Hebrew and Greek translations to determine what a "Christian" position should be. Looking at the historical perspectives in Scripture, the Christian position should be, "watch your budgets."



I dunno, Peter. To me you're conflating things that only fit together at the most simplistic level.

Obviously governments have to watch their budgets. But the issue is way more complicated than that, starting with when the government should be cutting back and when it needs to step in to fill a $2 trillion shortfall in our economy.


----------



## Ed (May 9, 2011)

Peter why do you look to books like Leviticus to tell how you to live, when it has some of the craziest laws, morality and ethics you'll ever see?

If you are going to arbitrarily pick and choose which to follow, why expect anyone to decide to pick and choose the way you do?


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 9, 2011)

It's interesting to consider context. 

1) If this was the first modern government, they probably screwed up a lot of stuff. Yes. It failed. Maybe the lesson is to, say, create a democracy instead of a kingship. Or to not create a theocracy. The readers here know a heck of a lot more about government than Saul and his progeny could ever know.

2) Middle Eastern culture was - and still is - an honor/shame society. When Rehoboam was confronted in public about taxation, that was the case of a lower person trying to shame the king. In today's context Rehoboam responded like an ass, but in an honor/shame culture, it was appropriate for him to read his critics the riot act and to tell them that he was bigger than they would ever be. In context, this could have been an example of what a great, big man he was.

We see the same today. Remember the nutty statements by Baghdad Bob? How about the overly big statements by the recently falling leaders in Northern Africa? They sound crazy in Western culture, but are acting rationally at home. 

Ask somebody in an honor/shame culture for directions and they would rather lie to you than to admit (and feel shame) that they do not know. By lying to a stranger, the shame is concealed.

Or ask a person of high position if you may buy them a meal. How dare you insult a great man by inferring that he cannot afford to give you one hundred meals to your one.

I think we can learn some things about human nature and human values from old stories. We can also read things that are completely out of context, inappropriate, and obsolete for application in a modern culture based on enlightenment. 

Personally I find it unlikely that we could learn how to balance taxation and spending in a world with trillion dollar GDPs, a global Internet, and nuclear fission by studying the budgets of barely united tribes just climbing out of the Bronze Age.

Asking the Israelites to base their government on Stone Age principles would be a similarly poor fit.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 10, 2011)

*Grouped Responses*

Thanks again for all this feedback!

@Nick - The first lesson in governing is a basic principle: the danger of excessive taxation and unbridled spending. It's a principle. That's why it's short! Look in your own state for these very issues. California faces a $26 BILLION shortfall. Here's your governor's perspective:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magaz ... semailemb2

@Ed - I termed Leviticus 25 as the social justice chapter of the Bible. What it pointed to in its historical time was the responsibility of each individual to help those around them that are hurting. The responsibility in that time period wasn't delegated to a central government. What is significant is that the objective of the help was to get the individual back on their feet and back into the entrepreneurial economy God established for them via the Abrahamic covenant.

@John - Thank you for taking the time to research this. The word jubilee is a poor translation. The better translation is the year of shout and the tone of the shout was more like a war cry. This year was a year demonstrating God's grace and fairness. It meant that at least once, possibly twice depending on age, in an individual Israelite's life, they were given a second chance. All debts, rich and poor alike, were 100% cancelled. Those whom had lost their family property, had it returned to them, not to a commonwealth. There was no bankruptcy, just a second chance to start life anew.

We study ancient societies for a reason. Here, we a unique situation where Israel moved from God as monarch, with no central government and no taxes, to an established monarchy headed by a human being who "charged" taxes. Today, according the Economist, I believe we have 116 democracies each of which moved from monarchy to democracy. But Israel moved from Yahweh as king/central government to earthly monarchy/taxation in the space of 24 hours. This provides a unique case study from antiquity to study government growth and impact on employment for when the government expands or contracts.

I can't speak to Ancient Israel being shame-based as you proposed. I can report that the delegation of tribal leaders met with the king who then met with the king's advisors. The king then consulted the friends whom he had grown up with, who had had no governemental leadership experience, and it was they who gave him the lines he spoke to the leaders of the northern tribes. The advice of his counselors WAS to reduce the taxes. He ignored the advice. The country descended into secession and civil war. This points to the responsibility of political leadership to act with fiscal responsibility which Rehoboam chose not to, and as a consequence, paid a very dear price for listening to the wrong advisers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2011)

Peter, who is in favor of unbridled taxation and excessive spending?

Answer: nobody.

But it's insane just to say "taxation and spending" without looking any deeper. That's why today's Republican party is so dangerous! When they say "spending" what they really mean is "cut spending on those who need it."

What does Jesus say about that?

The serious question is what spending is appropriate. And that starts by breaking the budget down into past obligations, present maintenance, and future investment. History is fascinating and very important to learn from, but it doesn't repeat itself exactly; I don't think you'll find anything more than very general lessons in history to guide you in these detailed areas.

And by the way, the states' budget crises - CA included - are because we have had a financial crash that resulted in much lower revenue, NOT because of runaway spending and excessive taxation.

Jesus always votes liberal.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2011)

=o :lol:


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 10 said:


> Jesus always votes liberal.



Sorry, your New Testament theology is a tad off. That's not true at all. Grace is not liberalism. Additionally, there are numerous parables about finances including the story of an individual who started a building project, didn't cost it out, didn't finish it, got laughed at. 

Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that were of Caesar, and in that direct reference, he was speaking about paying taxes, which He paid, by the way.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 10, 2011)

*ARIZONA LIBERALS SEEK TO SECEDE AND FORM A NEW STATE*
The video spoke about secession and civil war over taxes. Here is a story filed by REUTERS, reporting that _Liberals_ (NOT Republications) are filing a voting initiative to secede from Arizona. It doesn't say if it's about taxes or not, but the notion of secession, even in the U.S., still exists including in New York where there was talk of Long Island seceding from the state. 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-southern-arizona-seek-form-state-130257516.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-south ... 57516.html)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2011)

Peter...I may have been kidding.

But I am perfectly serious that today's Republicans are either mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed.

There is nothing good about that party whatsoever - unless you want a society with a few gated communities and lots of ghettos.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 10, 2011)

[quote:d64ab4ffaf="Peter Alexander @ Tue May 10, 2011 12:54 pm"ò Ó   ¾)Ä Ó   ¾4Ê Ó   ¾5 Ó   ¾7Ð Ó   ¾8 Ó   ¾Mg Ó   ¾Mª Ó   ¾`´ Ó   ¾a¡ Ó   ¾Šô Ó   ¾‹• Ó   ¾Ûn Ó   ¾Û… Ó   ¿$µ Ó   ¿%; Ó   ¿*, Ó   ¿*J Ó   ¿2& Ó   ¿2V Ó   ¿â¨ Ó   ¿å7 Ó   ¿÷˜ Ó   ¿÷í Ó   ¿ûã Ó   ¿ü_ Ó   À i Ó   À¤ Ó   À7X Ó   À8i Ó   À_Ù Ó   À`K Ó   Àdw Ó   ÀdÇ Ó   À„Ò Ó   À…w Ó   À‡@ Ó   À‡„ Ó   Á
¯ Ó   Á: Ó   ÁŒ Ó   Áò Ó   ÁD¶ Ó   ÁE* Ó   ÁWÉ Ó   ÁX Ó   ÁnÖ Ó   Áo Ó   ÁÉg Ó   ÁÉÙ Ó   ÁãÕ Ó   Áä Ó   Â	Ç Ó   Â
 Ó   Â · Ó   Â@ Ó   Âû Ó   Âe Ó   Â- Ó   Â-× Ó   ÂF± Ó   ÂG? Ó   Âso Ó   Âs± Ó   Â•à Ó   Â–W Ó   ÂÂr Ó   ÂÂ¨ Ó   ÂúJ Ó   Âú« Ó   Ãp Ó   Ãp  Ó   Ãql Ó   Ãqv Ó   ÃÆY Ó   ÃÆ¿ Ó   ÃÝ Ó   ÃÝ9 Ó   ÄÊ Ó   Äô Ó   Äwr Ó   Äwv Ó   Ä¡è Ó   Ä£	 Ó   ÄÎ	 Ó   ÄÎ« Ó   ÄÕâ Ó   ÄÖB Ó   Äü± Ó   Äý Ó   Å„ Ó   Åu Ó   ÅŠ Ó   Å± Ó   Å&Ë Ó   Å&ü Ó   Å-7 Ó   Å-ˆ Ó   Å:x Ó   Å:… Ó   Åa Ó   Åa& Ó   Åf\ Ó   Åfv Ó   Ål’ Ó   Ål§ Ó   Åt§ Ó   Åv+ Ó   Åw* Ó   ÅwZ Ó   Å…– Ó   Åˆ‚ Ó   Å


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2011)

The names are totally appropriate. I'm not Paul Begala or any of those people, nor do I claim they don't spin. But the Republican party is proposing ONLY bad things.

And you know exactly what I mean by "disinformed."

I'll come back and argue some more later, but I want to leave you with the thought that I am not the Democratic party. They are way too far to the right.

Also note that you can't argue very basic ideology - as you're doing - and specifics in the same breath.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (May 10, 2011)

Peter, it is undeniable that wealth inequality has NEVER been worse in America. You haven't really responded to this. The very richest people control more wealth than ever before in the United States. Even this very last year, CEO compensation and corporate profits ballooned - the latter rose nearly 81% on average! Even Fortune 500 magazine (hardly a left-wing publication) commented that the fortunes of the richest Americans and businesses have never been so far-removed from the fortunes of the average citizen.

The vast majority of our GDP increase from 1980 to 2005 went to a tiny percentage of Americans. At the same time, while our GDP rose dramatically, average wages have stagnated. During the most prosperous years of the second Bush administration (2003-2007, pre-recession), average wages went DOWN.

Without trying to change the subject or move to talking points, consider the above. Read it very carefully. This is not debatable. This is not spin. The income and wealth statistics are publicly available. I will happily cite source after source for you if you don't believe me. Now, let me ask you, very bluntly:

1. Do you think that this scenario is desirable - eg. that our level of income inequality is at an all-time high and corporate profits have risen dramatically, while average wages have stagnated or dropped and unemployment remains steady? If you do believe it is desirable, why?

2. If you do not believe it is desirable, what do you think has led to this situation?

Full disclosure: I'm a Roman Catholic.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2011)

I find it amazing that the same wealthy Liberals and Conservatives aren't themselves being held accountable for this inequality of wealth, even though they have prospered year after year for selling legislation to the Unions, Corporations and even foreign Governments.
Much easier to finger point at those outside of the political spheres, when we should hold the very people who allowed this to happen accountable.

I vote for Harry Reid every session as he has brought home the Bacon. That's his gig. Even though he made millions by insider trading and the latest purchasing of Land that surrounded the new Hoover Dam Bridge. 
Yeah, that's right. He bought the land, then passed the laws, then picked the General Contractor and guess what....he sold the land back to us at a hefty profit..

This is our system. This is how things work.
To think that these 1% in our society are going to pay another dime, then you need a better accountant. These people go to Antigua and other places where they can claim residence.
Google Joe Bidens brother and see how these elites have each others backs regardless of their " affiliation."
Where does George Soros live.............??
Funny how he wants a single global community where everyone is equal, well except for those who know what's best for us like him.

This class warfare is as bad as blaming Bush who blamed Clinton, who blamed Bush Sr. and Reagan, who blamed Carter..................this is a shell game, and the rich guys ain't going to pay anymore because they bought every politician.
Since we can't afford to purchase these whores, then we should be grateful for any scraps they leave.

Face reality. Nobody cares about the working man, he's a schmuck who can barely get time to vote.
On the other hand, rich guys have money, and the poor have no gig so of course they will vote more often for whoever gives them the most scraps.

Sure sounds like a modern version of good old King George...

God Bless The USA...........

Where the scraps are better than anywhere else, and the poor all have iPhones and iPads.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2011)

Okay Peter. Again you're conflating a lot of things, so I'm going to take the liberty of leaving aside the history and ideology about excessive taxation and separate this into manageable chunks. I'm also not going to bother mentioning that "disinformation" is in the dictionary, and I would never stoop to pointing out that if you do a search for the word you'll find 1.4 million hits. So we'll leave that aside too.

Where to start. Okay, with the idea that conservative theology is dealing with reality. It's not; reality is liberal.

My reasons for despising today's Republicans have a lot to do with the realty that they simply suck. I'm not insulting them to change the subject or run away from anything - these people are wrong about every single issue and their entire agenda is based on underlying lies; I can't think of any other character flaws than the ones I listed to explain why that would be. My reasons for saying that are not the least bit arbitrary or influenced by emotion - other than appropriate outrage - and I've listed them here many times.

Paul Begala, Donna Brazile, and James Carville all have the virtue of arguing the right side, whether or not they spin political issues to benefit Democrats (such as Bin Laden's shooting) and whether or not some ancient kings in the Bible taxed and spent too much. I don't really care what talking heads' debating techniques are - although I will speculate that the reason they're emotional is that they all have souls, and nobody with a soul could vote for some Republican pig dog bastard who wants to eliminate Medicare while cutting taxes at the top.

Is that just ranting? Or did every Republican in the House just vote to do exactly that.

Yes, anyone who votes for a single one of those despicable people is either mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed. And/or lacking a soul.

Now. California and other states.

Posting this and then I'll continue in another post.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2011)

Okay. California's budget shortfall.

The first point is that California and most states have to balance their budgets by law. Unlike the Federal government they can't run deficits. That's the same problem countries on the Euro are facing, of course - they can't use monetary policy, so they're forced into disastrous economic contraction. Bad, shortsighted policy.

And *that* is the first lesson in governing principle: _the danger of inaction or inadequate action when massive government action is required to avert disaster._ Entire civilizations have either survived or descended into cannibalism based on whether their government leaders took forward-thinking action.

So my real answer to your question about my plan is that the federal government can and should be bailing out the states - as they did quite effectively in the first fiscal stimulus. Not doing so is going to have far worse consequences than running up the debt over the next three or four years, and in fact it's going to result in larger deficits anyway. Firing teachers, for example, is crazy.

My next answer is that Governor Brown's plan to use a combination of cuts and taxes seems sound. Unfortunately those mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed soulless Republicans in the state legislature won't let him put that on the ballot.

That's reality.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2011)

Brown is the right guy for the job. The cuts he proposes would have been blocked by the Dems if a Republican would have tried, so having a former Governor, who is a Democrat is much, much better than a Meg Whitman CEO. Being a CEO is fine in the privarte sector but Government is not a business, if it was we'd have much more poverty.
500,000,000 USD in pension liabilites is where Brown should focus.
350,000 students will be turned away this year, and for the very first time ever, tuitions paid by students outnumbers the State contributions.
I can't understand where lawmakers think cuts in education, especially when there's no jobs to be had, is a solution.
The retirees who have pensions over 100k should be capped, or the Feds could bail out by buying 10 year bonds. They are keeping their fellow member banks in business by lending them money interest free to buy bonds, which they sell back to the taxpayer with interest. This is Cronie capitalism, and it stinks like dead fish.
If California goes, it's going to be hell. 1/6 of the S&P corporations are there, and it would affect our national credit rating.
California has a bigger GDP than Russia.
THey just need common sense again instead of the infestations of Unions.
I am collecting a Pension from my local now as of a week ago, so I believe in Unions and fair pay.
But Unions against Corporations bring balance and a larger middle class.
Unions in Government seemed fine, but these pensions and early retirements with full pay should be up to the people who get taxed, not some Union official or temporary politician. 
When money is flowing during boomtimes we dont too bothered with anything wasteful, but when times are bad, policies that are coorupt should be ignored or not honored.
Sanctuary cities break the laws, so there's the green light to break even more.


----------



## bdr (May 11, 2011)

Nick-you're doing some kind of send up of intolerance, right?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2011)

That reminds me of the argument that liberals who opposed the Iraq war were "so negative."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2011)

> Being a CEO is fine in the privarte sector but Government is not a business, if it was we'd have much more poverty.



Sing it.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 11, 2011)

> Republicans are either mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed.



Therefore, since Peter Alexander mostly votes Republican, he is either mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed. 

Pretty judgmental and divisive!

Shuts down and eliminates free speech.

Refuses to listen to any other perspective because your perspective is the ONLY right one. 

So whatever anyone says to challenge your opinion the answer, because I'm Republican some years is to put your fingers in your ears and say, "la la la la la la la I can't hear you because you're mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed and/or disinformed while me and my friends are totally omniscient and right about everything la la la la la la la la!"

What's that, Spin Technique #4? 

Isn't that up there with, "I know my state and country are going bankrupt but I don't feel that it is and what you say makes me feel bad because I don't like being told that I'm responsible and part of the solution. So can you loan me some money so I can buy a box of Kleenex? I can give you an IOU."


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 11, 2011)

zircon_st @ Tue May 10 said:


> Peter, it is undeniable that wealth inequality has NEVER been worse in America. You haven't really responded to this. The very richest people control more wealth than ever before in the United States. Even this very last year, CEO compensation and corporate profits ballooned - the latter rose nearly 81% on average! Even Fortune 500 magazine (hardly a left-wing publication) commented that the fortunes of the richest Americans and businesses have never been so far-removed from the fortunes of the average citizen.
> 
> The vast majority of our GDP increase from 1980 to 2005 went to a tiny percentage of Americans. At the same time, while our GDP rose dramatically, average wages have stagnated. During the most prosperous years of the second Bush administration (2003-2007, pre-recession), average wages went DOWN.
> 
> ...



I wrote: _I know most of you won't agree with the premise, but I hope you enjoy the video. Feel free to comment about the subject material! _

Have you watched the video? It promotes a book I wrote, a non-music one. It's called Lessons In Governing. The first lesson came from a timeline which pointed to the danger of excessive taxation and unbridled spending. 

That's a principle of governing. 

Says Investor's Business Daily, May 11, Front Page, which supports this principle:

"An IBD analysis of spending and tax data going back to the Truman administration shows that it’s out-of-control spending, not taxes, that is driving the country’s current fiscal mess."

In answer to your first question, no.

In response to your second question, I'll have to think about it because that's not the thrust of the book, nor the intent of the promotional video. 

And in full disclosure I'm charismatic.

But Scripture does speak to this since in Deuteronomy, that as part of the Abrahamic covenant there were to be no poor among them. As I've twice pointed to, Leviticus 25 points to the responsible in helping people who've had a calamitous situation and become a have-not, to use your phrase. The responsibility of the brethren was to help another get back on their feet and back into the entrepreneurial economy Yahweh established through Torah in Israel.

That promise and responsibility has been passed to the church and it's illustrated in Acts 4:

_4:32 The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common. 4:33 With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all. 4:34 For there was no one needy among them, because those who were owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales 4:35 and placing them at the apostles’ feet. The proceeds 89 were distributed to each, as anyone had need. So Joseph, a Levite who was a native of Cyprus, called by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated “son of encouragement”), 4:37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and placed it at the apostles’ feet._

In ancient Israel, no limit was placed on how much an individual earned because the more that was earned, the more through tithes (a tenth) and offerings were available to help people. 

So a partial biblical answer, Andrew, is that if you want to see the gap diminished, quit delegating the responsibility to government and be willing to sacrifice your time and some stuff to help others get back into the fight. 

But if a person's career is all consuming, the sacrifice of time and stuff is costly, and not many want to do it when they can delegate it to someone else.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 11, 2011)

One problem is that the principle of "don't overtax" is agreed to by all, but the first webisode doesn't give an insight into how much is too much.

Many people have been brainwashed to think that all taxation is bad. Yet, they like roads, security, and even Social Security and Medicare. (A recent poll showed that even a strong majority of Republicans like Medicare.)

A fear I have is that a Christian will see this Webisode and simply have it reinforced that to be a member of the team, they must oppose all taxes.

It's a stupid debate. The debate should be about what services to deliver and government should be constantly improving how efficient it is at delivering those services. Cutting or not cutting isn't the point. The measures are lives saved per dollar, miles of road built per dollar, people insured and services rendered per dollar.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2011)

> Therefore, since Peter Alexander mostly votes Republican, he is either mean, selfish, misguided, foolish, misinformed, and/or disinformed.



He's a nice guy who I like personally, so I don't think he's mean or selfish, and I know he has a soul. But one or more of the others has to apply.

And he couldn't be more wrong that I have my hands over my ears. I've heard this stuff many times and thought about it for years, and I don't read novels, I read books about public affairs.

His fallacy is believing that rejecting an objectively vile set of values is closed-minded and divisive. It isn't, it's appropriate.

I don't want to live in a world with a few gated communities and everything else ghettos, in which vulnerable people aren't taken care of, and where we raise generations of tea party morons because public education is completely shut down.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?" 

James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 

1 John 3:17. But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Proverbs 11:24-25
One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed

I know, I know. You believe that poverty should be dealt with by churches and individuals. However, isn't the point THAT the poor are cared for ,not HOW it's done?
Additionally, what if people are less legally compelled to help their fellow man and then just don't-wouldn't that be sort of anti-biblical, yet given the nature of man, highly likely? Should we remove the government safety net and "see"?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2011)

At the risk of sacrilege, Jesus wasn't dealing with an economy in which fortunes are traded at the speed of electrons. People used money to make it easier to trade sheep for butter back then; money was tied directly to resources. Today we're dealing with macroeconomics, in which "money" has as much to do with unleashing potential output as it does with representing existing goods and services.

Maybe Jesus didn't understand today's economic climate!


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 12 said:


> At the risk of sacrilege, Jesus wasn't dealing with an economy in which fortunes are traded at the speed of electrons. People used money to make it easier to trade sheep for butter back then; money was tied directly to resources. Today we're dealing with macroeconomics, in which "money" has as much to do with unleashing potential output as it does with representing existing goods and services.
> 
> Maybe Jesus didn't understand today's economic climate!



Nick, how is this relevant to whether the poor are helped by individuals and religious organizations or governments? Or weren't you responding to me?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2011)

Your post inspired me to rub in my point about Jesus existing in a totally different realm.

Not only do I agree with what you wrote about the safety net, I'd take it much farther (as I suspect you would): it's not only necessary for the government to organize the safety nets, it's necessary for it to cover blind spots that the "free market" doesn't see.

As chimuelo pointed out, collective and private interests are not at all one and the same.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

My confusion re/ Christian thinking about taxes, poverty programs et al goes like this-if Jesus saw the poor as a priority, wouldn't the prudent thing be to cover all the bases?


----------



## chimuelo (May 12, 2011)

I heard he's coming back.
Let's hope he's better with the redistribution of wealth than the wealthy that are going after the wealthy..........
????
That sure doesn't make sense, but that's the slogan of the year ain't it...?
The rich are evil, and must share their money with the poor, but the rich who are taking from the rich themselves, don't want to use their money to do this, but ours...........

I think I got it now.

Thats' the trouble with socialism, you eventually run out of other peoples money.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Thu May 12 said:


> I heard he's coming back.
> Let's hope he's better with the redistribution of wealth than the wealthy that are going after the wealthy..........
> ????
> That sure doesn't make sense, but that's the slogan of the year ain't it...?
> ...



Well, it would last for a while. How about temporary 'soak the rich' socialism?


----------



## chimuelo (May 12, 2011)

How about common sense from the all knowing Federal mooches....??
Let's start with drilling Oil where it's safe here at home, and in return for this allownace that will help ALL Americans, make the Oil Companies get rid of their tax subsidies.......??
If they refuse, then make sure their tax subsidies go towards alternative energy.

When you have wealthy Liberals, Conservatives, and CEO's quacking about cash, do you think they give a rats ass about the middle class...........??
Nope, we are real men, who go to work everyday and pay taxes while 15 years of our lives gets washed out in some failed social program they created, and then failed to run properly.

I have no use for any of these elites. My dog could make better decisions that these fools.

I am tired of hearing about helping the rich guys with tax loopholes, and giving the poor free cash to stay indoors and make even more fatherless children.

How about us schmucks who played by the rules, pay our taxes, love our wives and raise our kids..........??

I dont care what false affiliation they claim, whoever says they want to take back our capital from global banks that send our kids to fight their battles gets my vote.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2011)

How about restoring the marginal tax rates to 50% so that the rich have some customers to keep them rich?

The income inequality we have now is simply not sustainable. It has nothing to do with soaking the rich or giving away money to lazy people.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

My 'soak the rich' was ironic. I'm not real happy with Obama's giveaway to millionaires.


----------



## chimuelo (May 12, 2011)

David Koch
George Soros

Here's your rich guys that buy politicians and have no tax liabilities as they have also purchased the very laws that exempt them.

Nobody with enough money to buy a piece of property in Mexico, Belize or Antigua will ever pay another nickel, and these elite scoundrels that pose for the cameras know this.

The short story is that failed social experiments that gave everyone a house with no credit or down payment cost guys like me our asses.
The sons of bitches who did this then sold our debt to China and hid behind some pathetic moral concept where a preposturous utopian society might exist.

These worthless fools would never use their money to help anyone.
In Vegas when you gamble and lose, you're done.
You dont start firing custodians and dealers, and collecting more money from Hookers as a new " tax " to make up for your continued failures.

Welfare ruined entire generations of Black Americans, that was another great Social experiment run by fools.
Go to an Arizonas Indian Reservations where the feds pay everything.............Yeah great place there too.

I can't stand the Conservative concept, as it is as vile as the Liberal appraoch to Governing.
I have seen decades of these 2 worthless parties killing millions in wars, and causing extended deacdes of poverty through their failed design.

But a few more trillion will fix everything right........???

I pray my son doesn't become a victim of their flawed foresight.........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2011)

I got that.

Hey Larry, how come we almost always agree yet constantly misunderstand what the other is saying the first time?


----------



## NYC Composer (May 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 12 said:


> I got that.
> 
> Hey Larry, how come we almost always agree yet constantly misunderstand what the other is saying the first time?



My theory is that you're a terrible communicator. What's yours?
:wink: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :shock: (o)


----------



## JJP (May 12, 2011)

The biggest problem I see with this whole thread is that the christian bible is a very inaccurate historical record. Historical generalities are there, interesting anecdotes are included, but hardly any kind of true empirical analysis is possible with the information the christian bible provides. Most conclusions that can be drawn are little more than speculation because of the lack of factual detail. Most details are anecdotal and can be highly suspect in their accuracy and the bias of the authors or later revisionists. Therefore it would be ridiculously speculative to make a definitive conclusion about the schism as based solely on economics related to spending and taxation or any other factor.

The christian bible is not a primary source for historical study, and it is a weak secondary source. Most of it can't be accurately traced to a specific author. Don't give me the stuff about the Pentateuch's (Torah's) Yawist, Eloist, Deutoronomist, Priest, and Redactor. We aren't even certain whether those are individual people or groups of scribes or even if they were the original authors.

Therefore, any parallels that can be drawn between the government of the Israelites during the Theocracy and the reign of Saul and the USA of today are foggy at best.

Using the laws laid down in the Pentateuch as an example of good governance that can be applied to the modern world is also problematic because we must arbitrarily ignore those laws which are considered abhorrent in today's society. Any system of governance can look ideal if you exclude its shortcomings and only keep the parts that you like. The Third Reich could be presented as a successful system if you removed all the stuff about Aryanism. Doing so is called revisionism, not history, and certainly not the truth. It makes for bad science, results in poor analysis, and leads to erroneous conclusions.

Disclaimer: I have not read the book. It may not use the bible as its primary reference, but the video and Peter's postings seem to imply this.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 13, 2011)

> My theory is that you're a terrible communicator. What's yours?



That I'm a misunderstood genius.

But only you and my wife - both New Yorkers - misunderstand me.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 13 said:


> > My theory is that you're a terrible communicator. What's yours?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In my book you're lucky-my problem is that my wife understands me far too well.


----------

