rockpage.net

Many Atheists like yourselves seem to dismiss God because of bad experiences with people who claim to be religious, but don't even live up to there own standards. Your examples are many in this thread. You guys have repeatedly brought up the failures of said people to use as a reason to dismiss God. One has nothing to do with the other.

Please don't judge God by weak men who "say" they represent God. The examples you give of bad experiences in church are with people, not God. There are hypocrites everywhere . Yet unfortunately it is these people you seem use to judge the extistance God.

Religion is made up OF MEN who sometimes get it wrong. If you remember, Christ hung out with the humble lowlife because they got it. It was the self proclaimed righteous that didn't get it. Still the same way today.

And please understand that believers feel that they are helping you when they suggest that you believe too. It's their tactics that may suck.

lonewolf. Do you really believe you would be better off with a pre FDR sized government ? Do you think you would have more money in your pocket ? Or why is it that you repeatedly express a hatred for government ?

Capitalism is based on setting prices by "whatever the market will bare" (unless you are a monopoly where you can then go above whatever the market will bare). If you would pay less taxes and have more money to spend, all prices would be higher than they are now, and you would likely have the same amount of money in your pocket and LESS government protection.

I don't understand how paying less taxes will stimulate the economy . The government doesn't just hoard the tax money.......They spend it, or give it to states, counties and cities and people TO SPEND. When the government spends it, it is going INTO the economy. How is that bad ? Other than you don't like how they spend it.

And remember, no matter how much you complain, it will never go back, so why DO you bother to complain about it ?

Hawk wrote: Please don't judge God by weak men who "say" they represent God. The examples
you give of bad experiences in church are with people, not God. There are hypocrites
everywhere . Yet unfortunately it is these people you seem use to judge the extistance
of God.

Religion is made up OF MEN who sometimes get it wrong.

Well, you're right. But, at the end of the day, HIS word was being written by men.
They very well may have believed in what they were writing (Though, with the King
James version of the Bible, there was a definite point to the translation) but I don't
believe it was put down after coming from an all-knowing deity. So many of the
stories are from older religions anyway.

I actually describe myself as Agnostic for the simple fact that I WILL acknowledge,
albeit unlikely, that there IS some kind of "creator". However, I don't think there's a
chance in the proverbial hell that it's the Christian God.

First off....there's so much in the "word" that's simply wrong. Also, the God in there,
for being so powerful, omnipotent, all-knowing, supposedly PERFECT, etc. is filled
with faults of all kinds, including those he says are absolute sins. Jealous, vengeful,
angry, mean, murderous, in the story of Job, a dupe. NOW, I've had who knows
how many people say "Well, that's the OLD Testament God". So. If he's CHANGING
(Evolving, perchance?), it means the God that is believed to have MADE us...was
FAR from perfect. If HE gets millennia to change his wrong ways, who does he think
he is to give humans a limited number of years?

I'm also not all that big on the idea that Jesus said he was the Son of God the way
it's come to mean. Like I said, I think the poor guy was salt of the earth, but he's
been saddled with a heavy burden.

My problem isn't so much with any one person who was the antithesis of what a
"Christian" should be (There are millions of those in every faith/walk of life, etc.),
it's that the theology itself doesn't hold up. Wish it did, 'cause it seems a pretty
easy doctrine to follow to be guaranteed eternal life.

I certainly see where people get meaning and purpose from their religion. It's
just not something I, for lack of a better word and with all due respect to your
beliefs, need. And, to move back towards the question in the original post, I don't
think anyone has a right, in any way, to push their beliefs on such a matter on others.
Nor is it a societal necessity. It'd be nice if those who profess to be so resolute
in their belief start understanding that if they want their beliefs respected, and want
a true freedom of religion, a secular society is in their best interest.

VENTGtr wrote:
(Evolving, perchance)

I'm sorry, I realize the gravity of this discussion, and certainly respect those involved, but dude, that's a good one on soooo many levels. ---->JMS


Oh, and a P.S.... I, too, want to stress that Christianity isn't for me, but I do see the morality and social good Christianity has wrought in the world, and I respect that. My view on God is that he exists, though only in the human psyche, and not on any other plane. That He offers comfort to the human condition, I believe. That He circumvented scientific scrutiny, or allows anyone to judge me, I do not believe.
Your faith is your own, and if it makes you a better person, I support it. If it makes you a better person than me because I have no faith, I do not support it.-->jms

Hawk wrote:Capitalism is based on setting prices by "whatever the market will bare" (unless you are a monopoly where you can then go above whatever the market will bare). If you would pay less taxes and have more money to spend, all prices would be higher than they are now, and you would likely have the same amount of money in your pocket and LESS government protection.

Do you mean bear? I don't know where you get this stuff, but its not out of an economics book. Capitalism is based on supply and demand.

Capital inflation is caused by an increase in overall money supply, not from a redistribution of that supply. There is a possibility that increased demand on a product may cause a temporary imbalance in the supply/demand ratio, but increased production to address the shortfall should, in the longer run, bring the price lower through productivity gains.

SS,

Nicely said.

Hawk wrote:I don't understand how paying less taxes will stimulate the economy. The government doesn't just hoard the tax money.......They spend it, or give it to states, counties and cities and people TO SPEND. When the government spends it, it is going INTO the economy. How is that bad ? Other than you don't like how they spend it.

Capital spent by the free market is much, much, much, much more efficient than capital spent by government. The money quickly gets distributed throughout the entire economy to the benefit of everybody.

Capital spent by the government is always bloated with overhead and is usually directed to specific vendors, usually taking the form of political payback. Only those few who receive government contracts reap the benefit. The capital is distributed slowly and inefficiently. Half of the taxes go to feeding the government itself. I suppose thats good for the Washington, D.C. economy.

Hawk wrote:Or why is it that you repeatedly express a hatred for government ?

I never express a hatred of anything. What I dislike is BIG government, not government.

Hawk wrote:And remember, no matter how much you complain, it will never go back, so why DO you bother to complain about it ?

Complacency is what got us saddled with big government in the first place. Judging from your statement, it looks like complacency is what will get us out from under it. Never confuse the words "complain" and "protest".

This is all way off topic. My point was that one of the aspects of big government is that it tends to stick its nose in where it does not belong and this pledge issue is one example.

Another thing that amuses me to no end is the religious person who tells the non-believer to just go ahead and voice the words, that they don't really have to mean it--just say it.

I mean, after all, its only an oath--why would you ever want to mean it?
(please read disclaimer).

Good points, LW, but the "free" market is far from perfect. You've forgotten the power of greed.
In the rarified air of Reaganomics, it was thought that if more money was distributed to Big Business (back when small business could begin to compete), that money would trickle-down, resulting in the more-even distribution of wealth(power) to everyone... if everyone made more money, they'd pay more taxes overall, and gov't and citizenry would both benefit. Basically, tax breaks for Big Business equals a better world.
Now insert reality.
Big Business loved the tax breaks. Overall pay and benefits increased somewhat, but for those in the upper strata of management, pay skyrocketed. Where it was once common for CEO's to make 20 times the average pay at their companies, suddenly 200 times the average pay wasn't even noticed. Please note the rich getting richer, and not because they're doing a great job. The janitor works hard, too, and his pay didn't increase all that much.
Around this time, we heard the famous words, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Shortly after that, the internet boom happened, and regular Americans started getting some returns on their meager investment money. Welfare rolls were at historic lows, unemployment shrunk, and the little-people actually made some scratch because employers had to compete for THEM for once.
Now a bit more reality.
The "free market" noticed that people in Mexico would work half-price. China would undercut the Mexicans. India would go even cheaper than that. Why on Earth would anyone want to pay Americans so much money for a living, when you could f*ck them over, and give them new lower-paying retail jobs? The Information Age gave way to the Walmart Economy, the 401k's took a thumping, Enron and others cooked books, and the little guy took the bone again. The "free market" sold us out, and there's no way to explain it other than that.
The benefit of government spending over market spending is that I can vote out the a-holes who spend my money (remember that quote in Nov.'08). In the corporate world, I have zero control, which is exactly how the rich want it to be. Do I think ALL money should go to government? Of course not. Contrary to popular conservative thought, all non-Republicans are not socialists. There has to be balance, also contrary to popular conservative thought. ---->JMS

That's a little OT John, but ask yourself:

Who benefits the most from money spent on government contracts?

I'll give you a hint. While working at my cushy defense job in the 80s, when we had a surplus of research money for a given quarter, we had to use it or lose it. I'll never forget those huge keg & filet mignon parties we had. I can only imagine what the brass were doing with most of the "surplus" money.

I'll give you another hint. Unless they are very lucky and land a cushy job with a big government contractor (you know, those nasty corporations), its not the people who were displaced by foreign labor.

lonewolf wrote:
Do you mean bear? I don't know where you get this stuff, but its not out of an economics book. Capitalism is based on supply and demand.

I got this at seminars I took for running a business. You're are so right, you'll never find it in a economic text book. It was taught by men who run businesses.

For instance , we were taught to adapt it (the principle) to the piano business. If you charge $ 100 for a tuning at 4 times a day at 5 days a week at 50 weeks a year, you make $100,000 a year (minus overhead of course). That's 1000 tunings.


Now if you raise your prices to $120 You only have to tune 834 pianos to make the same amount of money. In other words, it's OK to loose 266 customers who can't afford it or don't want to pay it. In fact it's GOOD to loose them. Less work, less overhead.

So in fact, we were taught by men who RUN businesses, not teach it in school, to raise our prices above what the market will bear. If you watch, many / most companies work this way.

Then after you start to fill in the 266 lost customers, raise your price again.

I see companies who run their business that way, Steinway for instance. It's not always supply and demand, it can be about limiting supply on purpose. Or just overcharge, because you can then decrease production and make equal or more money.


I was taught basically that same system at more then one seminar.
Have your price set at whatever the market will bear, then raise it, to decrease production and that cuts overhead and profits increase.

Not quite the same as supply and demand.

BTW the money you spent on steaks and beer, were helping the local economy.

Sorry to get WAY OFF the subject at hand.

To explain the existence of God to you will take more than these pages permit. And no, I don't think I'm a better person than you (plural) because you don't believe. I know many non believers with better morals than believers. And I've been known to party excessively.

Hawk wrote:To explain the existence of God to you will take more than these pages permit. And no, I don't think I'm a better person than you (plural) because you don't believe. I know many non believers with better morals than believers. And I've been known to party excessively.

This thread is not about the existance of God and I would never try to debate such an issue. Nor does my stance make me atheist.

This is a question of whether it is appropriate for a country that guarantees freedom of and from religion to put a religious phrase in an official government pledge and thereby excluding millions of American citizens from taking that pledge in earnest.

You're right, lonewolf, I went way off topic with the anti-corporate rant. You have to admit, it's an important discussion, though... maybe we'll continue it elsewhere.---->JMS

lonewolf wrote:

Hawk wrote:Or why is it that you repeatedly express a hatred for government ?

I never express a hatred of anything. What I dislike is BIG government, not government.
Never confuse the words "complain" and "protest".

I didn't see the word "protest" and I mistakenly thought your "dislike" was equivilent to "hate". My mistake.

lonewolf wrote:

Hawk wrote:To explain the existence of God to you will take more than these pages permit. And no, I don't think I'm a better person than you (plural) because you don't believe. I know many non believers with better morals than believers. And I've been known to party excessively.

This thread is not about the existance of God and I would never try to debate such an issue. Nor does my stance make me atheist.

This is a question of whether it is appropriate for a country that guarantees freedom of and from religion to put a religious phrase in an official government pledge and thereby excluding millions of American citizens from taking that pledge in earnest.

I never said YOU were an atheist. But atheists rockpagers expressed their dislike of the mention of God in the Pledge because they ARE atheists. I was addressing atheists. I thought that was obvious.

Hawk wrote:For instance , we were taught to adapt it (the principle) to the piano business. If you charge $ 100 for a tuning at 4 times a day at 5 days a week at 50 weeks a year, you make $100,000 a year (minus overhead of course). That's 1000 tunings.

Now if you raise your prices to $120 You only have to tune 834 pianos to make the same amount of money. In other words, it's OK to loose 266 customers who can't afford it or don't want to pay it. In fact it's GOOD to loose them. Less work, less overhead.

So in fact, we were taught by men who RUN businesses, not teach it in school, to raise our prices above what the market will bear. If you watch, many / most companies work this way.

Then after you start to fill in the 266 lost customers, raise your price again.

I see companies who run their business that way, Steinway for instance. It's not always supply and demand, it can be about limiting supply on purpose. Or just overcharge, because you can then decrease production and make equal or more money.


I was taught basically that same system at more then one seminar.
Have your price set at whatever the market will bear, then raise it, to decrease production and that cuts overhead and profits increase.

Not quite the same as supply and demand.

This is a process of supply and demand that is taught in economics text books...its just not described the same way. FYI:

In economics texts, this is simply a method of product pricing that brings your target supply and demand to a state of equilibrium. When you start getting more or fewer requests for service than your target supply, supply and demand are no longer in equilibrium. You then have to adjust your supply target or pricing to bring them back in equilibrium. Of course you would want to do the latter.

It is also, to a lesser extent, a description of the Law of Diminishing Returns (266 fewer customers worth the same income due to pricing).

There are few can get away with limiting supply like that. OPEC comes to mind. If Exxon does it, its called anti-trust.

lonewolf wrote:

Hawk wrote:For instance , we were taught to adapt it (the principle) to the piano business. If you charge $ 100 for a tuning at 4 times a day at 5 days a week at 50 weeks a year, you make $100,000 a year (minus overhead of course). That's 1000 tunings.

Now if you raise your prices to $120 You only have to tune 834 pianos to make the same amount of money. In other words, it's OK to loose 266 customers who can't afford it or don't want to pay it. In fact it's GOOD to loose them. Less work, less overhead.

So in fact, we were taught by men who RUN businesses, not teach it in school, to raise our prices above what the market will bear. If you watch, many / most companies work this way.

Then after you start to fill in the 266 lost customers, raise your price again.

I see companies who run their business that way, Steinway for instance. It's not always supply and demand, it can be about limiting supply on purpose. Or just overcharge, because you can then decrease production and make equal or more money.


I was taught basically that same system at more then one seminar.
Have your price set at whatever the market will bear, then raise it, to decrease production and that cuts overhead and profits increase.

Not quite the same as supply and demand.

This is a process of supply and demand that is taught in economics text books...its just not described the same way. FYI:

In economics texts, this is simply a method of product pricing that brings your target supply and demand to a state of equilibrium. When you start getting more or fewer requests for service than your target supply, supply and demand are no longer in equilibrium. You then have to adjust your supply target or pricing to bring them back in equilibrium. Of course you would want to do the latter.

It is also, to a lesser extent, a description of the Law of Diminishing Returns (266 fewer customers worth the same income due to pricing).

There are few can get away with limiting supply like that. OPEC comes to mind. If Exxon does it, its called anti-trust.

I always learn something from you.

But my point was that this way of thinking will likely raise prices across the board if we all pay a lot less tax and have more money to spend. (Is that a run-on sentence?)

And the point is not necessarily limiting supply first, but raising prices first, "to whatever the market will bear", thereby limiting demand . Working a balance with 'price' instad of sppply.

lonewolf wrote:
If Exxon does it, its called anti-trust.

If Exxon does it, it's called the post-Katrina ripoff that led to the largest profits ever for any corporation on Earth. That, in turn, led to something called a 400 million dollar platinum parachute for the CEO. If you worked as hard as you can, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for your entire life, would the fruit of that be worth 400 million dollars? It insults the guy on the oil derrick that busts his ass for real. Manipulating a market a la Enron is not how free markets should work, yet conservatives simply turn their heads and ignore it when talk turns to how business has my best interests in mind. As far as taxes are concerned, truly what is the difference whether I pay $200 more in taxes this year, or , say, $600 more for my heating oil? My taxes support my country. My heating bill supports a man in a giant house in Texas, and a Saudi prince who holds hands with the President.
It's time to say the emperor has no clothes.
Bailing out the mortgage industry because they greedily took chances on dumbasses who were never going to pay their mortgages is WRONG. Bad for the economy? Too Bad. If I overextend financially, it's bad for MY economy, and nobody'd bail me out. SCREW 'EM!
Sending manufacturing jobs offshore simply because slave labor is cheaper than American labor is WRONG. Wanna tax something? Tariff the sh*t out of the goods that undercut American goods. There'll be fewer plastic widgets to sell at Walmart, leading to fewer Walmarts (does Pinecroft really need a Walmart?). SCREW 'EM!
Companies of any size who employ illegal aliens should be SHUT DOWN. The so-called "free" market is responsible for the current illegal immigration problem. If employers didn't hire illegals, they couldn't make money here, and would have no reason to be here... they don't want to be American, despite what liberals think, they want money, and nothing more... otherwise they'd be waving American flags at their rallies instead of Mexican flags. SCREW 'EM!
There's plenty more wrong with the current "free market," but real life beckons, and it's my day off. Time to go spend my somewhat-less-than-$400M bonus.-------->JMS

John, you are rambling. I'm not sure what your point is. Remember, short concise paragraphs! But when Exxon does it, it should be anti-trust.

Bill, 1st of all, you are confusing my ideas with the rhetoric of the neocons. If the feds are relieved of all local problems, it will be up to the states and localities to take up the slack. i.e. Pennsylvania would need to raise the limits on local taxation and raise state taxes. This would be more than offset by significant cuts in federal taxes.

There would be a little more in people's pockets, but not enough to cause pricing inflation. Ain't gonna happen. What we would get is more efficient government that would be answerable to the public. Your very growth and population argument begs for this kind of solution.

Most importantly, the U.S. Government wouldn't go bankrupt in our lifetime. On the present course, it probably will.

How about this:
1) Capitalism is not always good. The haves always trump the have-nots, and the GOP is the party of the rich.
2) Nobody deserves a 400 million-dollar bonus for doing anything short of eliminating world hunger. Nobody.
3) Nobody likes paying taxes. Deal with it.

Hope that helps clarify. ------->JMS

songsmith wrote:How about this:
1) Capitalism is not always good. The haves always trump the have-nots, and the GOP is the party of the rich.

The haves have always trumped the have-nots since the dawn of time. At least in a free capitalist society, the have-nots have a chance to get ahead; however, they can't expect to get ahead by getting a typical job and working 9-5. I can testify to that.

I don't see where the GOP has anything to do with anything I said. They are just as much a big government party as the Democrats.

songsmith wrote:2) Nobody deserves a 400 million-dollar bonus for doing anything short of eliminating world hunger. Nobody.

That's for boards of directors elected by shareholders to decide and nobody else's business--including the employees (unless they happen to own stock). Fortunately, mutual fund companies and shareholder groups have begun to use their shareholder power to put a cap on excessive bonuses.

What are your thoughts on Howard Stern making $302 million last year?

songsmith wrote:3) Nobody likes paying taxes. Deal with it.

This is not about taxes, it is about efficient government that won't go bankrupt. If you read my other posts, the state and local governments would have to take up the slack. There would be some tax savings because of the more efficient state & local government savings and no DC overhead on revenues presently redistributed to the states.

I set myself up so that my federal taxable income won't exceed the 15% tax rate. If these ideas came about, my total tax bill would go up significantly, not down.

songsmith wrote:

lonewolf wrote:
If Exxon does it, its called anti-trust.

If Exxon does it, it's called the post-Katrina ripoff that led to the largest profits ever for any corporation on Earth.

Exxon only has one refinery in the gulf region--Baton Rouge--it was one of the few plants in that region that remained open after Katrina.

Exxon's record profits are from crude prices, not refining. FYI, refineries make more money when crude prices are low because the profit margin is much higher relative to their cost of crude. Right now, with crude running thru the roof, refining companies not associated with the major crude companies are actually seeing smaller profits.

BTW, China Petroleum now has the largest market cap of any company in the world.

is there anything you don't know?

Heh, heh, heh...thanks for the plug, but there are more things that I don't know than there are stars in the universe.