OMG, I misjudged you.

I thought you were a B guy. Now I find out you are MD heritage. Is that true?

For brevity interested parties can read above. Just quoting the essence.

We agree about this. That's why I said we should not do it as a matter of law.

Any individual who believes in "no debt" and "no deficit" can never own a house unless they pay for it in cash. And that is terribly inefficient.

It's the same for governments. I do not think that the government should be constrained by law to balance the budget. But I do think that we should generally restrict deficit spending to wars and major infrastructure projects and once you vote to throw the country into that maelstrom, you're out to enjoy the benefits.

When we had major impediments like lack of transportation infrastructure that impeded growth them yes, we need to spend to grow. But we're really not in the same boat now. Name one area where dramatic spending would produce dramatic growth. Yes, we need to repair bridges and improve air traffic control. But commerce is not being held back by those things right now. Heck TSA issues are a bigger impediment to commerce than ATC. We can cure that with CUTS.

I don't think we disagree philosophically. But I think there is a lot to be done in the details first.

"A bit more," yes, but nowhere near as much as I'd like.

Short aside: The current "scandal" in the news in Canada is in regards to severance payments. In Canada, if you work for the federal government, you're entitled to severance pay when you leave your job. But I don't just mean if you're fired or laid off. You get this severance pay if you leave for ANY reason, including if you quit or retire. The severance pay is equal to 1 week's pay for every year you worked for the government.

That means someone who worked for the government for 40 years and retires at age 60 gets a "severance" cheque worth almost a year's pay (at their final salary - not even an average!). This is on top of being paid out for all unused accumulated sick days (they get 15 per year and they carry-forward indefinitely).

This, of course, is absurd. So the government has finally decided to end this practice. However, all the public servants who currently work for the government obviously objected to losing this benefit. After all, if they were to leave right now, they'd get big payout cheques. So to appease them, the government is paying them out all the severance they've built up over the years, but making it known that from here on out, no new severance entitlements will accrue (unless, of course, you're laid off or fired).

That means that everyone who works for the government in Canada is getting severance cheques. But they're keeping their jobs. My buddy works for the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's IRS) and is getting a cheque for $12,000, just to keep coming to work.

This is costing the government $6 billion. And remember, we're only 1/10th the size of the US, so that's equivalent to a $60 billion expense to you guys. It's outrageous, and the government is doing its best to downplay it and keep it out of the news. But if you Google for it, you'll find it.

Imagine! Paying people $6 billion in severance payments, and they get to keep their jobs. It's ridiculous.

One final insult to add to this taxpayer injury: In order to get the union to agree to terminating this benefit, the government has added a 0.75% pay increase over the next 3 years (on top of whatever pay increments were already built into the current collective bargaining agreement).

Tell me again about my government's "fiscal sanity?"

Agreed, but I think who pays should be shifted a little bit. As I understand it, fully half the individuals in the US pay no net federal income tax at all. Aside from being prima facie unfair, to me it represents a dangerous "tipping point," where the majority could decide to vote themselves all sorts of freebies, and making the minority pay for them. Once we've passed that 50% point, I fear such an entitlement mentality could accelerate.

When you haven't paid anything for something, you value it less. If you've paid for it, you perceive it as having more value. I worry that all those people who pay nothing into the system take it for granted and abuse it. I believe if everyone (save those legitimately below the poverty line) were required to have at least a little "skin in the game," they would appreciate the benefits more and might not be so prone to abusing them.

I'd like to see the tax burden shifted downward, just slightly. Just enough to bring at least 20% of that 50% that's currently paying nothing, into the fold. Even if it's just 5-10% of their income. Nobody should get away with paying nothing, unless they're truly destitute.

Of course, "destitute" in the US still means air conditioning, cable TV, obesity, and cell phones. I don't believe North Americans, in general, truly know the meaning of the word "poverty." But that's another argument.



I should have been a little clearer with this one. The changes I would make to the tax could would dramatically simplify it. Instead of single/married/married filing jointly, there'd just be one form: individual. All deductions would be eliminated, so there'd be no wondering whether or not this or that can be deducted. You write your income on line 1 (from all sources, no special treatment for dividends, capital gains, lottery, whatever - if you earned it, you add it up and put it on line 1). Then work you way down a simple, one-page form. You pay 0% on the first $15,000. Thus, if you made less than $15,000, you pay no tax. You pay 15% on the next $20,000. You pay 25% on the next $50,000. You pay 35% on everything above that.

That's it. That's your income tax form. No need for complicated accountants, you just fill it out and send it in. No need for all that IRS staff to sift through the tax code and deliberate over whether or not your deductions are accepted.



The same people who would have done it on September 10, 2001. I'm saying you'd just revert to whatever the structure was prior to the creation of DHS after 9/11.



Ah, I was unaware. Canada just announced it's going to slowly move its age from 65 up to 67 over the next few years (for Old Age Security. Canada Pension Plan still starts at 65, or even 60 if you're willing to take a discount).

You are correct. But before going to MD, I was at Rockwell Intl (B-1B).

While I agree going overseas at times can seem pointless let’s take a few other thoughts into consideration. Do you realize how many current jobs (and not just government/military but sub-contract) are related to DOD? What boosted America into a world power and ended the Great Depression? World War Two.




Looking back that was money well worth spent since it eliminated Hitler’s regime and put communist USSR in check. I wonder what people will think of some of the wars we (US) have been in for the past few decades in the next 50 or 60 years say 2060 or 2070? And yes Vietnam was a losing battle from the get go but imagine if we didn’t help S. Korea in the Korean War who is now a symbol of freedom in Asia and one of our trading partners?

Economically in my mind this suggestion would create greater unemployment and less confidence in the American market.

Thoughts?

While this would be a good idea I seriously doubt that would ever be proposed or approved into the U.S. Tax Code. Too many people in my opinion in the U.S. depend for their livelihoods on careers related to accounting and taxes. Not to mention eliminating the majority of IRS employees is just not ever going to pass Congress.



Not sure the U.S. federal government would agree. It seems when something doesn’t work in the federal government the assumption is it is still needed just needs to be tweaked. Elimination is not usually even part of the conversation unfortunately.




This really made me laugh. Sad but actually a bit funny. And I thought our government in the U.S. made ridiculous decisions. Makes me wish I worked for the Canadian government for just a moment.

That is appreciated. Thanks.



Had me going there for a few seconds. That’s like saying we can talk about anything… But [or except]… Not everything. Lol. Or am I understanding this incorrectly? I too want to peacefully coexist, help others, and have intelligent conversations. In fact I thought for a moment there you had added me to the “enemies” list on the forum and were no longer even seeing my posts.



My denomination and consequently I supports the Bible as the inspired, inherent, infallible Word of God. I'm sure someone will disagree. In fact not all supposed Christians can agree on that. However, I know I am part of the “true church” and am a follower of Christ – the only way to God. I believe there are followers of Christ in a majority of Christian denominations with a few exceptions of cults like “Jehovah’s Witness” and “Scientology.”



Please specify what I have claimed is not “scholarly” Christian theology. If you mean by “scholarly” people associated with the Jesus Movement then I’ll take that as a compliment. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, Jesus is who He said He was, and there is no other way to God except through Him. If this conflicts with what so-called “Christian scholars” say well everyone has a right to his or her own opinion.



Gnostic movement? Wow. Please specify which ideas that I’ve presented that led to this conclusion? I must say I’m a bit flabbergasted by this comment. Are you sure you know what Gnostic means? Or perhaps we have different definitions...

I believe Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father are all one - as evidence in the Bible. There are not mulitple dieties as Gnostic theology often teaches. I don’t believe salvation is by knowledge as gnostic theology often teaches – it is by faith in Christ Jesus alone as clearly called out in the Bible. I don’t believe that matter is evil and knowledge is more important than faith as Gnostic theology teaches. What evidence have I given of Gnostic thinking? I'm very curious.

Out of curiosity how can I be Gnostic ("learned" or "intellectual") and not scholarly in the same post? I find this amusing. Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?



So because of my belief system you feel I cannot process challenging information and it almost sounds as if you pity me a bit… Maybe I read this wrong. I find that humorous.



Scientific: I proposed several arguments/questions regarding Evolution. But like I said it is best for us to agree to disagree.

Historical: I gave evidence that you were wrong claiming that Hinduism and Budhism were in fact peaceful religions – while pointing out the darker sides of Christian history with the Crusades and Inquisition. I also pointed out that the split between the East and West occurred well before the Reformation.



I’m glad to coexist with everyone. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish. So out of curiosity how would I reduce my limitations? Or get past my belief system? Are you suggesting I just reject everything I know to be true? Lol.



It is always interesting to have someone criticize one’s life/views from an outside perspective. Even if this post has been in my opinion an attempt to invalidate most of what I’ve discussed beyond finances. Not sure how constructive this was but I can tell you did try to put some thought into what you wrote. For that I am appreciative.

Thanks for the responses kaitlyn. It is always interesting to get other peoples takes on such ideas. Questions I'm interested are labelled A, B, C, D, E in bold.



Really? How very curious. A) I’d love to see these passages in the Bible that support abortion. Also isn’t the position of the Catholic church one that all life is sacred even at conception? Or maybe I’m mistaken.

Also please point out the line-item quotes I took out of context. I mean hopefully you can agree that is a very blanket statement. Or at least give a few examples for me to better understand what you are trying to say. And even perhaps what they mean instead.



Another interpretation of this passage:

Matthew 16:16 Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus says this revelation of Jesus identity had been revealed by God the Father.
Matthew 16:18 Jesus agrees with Peter and says according to the truth that Jesus is the Son of God He will build His church.
Matthew 16:19 Nothing will able to stand against Christ’s kingdom.
Matthew 16:20 Jesus tells the 12 disciples not to tell anyone. It was not yet time for Christ to die on the cross.

Two different words were used.

Peter – man, name translated into “little rock.”

Greek - ‘Petros’ is a masculine noun denoting a “small movable stone” originating from an immovable rock (a Petra).

Rock – Truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Greek - ‘Petra’ is a feminine noun denoting a “large rock” or cliff, in situ, firm and “immovable.” [also reffered to as foundation bolder or cornerstone]

See: http://www.christconnections.com/Word/Matt_16_18.pdf

This is a play on words. Isn’t it ironic that out of a little stone or man [Peter] such truth [Jesus is the long awaited Christ] could be stated?

B) Isn’t Christ Himself called the “chief cornerstone” in 1 Pet. 2:6-7?

C) What is your take on Luke 22:24-30 when the disciples asked who was to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom? And how does this conform with the teachings of the RCC?



So then why pray to Mary then? Curious. Or is there Biblical evidence she can intercede for others behalf to God just as Christ according to the Bible can?



Very interesting. So regarding purgatory we can agree theres is no place in the Bible where purgatory is actually mentioned?

Here’s my take: Even in the Jewish belief system there was the idea of Hades and a part of Hades was a good place called Paradise. I don’t Biblical evidence exists for such a place as purgatory in the passage quoted. 1 Cor 3:11-15 refers to the day of judgment at Christ’s return. Not a mystical place of neutrality. In Revelation we are told people will be divided right and left. Matthew 12:32 in context refers to rejecting God’s Holy Spirit and rejecting Christ as Savior. So basically what you are saying is people even after death can be saved and have the promise of Heaven? If so what would be the point of accepting Christ while alive? Or do they just roam the Earth “looking after” souls still on Earth.


3. Regarding indulgences and good works.. Curious where in the Bible does it say good works are for our benefit? I thought they were a testimony to God’s goodness and honor? So basically if I were to become Catholic I could work my way out of purgatory? Can one work one’s way out of Hell?



Blame? I would call it what it what I believe it is - heresy. That would include any doctrine contrary to the Bible – where baptism as a sacrament is a sign of repentance in obedience as the example set forth by Christ. Can we agree then there is no evidence for this [baptism of infants] teaching in the Bible? Sprinkling some water on someone doesn’t change their heart or mind. I would debate the idea that baptism saves at all. It is a symbol of dying to one’s self and being raised in Christ.



Sounds to me like saints can be mediators between God and man. There is no Biblical backing for this stance I take it. Or is there?

Additional Question:

D) Out of curiosity do Catholics believe anyone can be assured of their salvation?



E) Interesting. So faith alone in Jesus Christ is insufficient for the assurance of salvation?

And you go on to cite a bunch of Biblical references and cite a Web site which offers up the gist of what most Biblical scholars have decided. I've decided not to re-quote what you said for the sake of brevity but I'll try very hard not to misquote or change the meaning of you said. The gist of what said via the quotes was:

1) God hardened Pharoah's heart
2) Pharoah hardened his own heart
3) God knew that Pharoah would harden his heart and set him up as a foil for Moses

So that means...?

1) We're robots after all because we can be programmed
2) We're not robots
3) We're not robots but we might as well be, because we serve God's purposes

Wow, talk about twisting yourself into knots to explain inconsistencies.


That statement supports #3.


Pretty much boils down to statements #1, 2 and 3, I think.

So here's something I don't get. Why are there Biblical scholars at all? Many Protestant denominations (especially the evangelical ones) proclaim a close personal relationship with God. So much so that the Holy Spirit enters their bodies and some of them speak in tongues and such. Why the need for scholars? Why doesn't God just flat out say, "Hey, this is what I meant in My Book." Remember, the Bible is perfect. Why does it need to be explained? And if it needs to be explained, why doesn't God just explain to everyone who has a close personal relationship with Him? Why the need for scholarship at all? Surely the Bible isn't only for the learned.

And another thing about perfection. God is perfect. Why aren't His works perfect? You've stated that we all fall short of God's perfection so why were Adam and Eve (and by extension, all their descendants) so imperfect? Did God mess up making man? Oh yes, the free will thing. So if we have free will and are God's creations, why don't we make the perfect choices? And don't even get me started on the subject of fallen angels from a perfect Being.

And please don't fall back on the "God's ways are strange and mysterious" spiel. My ancestors ate from the Fruit of Knowledge. We aren't that dumb.

According to my parents I am still a Catholic.

In catechist(Sunday school): faith alone is not enough to receive salvation you must also follow the laws of the church/god.

Otherwise you could do whatever you want as long as you believe god exists.

A) I’d love to see these passages in the Bible that support abortion. Also isn’t the position of the Catholic church one that all life is sacred even at conception?

The Catholic stance is absolutely that life begins at conception. However, the Jewish stance is different, and it is taken from Numbers 5:18-28. It's too long to post, but the gist is the priest gives a woman that may have been unfaithful "bitter waters" to drink to wash away her curse, which causes her stomach to swell.

I am not arguing the Catholic stance with that comment. It was purely to point out to you that the Bible can be made to say nearly anything if you cherry pick.

In regards to the Pope, I quite honestly don't care how you interpret it. That's fine. You aren't Catholic. Catholics interpret it to mean that Peter was the first pope. We've got 2000 years of history to back that up, thank you very much. Once again, the same words can be made to mean many things. Our interpretation is just as valid as anything you brought up.

B) Isn’t Christ Himself called the “chief cornerstone” in 1 Pet. 2:6-7? And? Your point being? It's not like we are saying Peter is equal to Christ.

C) What is your take on Luke 22:24-30 when the disciples asked who was to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom? And how does this conform with the teachings of the RCC?

I'm posting as a representative of Catholics. My personal interpretations may or may not agree with the RCC. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. I think Pope Benedict is one of the worst things to happen to the RCC in years. Quite honestly, I'm a terrible Catholic - just a terrible Catholic with 12 years of Jesuit schooling and a family that considers theological debate to be an entertaining dinner conversation.

So then why pray to Mary then? Curious. Or is there Biblical evidence she can intercede for others behalf to God just as Christ according to the Bible can?

It's along the lines of, if your mom asks you to do something, don't you pay extra close attention? My own mother is a Marist, and she is absolutely adamant that they do not consider Mary to be divine.

So regarding purgatory we can agree theres is no place in the Bible where purgatory is actually mentioned?

Certainly. Now find the words "Holy Trinity" in the Bible.

3. Regarding indulgences and good works.. Curious where in the Bible does it say good works are for our benefit? I thought they were a testimony to God’s goodness and honor? So basically if I were to become Catholic I could work my way out of purgatory? Can one work one’s way out of Hell?

I made it very clear that it goes into a good works bank for the souls in Purgatory. No, you cannot work your way out of Hell. Can you selfishly do lots of good works in the hope that you spend no time in purgatory? Nope, because the good works have to be done without any sin attached.

And no, it is not a testament to God's goodness and honor. It's about treating everyone as Christ-like as possible. See Matthew 25: 35-40. Doing good works follows being Christian - Jesus was all about the good works. He didn't do them for greater glory or to honor His Father. He did it because it was the right thing to do. If you aren't doing good works, you aren't trying hard enough to be Christ-like, which makes you a pretty terrible Christian. This is why Catholics believe faith and good works.

I've worked with the homeless (voting drives, working at a "Christmas store" where less fortunate could get free Christmas presents for their kids), feed the hungry (food drives, holiday dinners), visited the elderly (Meals on Wheels) and volunteered at a home for the severely mentally disabled. How about you?

Blame? I would call it what it what I believe it is - heresy.

We disagree. For us, baptism is washing away Original Sin and we'd really rather that get done as soon as possible. The parents make all the promises about the child being raised in Christ. Side note, we don't consider someone to be a full member of the Church until after Confirmation. You disagree on our interpretation of Original Sin, therefore, you disagree with our stance. Good for you and hooray for there being more than one religion in the world.

Sounds to me like saints can be mediators between God and man. There is no Biblical backing for this stance I take it. Or is there?

Then you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Praying WITH the saints. Not to. That isn't mediation, that's a strengthened voice of sorts.

D) Out of curiosity do Catholics believe anyone can be assured of their salvation?

Be a good person, try not to sin, repent when you do, and have faith.

E) Interesting. So faith alone in Jesus Christ is insufficient for the assurance of salvation?

I was very clear it isn't. See above answer on good works for why.

On the positive side looks like Catholics and Protestants are beggining to stick together on certain issues:

They are p*ssing into the wind. They already have a way around this. They can simply only hire members of their own religion. I don't think the USSC will rule in their favor. But even if it does, they will have a hollow victory. They will likely pay more for plans that exclude contraception.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that anything below the title was just the author of the article...