Monthly Archives: August 2011

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:

Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for investment income. Candidates such as U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin believe — with election results to support them — that Americans support such a tax system.

In the article below, Jeffrey Miron gives figures that show that Buffett is wrong about soaking the rich to solve our budget problem. However, he also shows how the federal government has acted in such a way

Why Warren Buffett Is Wrong

by Jeffrey A. Miron

This article appeared on CNN.com on August 16, 2011.

In a recent New York Times op-ed article, Warren Buffett asserts that the super-rich do not pay enough taxes. He suggests that any new budget deal should raise rates on the super-rich, especially on their “unearned” income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

Buffett is wrong. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided. And the policy Buffett criticizes most — low tax rates on capital income — should be expanded, not eliminated.

The first problem with Buffett’s view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue — only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

The deductibility of home mortgage interest encourages excess investment in housing. High-income taxpayers get the benefits, since low-income taxpayers own little or no housing and do not itemize deductions in any case.

The favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance generates overconsumption of health care and contributes to rising health care costs. The benefits go mainly to middle- and upper-income households, since those without jobs get no employer-provided benefits.

Numerous loopholes for favored industries in the corporate tax code distort the market’s investment decisions and reward the well-funded and politically connected.

And it is not just the tax code that harms the economy while favoring the better off.

Excessive licensing requirements, permitting fees, restrictive examinations and other barriers to entry into medicine, law, plumbing, hair styling and many other professions are bad for economic productivity because they artificially restrict the supply of these services. And these barriers redistribute income perversely by raising incomes for those protected and raising prices for everyone.

Crony capitalism — the special treatment of favored industries like autos — runs counter to economic efficiency because it protects businesses that would otherwise fail, and it maintains high incomes for executives and shareholders.

The too-big-to-fail doctrine, exhibited most recently in the TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, distorts efficiency by encouraging excess risk-taking. Meanwhile, bailouts generate huge incomes for the lucky few who keep gains in good times and pass losses to taxpayers in bad times.

In contrast to these and other policies, the one Buffett criticizes — low tax rates on capital income — is beneficial for the economy, including lower-income households.

Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the author ofLibertarianism, from A to Z.

More by Jeffrey A. Miron

Economists agree broadly that an efficient tax system should avoid taxing income, dividends and capital gains to promote savings, investment and growth. Tax rates on capital income should therefore be low or even zero. The U.S. is far from this ideal, especially given the high tax rate on corporate income and the additional taxation at the personal level.

Buffet asserts that taxing capital income has never deterred anyone from investing. Well, then he has never discussed the issue with me or many of my friends.

More importantly, taxing investment returns plays a huge role in what kinds of investments occur, and where, even if it has minor effects on the amounts. These tax-induced distortions in investment choices then reduce economic growth. High U.S. taxation on capital income drives investment overseas.

So raising capital tax rates will not make the super-rich pay their “fair” share; it will encourage capital flight, driving factories and innovation abroad. The rich will still get their high returns, but U.S. workers will have fewer jobs and lower wages.

Buffett errs, most fundamentally, by focusing on outcomes rather than policies. The right question is which policies promote differences in incomes that reflect hard work, energy, innovation and creativity, rather than reward the unethical, the politically connected and the tax-savvy.

In economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy

Atheist says “It’s not about having a purpose in life..” (Arkansas Atheist, Part 1)jh69

Ecclesiastes 1

Published on Sep 4, 2012

Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider

_____________________

Ecclesiastes 2-3

Published on Sep 19, 2012

Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider

_____________________________

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5)

The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy.

_________________________-

I want to make two points today. 1. There is no way for an atheist to achieve last meaning. 2. The atheist can not come up with any intellectual basis for the “Golden Rule.” In a world of time and chance the survival of the fittest is the best he can come with. (Woody Allen’s movie makes that point very well with his reference to “might makes right.”)

In response to John Brummett’s article “Irony abounds as religion arises,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 16, 2011,

mudfishin Says:
August 16th, 2011 at 9:46 am

Atheists understand that life is wonderful because we only have one. It’s not about having a purpose in life as much as it’s about living life to the fullest extent while trying to make the world a happy place for ALLThe latter part of that statement is why Atheists advertise and proselytize – because religion often gives a person a sense of superiority over others from different faiths and the non-religious, and that often leads to prejudice, division, and violence.

I am an Atheist, yet I believe whole-heartedly in the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you. It’s the core belief in over 20 of the largest world religions, believe it or not. .. The fact is this, if you truly follow that rule then you won’t kill or steal or lie or covet thy neighbors anything because you would never want someone doing that to you. It’s common sense, it’s simple human morality, nothing implanted by gods. 

_____________________

Christians have a basis for their morality because the infinite personal God of the Bible has spoken in the Bible to them. The Bible was written in a space time setting and many of the passages of the Bible have been verified as historically accurate.

On the other hand, many of the passages of the Book of Mormon has been disproved (For instance, use of horses and chariots in the USA 2000 years ago). Jesus said that he was the only way to God (John 14:6) and that he was the truth and the light.  Those who do not have revealed truth are left in the dark when it comes to morals. Let me give you a perfect example concerning the “Golden Rule.”

Earlier I took a look at the Woody Allen film “Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  In that film Judah has his troublesome mistress killed because she was about to destroy him by revealing his past illegal activities. Judah is told by his agnostic to not be troubled by guilt and that he is home free. She noted that Hitler proved that might makes right.  (Martin Landau played the part of Judah and he revealed that several men had confided to him that they wished they had done the same deed as Judah because they would have been happier.)

The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it?  The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.

Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue AND THEY HAVE NO BASIS FOR DEFENDING THE GOLDEN RULE. ABOVE WE READ mudfishin say “It’s common sense, it’s simple human morality…” BUT I KNEW Gloria Leitner WOULD BE CHALLENGED BY A FELLOW HUMANIST WHO THOUGHT THROUGH THEIR WORLDVIEW WITH A LOGICAL MIND, AND SURE ENOUGH IT HAPPENED.

Solomon showed us in the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes what the world “under the sun” without God in the picture looks like and it forces one to embrace nihilism.(See previous post on this about Solomon’s search.) However, the atheist has to live in the world that God made with the conscience that God gave him. This creates a tension. The agnostic Carl Sagan felt the tension too.

What does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that  communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”

Dr Sagan deep down knew that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Francis Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore.

I would love to hear from any atheist that would present a case for lasting meaning in life apart from God. It seems to me that the British humanist H. J. Blackham was right in his accessment of the predictament that atheists face:

On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does notis a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance andends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, oneafter another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)

Woody Allen’s film does a great job of showing the need for the “enforcement factor.” One reviewer made it sound like the movie was unrealistic and Judah could have smoothtalked his way out of this. However, Woody Allen anticipated this objection and that is why he threw in the illegal financial dealings of Judah that his former girlfriend knew about. Now instead of just losing his marriage he may have to go to jail.

The Bible and Archaeology (2/5)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 13)(Famous Arkansan Dick Powell)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 13)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Press Release: Dennis Ross Statement on Debt Deal Vote
Solving our Long Term Debt Crisis Will Require a Balanced Budget Amendment, Tax Reform, and a National Discussion on the Role of the Federal Government

 

Jobs – June Job Fair 26
Jobs – June Job Fair 27
Jobs – June Job Fair 28


Jobs – June Job Fair 30


Jobs – June Job Fair 31


Jobs – June Job Fair 32


Jobs – June Job Fair 32


Jobs – June Job Fair 33


Jobs – June Job Fair 34

Related Documents

Zero Based Budget Bill

Budget – GOP Budget Plan

Oversight – AmericanJobCreators.com Radio Actuality

 
 

Washington, Aug 1 

Washington, DC – Congressman Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) released the following statement announcing his intention to vote NO on the “Debt Deal.”   Congressman Ross released the following statement,

“America is nearly upside down on the national mortgage and this legislation is not a viable long term solution to put our fiscal house in order.  No responsible bank would lend to a family in the financial condition our nation is in without a realistic and enforceable plan to get their spending under control.  Without a Balanced Budget Amendment in place, this deal, as with dozens of others, will barely last through this election, let alone ten years.  My kids and grandkids cannot afford trillions more in debt and I was not sent here to heel like a good puppy when the President or the Treasury Secretary says so.  I was sent here to do what is right for my constituents and the nation, even if that makes me unpopular or costs me my seat.”

Congressman Ross continued, “The Speaker is up against the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter and a Senate that spends more time bloviating than legislating.  I do not envy him that task.  No one should mistake my differences with this legislation as an indication of any problem with my Speaker.  Those of us who vote no on today’s legislation will send a message to the President that 75% of the American people want to tie Washington’s hands when it comes to spending with a Balanced Budget Amendment and we know our Speaker will be there when it happens.”

Dennis Ross, son of Bill and Loyola Ross, was born in 1959 and raised in Lakeland, Florida.   He graduated from Auburn University and the Cumberland School of Law at Sanford University.  He has served as in-house counsel to the Walt Disney Company and as an associate of the law firm of Holland & Knight.  He previously served in the Florida Legislature from 2000 until being term limited in 2008.  Dennis and his wife, Cindy Hartley, were married in 1983 and have two sons, Shane and Travis.

Here is another famous Arkansan.

Dick Powell and Ginger Rogers sing “I’ll String Along With You” in the movie “Twenty Million Sweethearts” (1934). In the beginning of the song Dick Powell’s character suffers from a case of the nerves.

Dick Powell

Inducted in 1996

(1904-1963) – Actor, director and producer was born in Mountain View. A former band vocalist and emcee, he played the male lead in a number of musicals in the 1930s, often opposite Ruby Keeler and Joan Blondell. He then made a successful transition from the boyish crooner to more serious roles as the hardboiled detective in thrillers of the 1940s. In the early 1950s, he became president of the successful Four Star television production company. Movies included: “42nd Street,” (1933) “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” (1935) “Murder My Sweet” (1944) and “The Bad and Beautiful” (1952). His television series include “Four Star Playhouse” (1952), “The Dick Powell Zane Gray Theatre” (1961), “The Rifleman,” and “Wanted, Dead or Alive.” www.imdb.com/DickPowell

The Rifleman.

Arkansas Times Bloggers: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” (Part 3)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (7 of 14)

Christianity vs. Secular Humanism – Norman Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpoKvWaI5DA

Published on Oct 6, 2013

Date: 1986
Location: The John Ankerberg Show

Christian debater: Norman L. Geisler
Atheist/secular humanist debater: Paul Kurtz

For Norm Geisler: http://www.normgeisler.com/

______________________

Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)

Published on Jun 6, 2012

Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.

_____________________

Paul Kurtz pictured above.

August 11, 2011 on the Arkansas Times Blog many non believers ranted about the requirement that an atheist group had to put down a $15,000 deposit in order to advertise the phrase “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names.

John Brummett in his article, “Irony abounds as religion arises,”August 16, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau wonders why atheists would want to advertise their unbelief because they should be want to be left alone. However, this shows a misunderstanding of the longing that we all have to find a meaning and purpose for our lives. Even atheists have this desire deep down. To avoid acknowledging God’s existence they have to come up with reasons that God does not exist. One of the most popular is that God would not allow evil to exist. Below you will see that the agnostic Vincent Bugliosi has done just that.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (8 of 14)

One of the Arkansas Times bloggers that used the username  mountaingirl noted on August 12, 2011:

Recently I read “Divinity of Doubt, The God Question” by famed author and successful prosecutor and trial lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi.

It is very thought-provoking and addresses some of the issues mentioned here.

Gary DeMar in the article, “Vincent Bugliosi: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury of God,” observed:

In the Epilogue to Outrage, Bugliosi bears his soul and the struggle he has had with justifying God’s goodness with the presence of evil in the world and God’s “inaction” in the trial in allowing a murderer to go free:

When tragedies like the murders of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only thirty-five, Ron just twenty-five, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow-man throughout history? And how could God–all-good and all-just, according to Christian theology—permit the person who murdered Ron and Nicole to go free, holding up a Bible in his hand at that? When Judge Ito’s clerk, Deidre Robertson, read the jury’s not-guilty verdict, Nicole’s mother whispered, “God, where are you?”[8]

I have an article below that really does a great job responding to that.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (9 of 14)

How can a good God allow evil and suffering?

Their thinking is that either God is not powerful enough to prevent evil or else God is not good. He is often blamed for tragedy. “Where was God when I went through this, or when that happened.”  God is blamed for natural disasters, Even my insurance company describes them as “acts of God.” How to handle this one-  (O.N.E.)
a. Origin of evil— man’s choice- God created a perfect world…
b. Nature of God—He forgives, I John 1:9—He uses tragedy to bring us to Himself, C.S. Lewis, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains:  it is His megaphone to arouse a deaf world.”
c. End of it all—Bible teaches that God will one day put an end to all evil, and pain and death. “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.  There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4).As Christians we have this hope of Heaven and eternity. Share how it has made a tremendous difference in your life and that you know for sure that when you die you are going to spend eternity in Heaven. Ask the person, “May I ask you a question? Do you have this hope? Do you know for certain that when you die you are going to Heaven, or is that something you would say you’re still working on?”How could a loving God send people to Hell?
(O.N.E.)
a. Origin of hell—never intended for people. Created for Satan and his demons. Jesus said, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41). Man chooses to sin and ignore God. The penalty is death (eternal separation from God) and, yes, Hell. But God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, we choose it by refusing or ignoring God in attitude and action. b. Nature of God—“ God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He is so loving that He sent His own Son to die and pay the penalty for our sin so that we could avoid Hell and have the assurance of Heaven. No one in Hell will be able to blame God. He doesn’t send people there, it’s our own choice. We must choose to repent, to stop ignoring God in attitude and action, accepting His salvation and yielding to His leadership.c. End of it all—Bible teaches that God will one day put an end to all evil, pain, death, and penalty of Hell. “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.  There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4).As Christians , we need not worry about Hell. The Bible says, “these things have been written . . . so that you may know you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).  I have complete confidence that when I die, I’m going to Heaven.  May I ask you a question?

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:  

Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for investment income. Candidates such as U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin believe — with election results to support them — that Americans support such a tax system.

There is one huge problem with this math. Taxes on dividends and corporate taxes and the death tax are all DOUBLE TAXATION.

Warren Buffett’s Fiscal Innumeracy

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Warren Buffett’s at it again. He has a column in the New York Times complaining that he has been coddled by the tax code and that “rich” people should pay higher taxes.

My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past.

But I no longer give that advice. I’m worried he might actually do it. And even though Buffett is wildly misguided about fiscal policy, I know he will invest his money much more wisely than Barack Obama will spend it.

But Buffett goes beyond guilt-ridden rants in favor of higher taxes. He makes specific assertions that are inaccurate.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

His numbers are flawed in two important ways.

  1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be significant.
  2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding  retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).

If we consider these two factors, Buffett’s effective tax rate almost surely is much higher than the burden on any of the people who work for him.

But this entire discussion is a good example of why we should junk the corrupt, punitive, and unfair tax code and replace it with a simple flat tax. With no double taxation and a single, low tax rate, we would know that rich people were paying the right amount, neither too much based on class-warfare tax rates nor too little based on loopholes, deduction, preferences, exemptions, shelters, and credits.

So why doesn’t Buffett endorse this approach? Tim Carney offers a very plausible answer.

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 6, (“Tip Tuesday” Part B)jh16a

Gene-Simmons-tvae-23.jpg

Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Shannon Tweed, 54 yrs old, has been with Gene Simmons 27 years and raised two children with him.

The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family.

The Sacrificing Husband (John MacArthur)

Uploaded by on Sep 8, 2010

http://www.gty.org/Blog …The world tells husbands, “Don’t let anyone tell you what to do. Be a macho man. Grab the gusto. Live for the moment.” The Bible’s message to husbands is exactly the opposite—”Crucify yourself.” Here’s how Paul put it in Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for her.” That raises a question: Even a great Christian husband, on his best day, can’t match Christ’s loving sacrifice for the church. What does Paul expect? John MacArthur answers…

_____________________________

In his therapy session with Dr. Ann Wexler, Gene continued to make the point that his behavior is defensible because his meeting was, at the end of the day, something that would result in more money in the bank.  

Dr. Wexler saw it differently.

“I think that lots of times when you do things when you’re not considering her or other people, you use making money as an excuse. As a defense.  It’s like, if you’re making money then a lot of your behavior is excused.   

And I don’t think making money excuses a lot of your behavior.”

“You don’t?” asks Gene in disbelief.

_________________________________

What is going on here with Gene Simmons is very clear. He goes on tours and is guilty of having affairs and he justifies it because he is keeping up the hard rock image that he has always had. This brings in money and that is why he keeps pointing that out and trying to say that by bringing in the money he is showing his love toward his family. However, the truth is that he is using as an excuse to have affairs.

 Now it seems his whole world is caving in on him because his wife has left him and his kids have condemned him for not doing the right thing.

On these tours he is putting himself in a position that makes it easy for him to fall morally. That should be avoided at all costs. My former pastor Adrian Rogers used to have a sign on his desk which said, “If you don’t want to fall then don’t walk in slippery places.

Brandon Barnard, who is a teaching pastor at Fellowship Bible Church here in Little Rock in his message on July 24, 2011 made the point that we should WORK TO ELIMINATE EXPOSURE TO SEXUAL PRESSURES AND INCREASINGLY EMBRACE THE PROMISES OF GOD.

Then Brandon read through the following scriptures.

 

Philippians 4:8-9

English Standard Version (ESV) 

 8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Matthew 5:27-30

English Standard Version (ESV)

 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Job 31:1

Amplified Bible (AMP) 

Job 31

 1I DICTATED a covenant (an agreement) to my eyes; how then could I look [lustfully] upon a girl?

Psalm 101:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

3I will not set before my eyes
   anything that is worthless.
I hate the work of those who fall away;
   it shall not cling to me.

Matthew 5:8

English Standard Version (ESV) 

 8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Romans 8:6

English Standard Version (ESV)

6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

More pictures from 'Gene Simmons Family Jewels'

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.4

Maggie Haberman comments on debate below:

King raps Perry entry, raises Paul’s bar

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 8/11/11 9:29 AM EDT

Iowa Rep. Steve King, a congressional ally of Michele Bachmann who hasn’t endorsed her but is generally encouraging of her, takes issue with Rick Perry’s form of entry to the 2012 contest in a National Review Online interview:

“If he had picked any other day in the entire calendar, it would have helped him more in Iowa,” King tells National Review Online. “It’s clear that [Perry] selected the date and time to do his utmost to compete directly with the Iowa straw poll. If he wanted to be in the race here …. all he had to do was enter in the race here. He could have been on the ballot if he had just said so.”

There has been clear consternation in some Republican circles in Iowa over the path Perry has chosen, with a split opinion on whether it will hurt him long-term. Some believe the damage will be done, while others think he can prove loyalty to the caucuses if he works hard in Iowa.

King, meanwhile, also sets the bar for a strong Paul performance:

“The Ron Paul network here is stronger than I think the media has reported,” King observes. “He’s been working in thes tate a long time. He has a core of loyal followers. If there is no expectation that Ron Paul will do well in the straw poll, that’ll be a surprise.”

Heritage foundation on debt deal

It was a sad day when this dumb debt deal was signed.

Ed Feulner

August 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

My fellow conservatives,

Americans are disappointed. They are disappointed that the debate over our debt limit was about the needs of politicians instead of the needs of the country. They are disappointed with a broken government that refuses to fix itself. And they are disappointed that the Budget Control Act that passed the House last night and is likely to pass the Senate today does not make the transformative changes this nation requires.

There are several elements of this plan that are simply unacceptable, even when framed inside the narrow political confines that limited a better outcome (i.e., the White House and Senate are still controlled by spend-tax-and-borrow liberals).

No AAA Reassurance: This plan is insufficient to protect our nation’s AAA credit rating. On Friday, Moody’s stated that neither the Boehner nor Reid proposals would restore our solid credit footing. This plan did not improve upon those. Economists from Barclays Capital in London said of the deal: “Overall, our first impression is that the agreement by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to cause S&P to remove the U.S. from being on ratings watch for possible downgrade.” Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of U.S. fixed-income strategy at Barclays, was blunter: “The chances of a downgrade after this deal remain substantially high.”

Irresponsible Defense Cuts: There are two rounds of defense cuts that risk our national security. If all are imposed, we will have a trillion dollars less than we need to protect our nation and defend its interests. Despite increased risks from Iran and North Korea and ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, this deal further cripples a defense budget already sized for peacetime and ignores the real problem—runaway entitlement spending.

More Tax Hikes: Yesterday, White House officials took to the airwaves to assure their liberal base that the new “special” committee would recommend tax hikes. This is one White House assurance you can take to the bank. This deal sets the conditions for a massive tax increase from expiring lower rates and committee horse-trading. Even President Obama agreed in December 2010 that raising taxes to discourage job-creating investments in the middle of a recession was a bad idea. It’s still a bad idea.

An Unclear Balanced Budget Approach: Conservatives are united behind the idea that Congress should balance its budget year-in and year-out, but the devil is in the details. The debt limit deal is a missed opportunity to drive spending down toward a balanced budget. Moreover, the debt limit deal does little to advance the cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. We need an amendment with proper taxpayer protections so that Congress can’t simply hike taxes to balance the budget.

Punting Responsibility: The American people don’t send politicians to Washington in order to appoint special committees and duck responsibility. They must make tough choices to reform entitlements. We’ve had enough commissions be ignored. This half-Democrat, half-Republican committee will probably deadlock, too (or worse, push a tax hike), so we’ll get little out of it.

These are just some of the problems identified in the $2.5 trillion debt deal. There are others.

Conservatives put up a good fight for the non-defense spending cuts needed to reduce the size and cost of government. While Senate Democrats sat on their hands for 800-plus days, doing nothing, House conservatives introduced and passed the Ryan budget plan and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, each of which was a step in the right direction.

The debt limit deal is a disappointment, but conservatives have made a real difference. We can be proud of the progress we made changing the dialogue in Washington. Just as with the Ryan budget plan, we are talking in terms of spending cuts for a smaller, less costly government, not spending increases. Popular opinion is with the conservative philosophy of limited government.

But this debt increase was the highest in history. This is not surprising, given the record spending increases and deficits we’ve witnessed over the past two years. We cannot maintain this course and keep our creditworthiness or create jobs and economic growth.

Given the framework we are now living under, and the water that has passed under the proverbial bridge, it is now up to conservatives to:

Pursue Entitlement Reform: Social Security is operating in the red and faces a long-term deficit of nearly $8 trillion. Medicare is the most costly, and least efficient, federal program. Obamacare is simply an abomination that must be repealed. Congress must move to make significant reforms to entitlement programs. We can no longer accept weak recommendations and a lack of political courage. There can be no more budget-related debates in Washington that ignore this looming and preventable crisis.

Pursue Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform: The current tax system is too complex and penalizes productive work. Lawmakers see job creators and entrepreneurs as easy targets to soak so that they can spend more. It’s a terrible cycle that is costly to our economy. The committee set up by the debt framework should take up tax “reform” rather than simply tax “hikes.” Creating a simple, flatter system that protects low-income workers, encourages investment, and fuels business growth would be a major step on the road to economic recovery.

Maintain a Strong Military to Defend America: With nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to our military on the table during a period of heightened risk and global operations, it is imperative that Congress ensure that these cuts do not eliminate badly needed resources for our fighting men and women and that they have the best equipment and technology to keep America safe. As Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes stated: “America is different from other countries for a lot of reasons, but surely one of the biggest is that we are masters of our fate. We are fortunate to have an armed force that not only defends us but keeps us from being at the mercy of other countries, many of whom wish us ill.”

Get Serious About Spending and Regulation: Washington has a unique way of taking one step forward and three steps back. We must remain vigilant about preventing new spending and regulations that hinder economic growth, stifle job creation, and grow the federal government.

To drive spending down toward a balanced budget, reduce the share of the economy devoted to public debt, preserve America’s ability to protect the nation, and shift to a job-creating tax system without raising taxes, The Heritage Foundation has published “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.” The Heritage plan does what Congress should have done and failed to do. Conservatives: Continue to fight for what is right for America.

Onward!

Edwin J. Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.3

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.3

Analysis from Politico below:

Pawlenty: ‘It’s not about gender’

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/12/11 9:48 AM EDT

Tim Pawlenty kept up his searing criticism of Michele Bachmann Friday morning, deriding the notion that the Minnesota congresswoman has been a “leader” for conservative causes.

At POLITICO’s Playbook Breakfast in Des Moines, Pawlenty disputed the notion that he had gone after Bachmann too harshly in Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate. Pawlenty said he didn’t think he’d pay a price for attacking the lone female candidate on the stage.

“It’s not about gender. It’s about the issues and it’s about results and it’s about leading and saving our country,” Pawlenty said, noting that “Congresswoman Bachmann likes to assign herself the label of the leader.”

“She says, ‘I led the charge against Obamacare.’ Well, we ended up with Obamacare,” Pawlenty said, mentioning Bachmann’s unsuccessful opposition to federal spending and the 2008 bank bailout.

“Everything she’s led the charge against, she’s failed to accomplish. That’s not gonna be good enough for our nominee for president of the United States,” Pawlenty said. “We’re not gonna have a nominee and we’re not gonna put somebody in the Oval Office who has not achieved results during her time in Congress.”

Prime minister looks at breakdown of nation’s families as real cause

What caused all the riots in England that resulted in five deaths? Prime Minister Cameron thinks it is a result of the breakdown of the family units in England. I think he is right on this point.

“We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.”

David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney.David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney. Photograph: Getty Images.
It is time for our country to take stock.Last week we saw some of the most sickening acts on our streets.

I’ll never forget talking to Maurice Reeves, whose family had run the Reeves furniture store in Croydon for generations.

This was an 80 year old man who had seen the business he had loved, that his family had built up for generations, simply destroyed.

A hundred years of hard work, burned to the ground in a few hours.

But last week we didn’t just see the worst of the British people; we saw the best of them too.

The ones who called themselves riot wombles and headed down to the hardware stores to pick up brooms and start the clean-up.

The people who linked arms together to stand and defend their homes, their businesses.

The policemen and women and fire officers who worked long, hard shifts, sleeping in corridors then going out again to put their life on the line.

Everywhere I’ve been this past week, in Salford, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, people of every background, colour and religion have shared the same moral outrage and hurt for our country.

Because this is Britain.

This is a great country of good people.

Those thugs we saw last week do not represent us, nor do they represent our young people – and they will not drag us down.

But now that the fires have been put out and the smoke has cleared, the question hangs in the air: ‘Why? How could this happen on our streets and in our country?’

Of course, we mustn’t oversimplify.

There were different things going on in different parts of the country.

In Tottenham some of the anger was directed at the police.

In Salford there was some organised crime, a calculated attack on the forces of order.

But what we know for sure is that in large parts of the country this was just pure criminality.

So as we begin the necessary processes of inquiry, investigation, listening and learning: let’s be clear.

These riots were not about race: the perpetrators and the victims were white, black and Asian.

These riots were not about government cuts: they were directed at high street stores, not Parliament.

And these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.

No, this was about behaviour…

…people showing indifference to right and wrong…

…people with a twisted moral code…

…people with a complete absence of self-restraint.

Now I know as soon as I use words like ‘behaviour’ and ‘moral’ people will say – what gives politicians the right to lecture us?

Of course we’re not perfect.

But politicians shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality…

…this has actually helped to cause the social problems we see around us.

We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong.

We have too often avoided saying what needs to be said – about everything from
marriage to welfare to common courtesy.

Sometimes the reasons for that are noble – we don’t want to insult or hurt people.

Sometimes they’re ideological – we don’t feel it’s the job of the state to try and pass judgement on people’s behaviour or engineer personal morality.

And sometimes they’re just human – we’re not perfect beings ourselves and we don’t want to look like hypocrites.

So you can’t say that marriage and commitment are good things – for fear of alienating single mothers.

You don’t deal properly with children who repeatedly fail in school – because you’re worried about being accused of stigmatising them.

You’re wary of talking about those who have never worked and never want to work – in case you’re charged with not getting it, being middle class and out of touch.

In this risk-free ground of moral neutrality there are no bad choices, just different lifestyles.

People aren’t the architects of their own problems, they are victims of circumstance.

‘Live and let live’ becomes ‘do what you please.’

Well actually, what last week has shown is that this moral neutrality, this relativism – it’s not going to cut it any more.

One of the biggest lessons of these riots is that we’ve got to talk honestly about behaviour and then act – because bad behaviour has literally arrived on people’s doorsteps.

And we can’t shy away from the truth anymore.

So this must be a wake-up call for our country.

Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face.

Now, just as people last week wanted criminals robustly confronted on our street, so they want to see these social problems taken on and defeated.

Our security fightback must be matched by a social fightback.

We must fight back against the attitudes and assumptions that have brought parts of our society to this shocking state.

We know what’s gone wrong: the question is, do we have the determination to put it right?

Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?

Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.

Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort.

Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised.

So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?

I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

And I can assure you, I will not be found wanting.

In my very first act as leader of this party I signalled my personal priority: to mend our broken society.

That passion is stronger today than ever.

Yes, we have had an economic crisis to deal with, clearing up the terrible mess we inherited, and we are not out of those woods yet – not by a long way.

But I repeat today, as I have on many occasions these last few years, that the reason I am in politics is to build a bigger, stronger society.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger society.

This is what I came into politics to do – and the shocking events of last week have renewed in me that drive.

So I can announce today that over the next few weeks, I and ministers from across the coalition government will review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society…

…on schools, welfare, families, parenting, addiction, communities…

…on the cultural, legal, bureaucratic problems in our society too:

…from the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal
responsibility…

…to the obsession with health and safety that has eroded people’s willingness to act according to common sense.

We will review our work and consider whether our plans and programmes are big enough and bold enough to deliver the change that I feel this country now wants to see.

Government cannot legislate to change behaviour, but it is wrong to think the State is a bystander.

Because people’s behaviour does not happen in a vacuum: it is affected by the rules government sets and how they are enforced…

…by the services government provides and how they are delivered…

…and perhaps above all by the signals government sends about the kinds of behaviour
that are encouraged and rewarded.

So yes, the broken society is back at the top of my agenda.

And as we review our policies in the weeks ahead, today I want to set out the priority areas I will be looking at, and give you a sense of where I think we need to raise our

ambitions.

First and foremost, we need a security fight-back.

We need to reclaim our streets from the thugs who didn’t just spring out of nowhere
last week, but who’ve been making lives a misery for years.

Now I know there have been questions in people’s minds about my approach to law and order.

Well, I don’t want there to be any doubt.

Nothing in this job is more important to me than keeping people safe.

And it is obvious to me that to do that we’ve got to be tough, we’ve got to be robust, we’ve got to score a clear line between right and wrong right through the heart of this country – in every street and in every community.

That starts with a stronger police presence – pounding the beat, deterring crime, ready to re-group and crack down at the first sign of trouble.

Let me be clear: under this government we will always have enough police officers to be able to scale up our deployments in the way we saw last week.

To those who say this means we need to abandon our plans to make savings in police budgets, I say you are missing the point.

The point is that what really matters in this fight-back is the amount of time the police actually spend on the streets.

For years we’ve had a police force suffocated by bureaucracy, officers spending the majority of their time filling in forms and stuck behind desks.

This won’t be fixed by pumping money in and keeping things basically as they’ve been.

As the Home Secretary will explain tomorrow, it will be fixed by completely changing the way the police work.

Scrapping the paperwork that holds them back, getting them out on the streets where people can see them and criminals can fear them.

Our reforms mean that the police are going to answer directly to the people.

You want more tough, no-nonsense policing?

You want to make sure the police spend more time confronting the thugs in your neighbourhood and less time meeting targets by stopping motorists?

You want the police out patrolling your streets instead of sitting behind their desks?

Elected police and crime commissioners are part of the answer: they will provide that direct accountability so you can finally get what you want when it comes to policing.

The point of our police reforms is not to save money, not to change things for the sake of it – but to fight crime.

And in the light of last week it’s clear that we now have to go even further, even faster in beefing up the powers and presence of the police.

Already we’ve given backing to measures like dispersal orders, we’re toughening curfew powers, we’re giving police officers the power to remove face coverings from rioters, we’re looking at giving them more powers to confiscate offenders’ property – and over the coming months you’re going to see even more.

It’s time for something else too.

A concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture.

This isn’t some side issue.

It is a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country.

Stamping out these gangs is a new national priority.

Last week I set up a cross-government programme to look at every aspect of this problem.

We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.

The last front in that fight is proper punishment.

On the radio last week they interviewed one of the young men who’d been looting in Manchester.

He said he was going to carry on until he got caught.

This will be my first arrest, he said.

The prisons were already overflowing so he’d just get an ASBO, and he could live with that.

Well, we’ve got to show him and everyone like him that the party’s over.

I know that when politicians talk about punishment and tough sentencing people roll their eyes.

Yes, last week we saw the criminal justice system deal with an unprecedented challenge: the courts sat through the night and dispensed swift, firm justice.

We saw that the system was on the side of the law-abiding majority.

But confidence in the system is still too low.

And believe me – I understand the anger with the level of crime in our country today and I am determined we sort it out and restore people’s faith that if someone hurts our society, if they break the rules in our society, then society will punish them for it.

And we will tackle the hard core of people who persistently reoffend and blight the lives of their communities.

So no-one should doubt this government’s determination to be tough on crime and to mount an effective security fight-back.

But we need much more than that.

We need a social fight-back too, with big changes right through our society.

Let me start with families.

The question people asked over and over again last week was ‘where are the parents?

Why aren’t they keeping the rioting kids indoors?’

Tragically that’s been followed in some cases by judges rightly lamenting: “why don’t the parents even turn up when their children are in court?”

Well, join the dots and you have a clear idea about why some of these young people
were behaving so terribly.

Either there was no one at home, they didn’t much care or they’d lost control.

Families matter.

I don’t doubt that many of the rioters out last week have no father at home.

Perhaps they come from one of the neighbourhoods where it’s standard for children to have a mum and not a dad…

…where it’s normal for young men to grow up without a male role model, looking to the streets for their father figures, filled up with rage and anger.

So if we want to have any hope of mending our broken society, family and parenting is where we’ve got to start.

I’ve been saying this for years, since before I was Prime Minister, since before I was leader of the Conservative Party.

So: from here on I want a family test applied to all domestic policy.

If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keeps people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn’t do it.

More than that, we’ve got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children…

…and we’ve got to be less sensitive to the charge that this is about interfering or nannying.

We are working on ways to help improve parenting – well now I want that work accelerated, expanded and implemented as quickly as possible.

This has got to be right at the top of our priority list.

And we need more urgent action, too, on the families that some people call ‘problem’, others call ‘troubled’.

The ones that everyone in their neighbourhood knows and often avoids.

Last December I asked Emma Harrison to develop a plan to help get these families on track.

It became clear to me earlier this year that – as can so often happen – those plans were being held back by bureaucracy.

So even before the riots happened, I asked for an explanation.

Now that the riots have happened I will make sure that we clear away the red tape and the bureaucratic wrangling, and put rocket boosters under this programme…

…with a clear ambition that within the lifetime of this Parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in the country.

The next part of the social fight-back is what happens in schools.

We need an education system which reinforces the message that if you do the wrong thing you’ll be disciplined…

…but if you work hard and play by the rules you will succeed.

This isn’t a distant dream.

It’s already happening in schools like Woodside High in Tottenham and Mossbourne in Hackney.

They expect high standards from every child and make no excuses for failure to work hard.

They foster pride through strict uniform and behaviour policies.

And they provide an alternative to street culture by showing how anyone can get up and get on if they apply themselves.

Kids from Hammersmith and Hackney are now going to top universities thanks to these schools.

We need many more like them which is why we are creating more academies…

…why the people behind these success stories are now opening free schools…

…and why we have pledged to turn round the 200 weakest secondaries and the 200
weakest primaries in the next year.

But with the failures in our education system so deep, we can’t just say ‘these are our plans and we believe in them, let’s sit back while they take effect’.

I now want us to push further, faster.

Are we really doing enough to ensure that great new schools are set up in the poorest
areas, to help the children who need them most?

And why are we putting up with the complete scandal of schools being allowed to fail, year after year?

If young people have left school without being able to read or write, why shouldn’t that school be held more directly accountable?

Yes, these questions are already being asked across government but what happened last week gives them a new urgency – and we need to act on it.

Just as we want schools to be proud of we want everyone to feel proud of their communities.

We need a sense of social responsibility at the heart of every community.

Yet the truth is that for too long the big bossy bureaucratic state has drained it away.

It’s usurped local leadership with its endless Whitehall diktats.

It’s frustrated local organisers with its rules and regulations

And it’s denied local people any real kind of say over what goes on where they live.

Is it any wonder that many people don’t feel they have a stake in their community?

This has got to change. And we’re already taking steps to change it.

That’s why we want executive Mayors in our twelve biggest cities…

…because strong civic leadership can make a real difference in creating that sense of belonging.

We’re training an army of community organisers to work in our most deprived neighbourhoods…

…because we’re serious about encouraging social action and giving people a real chance to improve the community in which they live.

We’re changing the planning rules and giving people the right to take over local assets.

But the question I want to ask now is this.
Are these changes big enough to foster the sense of belonging we want to see?

Are these changes bold enough to spread the social responsibility we need right across our communities, especially in our cities?

That’s what we’re going to be looking at urgently over the coming weeks.

Because we won’t get things right in our country if we don’t get them right in our communities.

But one of the biggest parts of this social fight-back is fixing the welfare system.

For years we’ve had a system that encourages the worst in people – that incites laziness, that excuses bad behaviour, that erodes self-discipline, that discourages hard work…

…above all that drains responsibility away from people.

We talk about moral hazard in our financial system – where banks think they can act recklessly because the state will always bail them out…

…well this is moral hazard in our welfare system – people thinking they can be as irresponsible as they like because the state will always bail them out.

We’re already addressing this through the Welfare Reform Bill going through parliament.

But I’m not satisfied that we’re doing all we can.

I want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits…

…and speeding up our efforts to get all those who can work back to work

Work is at the heart of a responsible society.

So getting more of our young people into jobs, or up and running in their own businesses is a critical part of how we strengthen responsibility in our society.

Our Work Programme is the first step, with local authorities, charities, social enterprises and businesses all working together to provide the best possible help to get a job.

It leaves no one behind – including those who have been on welfare for years.

But there is more we need to do, to boost self-employment and enterprise…

…because it’s only by getting our young people into work that we can build an ownership society in which everyone feels they have a stake.

As we consider these questions of attitude and behaviour, the signals that government sends, and the incentives it creates…

…we inevitably come to the question of the Human Rights Act and the culture associated with it.

Let me be clear: in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights, at home and abroad. It is part of the British tradition.

But what is alien to our tradition – and now exerting such a corrosive influence on behaviour and morality…

…is the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility.

We are attacking this problem from both sides.

We’re working to develop a way through the morass by looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights.

And we will be using our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe to seek agreement to important operational changes to the European Convention on Human Rights.

But this is all frustratingly slow.

The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility.

It is exactly the same with health and safety – where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words ‘health and safety’ are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric.

So I want to make something very clear: I get it. This stuff matters.

And as we urgently review the work we’re doing on the broken society, judging whether it’s ambitious enough – I want to make it clear that there will be no holds barred…

…and that most definitely includes the human rights and health and safety culture.

Many people have long thought that the answer to these questions of social behaviour is to bring back national service.

In many ways I agree…

…and that’s why we are actually introducing something similar – National Citizen Service.

It’s a non-military programme that captures the spirit of national service.

It takes sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds and gets them to work together.

They work in their communities, whether that’s coaching children to play football, visiting old people at the hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.

It shows young people that doing good can feel good.

The real thrill is from building things up, not tearing them down.

Team-work, discipline, duty, decency: these might sound old-fashioned words but they are part of the solution to this very modern problem of alienated, angry young

people.

Restoring those values is what National Citizen Service is all about.

I passionately believe in this idea.

It’s something we’ve been developing for years.

Thousands of teenagers are taking part this summer.

The plan is for thirty thousand to take part next year.

But in response to the riots I will say this.

This should become a great national effort.

Let’s make National Citizen Service available to all sixteen year olds as a rite of passage.

We can do that if we work together: businesses, charities, schools and social enterprises…

…and in the months ahead I will put renewed effort into making it happen.

Today I’ve talked a lot about what the government is going to do.

But let me be clear:

This social fight-back is not a job for government on its own.

Government doesn’t run the businesses that create jobs and turn lives around.

Government doesn’t make the video games or print the magazines or produce the music that tells young people what’s important in life.

Government can’t be on every street and in every estate, instilling the values that matter.

This is a problem that has deep roots in our society, and it’s a job for all of our society to help fix it.

In the highest offices, the plushest boardrooms, the most influential jobs, we need to think about the example we are setting.

Moral decline and bad behaviour is not limited to a few of the poorest parts of our society.

In the banking crisis, with MPs’ expenses, in the phone hacking scandal, we have seen some of the worst cases of greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.

The restoration of responsibility has to cut right across our society.

Because whatever the arguments, we all belong to the same society, and we all have a stake in making it better.

There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ – there is us.

We are all in this together, and we will mend our broken society – together.