Yearly Archives: 2011

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14)

August 17, 2011 – 8:26 am


Today I read a post by Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog concerning the falling poll numbers for the Tea Party.  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 – 06:54:18

The Tea Party: is the fun over

An interesting New York Times op-ed reviews the plunging poll approval numbers for the Tea Party and delves into the numbers for some insight into who TPers are.

____________________

My response is very simple. The 2010 election brought the Tea Party representatives to the national stage and if their numbers grow in 2012 then Brantley’s observation is inaccurate. If their numbers go down then it was a fine piece of journalism. WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.

For my part, I am posting today “The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14),” and I plan to keep on posting this series till I get to number 66.

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.

Southerland: Cuts and Caps Will Help Us Conquer the Debt Crisis

Steve Southerland, II (published by The Tallahassee Democrat)
Jul 25, 2011 Issues: Jobs, Economy and Spending

By the time you finish reading this sentence, Washington will add another $360,000 to our national debt. With each day of delay, we dig our economic hole $4 billion deeper.

Make no mistake about it — we’re gazing into an economic abyss. Incredibly, some in Washington believe the best way to get back on track is to move the guardrail closer to the cliff’s edge. I refuse to join the agents of inaction who would rather bankrupt this great nation than make the tough, forward-thinking decisions necessary to fix our fiscal future.

Since 1962, Washington has raised the debt ceiling a mind-boggling 74 times. Yet with every increase, our elected officials failed to implement cost controls on future spending, choosing instead to shift responsibility onto the shoulders of future generations.

We simply cannot afford to continue down this path to economic ruin. The buck stops here and accountability begins now.

There’s an adage that says success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Those words could fittingly be the official motto of Washington, D.C.

The time has come for Republicans and Democrats alike to take ownership of this massive failure of governance. Short-sighted neglect from both parties helped create our $14.3 trillion debt. Both parties have, at one time or another, been more concerned with maintaining their grip on power than with empowering a change of culture in Washington.

I’ve heard loud and clear from citizens across North and Northwest Florida: You’ve had enough. You want Washington to reflect the challenges you face every day in meeting a family budget or keeping a small business afloat. You rightly expect the federal government to do more with less.

Nearly 100 days ago, I publicly announced my support for a common-sense plan of cuts and caps to conquer our debt crisis. I am pleased that a bipartisan majorityof the House joined me in committing to this effort by approving last week the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.

This responsible plan would ensure that Washington cuts its spending immediately while enforcing caps on future spending and sending a federal balanced budget amendment to the states.

If you are a senior or a veteran, your benefits are protected under this plan. Wasteful spending will be weeded out, but your Medicare, Social Security and veterans benefits absolutely will not change.

If you are a small-business owner, lifting our crushing burden of debt will restore certainty and stability to the marketplace, allowing you to expand operations and create jobs.

And if you are a parent, you can take comfort in knowing that your children and grandchildren have hope for a day when they won’t be saddled with the consequences of poor economic decisions from the past.

The House has acted boldly to approve a concrete, measurable strategy to cut the debt.

I am hopeful that ongoing negotiations between President Obama and congressional leaders will build upon this momentum to achieve an agreement in line with the House-passed plan.

As I have consistently stated, I am firmly opposed to increasing the debt limit unless there is a serious, game-changing plan to cut, cap and balance Washington’s checkbook. We will never digest this mountain of debt by simply nibbling around the edges.

With the president’s self-imposed Aug. 2 deadline fast approaching, many Americans are understandably concerned about what will happen if a debt-ceiling agreement proves elusive.

Whether there is an agreement in the next 10 days or not, revenue will continue to come in to the federal treasury. The president will continue to have the constitutional responsibility to prioritize federal spending. His administration will continue to set the timetable by which Social Security, Medicare and veteran benefits are paid.

In an effort to reassure those who have earned federal benefits, I introduced legislation that would ensure our seniors, veterans and active duty troops come first, receiving their full pay and benefits even if there is no debt limit agreement in place by Aug. 2. Your government made a promise to you, and you deserve to know that promise will be honored.

Great nations have fallen throughout history when they grew too bloated and careless to prepare for their economic future. We must not repeat those same mistakes.

When our children and grandchildren look back on the debates of today, do we want them to mark these times as the moment when the American Dream slipped away? Or do we want them to be thankful that we finally stood up, fought for their future and changed the culture in Washington?

I know where I stand.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Does Wal-mart charge us $100 to enter and they choose what we get? Same unsatisfying result when Congress raises debt ceiling!!

August 17, 2011 – 8:12 am

“If Wal-Mart charged you $100 to enter its stores and then told you what you were going to get for the money, it would not be a satisfying experience, yet, this is precisely how the U.S. government operates.”

Sadly that has been the way our government has been operating for years and now we all have over 46,000 dollars of debt for each member of our household and we still don’t feel satisfied with what we are getting.

Time for a Constitutional Fix

by Richard W. Rahn

This article appeared in The Washington Times on August 16, 2011.

Can an amendment to the U.S. Constitution fix the deficit problem? Polls show most Americans think we need a balanced-budget amendment. Yet serious scholars of the issue understand that the deficit is merely a symptom of the problem; people want more benefits from government than they wish to pay for.

Various forms of balanced-budget and tax-and-spending-limitation amendments have been proposed. Almost everyone realizes that an amendment must be flexible enough to deal with national emergencies, such as a major war. But if the amendment is too flexible, politicians will quickly find ways around whatever limitations on spending, taxing and deficits are imposed. The more tightly drawn any proposed amendment is, the more difficult it will be to pass it because an effective amendment will limit the powers of the very people who are required to vote for it. As the country considers what type of structural fix is doable, the observations of some leading scholars are worth pondering.

Political economist Lawrence Hunter, who has held senior policy positions both in and out of government, has been working on the issue for a couple of decades. Mr. Hunter just wrote inForbes, “The Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, understood that any constitutional provision without self-enforcing mechanisms attached to it constitutes a mere ‘parchment barrier’ and simply would be ignored and discarded by [the political class]. … Madison laid out a framework in Federalist No. 51 for competition among political and legal actors with the national government as a means of checking and balancing the exercise of power by the various branches: ‘Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'” Mr. Hunter thinks it is an open question when, if ever, the political class will get to the point where it will pass an effective, self-enforcing limitation on taxing, spending and debt.

Without a clear amendment, overspending will continue…

John McClaughry, who was a senior policy adviser in the Reagan White House, has come up with an interesting idea, which was published in the AmericanThinkerin May, that he calls Proposition 20. Mr. McClaughry would limit the total amount of federal debt to $20 trillion. Setting an absolute amount makes the calculation unambiguous, unlike most other proposals that refer to some percentage of gross domestic product or other less precise numbers. The United States has a gross debt of about $15 trillion, so the proposal would give Congress several years to get its house in order and give adequate time for the states to ratify it. Mr. McClaughry would allow the issuance of additional debt if, and only if, Congress formally declared war, and only while the armed forces were engaged in combat.

Maurice P. McTigue, a former New Zealand Cabinet minister who is a distinguished visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has been working on improving government accountability around the world ever since he was a key player in New Zealand’s economic reforms of two decades ago. He has spent considerable time identifying which reforms have worked in various countries and how their successes might be transferred elsewhere. Mr. McTigue notes that a major part of the problem of lack of government fiscal responsibility is the fact that virtually no one knows how much the various government services actually cost. Thus, a key to improving government accountability is to work on ways of ensuring that the public knows what it is getting for each dollar spent on various programs.

When all government revenue (Social Security taxes, personal income taxes, corporate taxes and a never-ending list of excise taxes and fees) goes into the same pot — which is the case now — and then the money is allocated by Congress according to political considerations, any connection between what is being paid and the “service” on which it is spent becomes increasingly remote. If Wal-Mart charged you $100 to enter its stores and then told you what you were going to get for the money, it would not be a satisfying experience, yet, this is precisely how the U.S. government operates.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

More by Richard W. Rahn

As we struggle to try to devise a constitutional fix to the structural problem of destructive debt, spending, regulation and taxation, it would be useful to consider the following:

1. All government insurance (incorrectly called “entitlements”) and trust programs must be privatized or fully funded from specifically identified and allocated taxes and fees that cannot be diverted to pay for other government programs and must be managed by independent officials who will be legally at risk for not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities.

2. Every government expenditure, no matter how small, must be funded from an identifiable stream of revenue — taxes, fees, asset sales or other — and the same dollars may not be spent on more than one item.

3. No new or expanded government program or activity may be enacted into law without a specific source of funding attached to it, and the program or activity may not spend more than funds provided by the identified tax or fee.

The U.S. Constitution was written in response — after vigorous and learned debate — to the problems arising out of the original Articles of Confederation. It appears that a constitutional fix is needed to deal with ongoing fiscal problems the country faces. A vigorous debate has begun, and that is all to the good.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Woody Allen films and the issue of guilt (Woody Wednesday Part 3)

August 17, 2011 – 12:48 am

Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt

Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress

In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. Actors flock to his projects just to have a chance to work with him. He is funny, creative, and philosophical in his musings about love, life, and death.

Woody Allen is an Oscar award-winning director and screenwriter. His latest film, “Match Point,” has garnered another screenwriting nomination for Allen from the Academy. And while industry buzz is growing behind “Crash” screenwriters Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco to win, Allen’s nomination is not a courtesy nod to an aging dinosaur. Most critics have hailed “Match Point” as Allen’s comeback film – a movie that demonstrates that Allen is still performing at the height of his powers. “Match Point” most closely resembles another of Allen’s Oscar-nominated films – 1990’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Comparing these two critically-acclaimed films shines a light not only on Woody Allen’s dark and cynical writer’s journey, but also on a culture that consistently chooses to honor his work.

Crimes and Misdemeanors – Sin and Struggle

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an odd morality tale. Judah Rosenthal is an ophthalmologist who has been carrying on an affair for over two years. When his mistress threatens to call his wife, he contracts to have her killed. Throughout the film, characters attempt to make sense of their moral universe. Judah struggles with his guilt and at one point seems so driven by his belief that he must be punished for his sin that he nearly decides to call the police to turn himself in. He is dissuaded by a veiled threat from his mob-connected brother Jack (who arranged the murder at Judah’s request). As time goes by, Judah finds that he is not punished – not by the secular authorities or by God. After a while, even the guilty feelings fade away. He decides that the idea that evil is always punished is only true in the movies. In real life, people get away with it. Judah pushes aside his guilt, returns to his privileged life and walks off, with his wife, into the sunset.

Allen comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation in “Crimes and Misdemeanors” because he is unwilling, or unable, to take into account the judgment of God in the world to come. His materialist-informed worldview discounts or denies that the reality of eternity is more significant than what happens in this life. What made the film noteworthy was its depiction of the moral struggle that people go through when they sin. What made the film chilling is the knowledge that the rationalism engaged in by Judah in the movie represents more than fiction. Psalms and Proverbs are full of pleas from weary saints who complain to God about the prosperous wicked. We cannot know the mind of God. Some sins are punished swiftly; others apparently are not punished at all in this life. But God declares that one day everything done is darkness will be revealed in the light (1 Corinthians 4-5).

Match Point – No Sin, Just Luck

Fifteen years later, Allen gives audiences “Match Point,” the story of Chris Wilton, a British social-climbing tennis pro who marries for money and prestige, but continues to lust after a poor American actress, Nola Rice, who is dating his future brother-in-law. The affair with Nola begins and ends before Chris’ marriage, but picks up again when Nola returns to England. What begins as animal attraction turns complicated as Nola begins pressuring Chris to leave his wife. Chris is torn between his feelings for Nola and the wealth, power, and privilege that he enjoys by being married to his wife, Chloe. Ultimately he determines that he must be rid of one of them. How best to do it while risking the least for himself? Kill one – but make it look like someone else did it. The audience is left guessing whether he will kill Nola, thereby covering his tracks and keeping his wife, or kill Chloe, inheriting her wealth and gaining the sympathy of her family, and then take up again with Nola. Once the deed is done, there is the crying and terror over the prospect of being found out and punished that must accompany any such act. But when word of the homicide appears in the paper, and the fictional motives that Chris hoped to plant are printed as if they are fact, Chris discovers that he has gotten away with it.

The theme of “Match Point” is hammered into the audience over and over again – the world runs on luck. From Chris’ tennis career, to his marriage to a rich and beautiful woman and into a paternalistic and helpful family, to plot twists involving incriminating evidence, everything just falls his way at crucial moments. And while some characters continue to extol the virtues of hard work and perseverance, Chris recognizes and, in the end, vocalizes that the best attribute to possess is good fortune. There is no justice; there is only the slim divide between being caught and getting away with it. No one is smart enough to cover all the bases, so in the end much of it comes down to luck. Chris has it; his victim did not.

Unlike “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” no great struggle over guilt and sin is played out on the screen. The only scene that looks remotely like remorse occurs right after the act. Beyond that, Chris merely lies to those he knows and stonewalls the police. He is like the boy who kills his parents and then begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan
– only in this case, he gets off.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” could be rationalized as a depiction of one side of the sin debate – that sometimes the wicked prosper. The struggle for Judah’s soul is represented by his brothers: the mafia-connected Jack and Judah’s rabbi brother Ben. In this case, Ben loses, but there is, haunting the background, the idea that it could be otherwise. No such spiritual subtext exists in “Match Point.” Audience members can only get out of the film what they bring to it – it is a case brought before us for judgment.. Those who believe in a just God will find Chris to be a calculating killer who rightly needs to be punished. For those who enter the film believing that humans are merely animals seeking to satisfy drives with no true spiritual component; who believe that guilt only exists if you get caught; who believe (whether they know the source or not) that Nietzsche was right when he said that the hallmark of human existence is the will to power – Chris is a kind of hero. He got everything he wanted, succeeded in destroying those who stood in his way, and emerged unscathed because he was favored by a series of uncalculated quirks in the universe. No objection to such assessment is placed in anyone’s way.

The Weaving of Cultural Threads

Thomas Frentz, noted rhetorical critic, argues that by comparing products of our culture over time, we can begin to discern emerging moral patterns. Cultures, Frentz claims, are always moving toward, or away from, some optimal moral end state. If Frentz is right, then looking at these two similar films from Woody Allen can tell us a little about the state of moral struggle. I do not know whether Allen’s film intends to move us, or if it is merely a reflection of the culture as he sees it. Either way, what Allen appears to be saying is that we have moved beyond morals and simply must deal with what is. In his earlier film, Allen asserts that there is no objective moral lens through which to view the world – ignore morality and it will go away. Now he is saying that if you happen to share the world with people who still hold to the “myth” of morality, “hope you are lucky and then you can get away with it.”

But there is yet a ray of hope.

Anyone watching “Match Point” will come to the conclusion that Chris “got away with it.” The concept of “getting away with something” could not exist in a truly amoral world, because the term itself presupposes punishment. If no punishment is objectively due, then there is nothing from which to “get away.” The concept of escape only exists in a world in which something is pursuing. Even conventional laws implicate an overarching moral sensibility of right and wrong. My fear is not that Allen is predicting some evolutionary leap in moral thinking where all codes are abandoned, but that he is rightly illustrating a growing trend – the searing of the western conscience.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com – an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?, August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody Allen, July 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”, July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied,July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”, July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years,July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

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

August 16, 2011 – 11:27 pm

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

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

August 16, 2011 – 10:31 pm

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 ALL. The 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)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

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

August 16, 2011 – 8:27 am

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.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

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

August 16, 2011 – 7:50 am

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (7 of 14)

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

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?
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

August 16, 2011 – 6:48 am

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.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

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

August 16, 2011 – 5:59 am

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'
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Comments (0)

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.4

August 15, 2011 – 2:18 pm

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.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)