New NDP Leader/Leader of the Opposition

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
In the last 20 years, I have only obtained one certificate from a public institution and the all other schooling has been purposefully from private schools. I can't stand public schools.

In the last 20 years, I have reimbursed the government through private contributions back to hospitals etc. for all medical visits and expenses incurred.

I will be giving the senior pensions cheque I will receive in the future to the government bank account that is meant to pay off our government debt.


Well, I give you credit for living by your principles.

I wish corporations and banks would do the same instead of sucking up so much public money that it can't be used for the people who provide it.

I consider public highways and transit to be part of infrastructure and not necessarily having to do with moral issues. Schooling and medical issues are moral issues in almost every sense of the word. I pay faithfully for a transit pass and if it is stolen, I buy another one.


Nice how you cherry-pick what is and is not moral according to what you can provide for yourself and what you can't.

btw--your transit pass is probably subsidized. Transit fares don't pay the full cost of public transit.

And why are you using public transit at all?

With your principles you should be using a taxi or a bicycle.

Of course, even then, you are using roads built with public funds.

As I see it, everything in a budget is a moral issue. Whether it is a personal, a corporate or a government budget.



We need the church, but we also need our families and many of these people have families who can help them.

Problem is, most welfare systems are set up so that families are discouraged from helping. Remember the case I told you about where Grandma's Sunday dinners were deducted from the welfare cheque that her daughter and grandchildren were depending on?

My father was in a similar situation when my sister and her three children needed help. Of course he wanted to help them, but he certainly did not have the means to provide all the support they needed. All he could contribute was a temporary rent-free place to stay (his own home). But he couldn't come up with what was needed for food, clothing, transportation, etc.

Most families are in a similar bind. They want to help as much as they are able, but they are not able to provide all that is necessary.

So what do the laws require? That any contribution the family makes is deducted from the recipient's cheque.
How do you think that makes a family feel? Their help is not allowed to help!!! The person they want to help is left in the same situation as if the family were providing nothing.

It is only good sense in that case not to waste the family's money, since it does not contribute to bettering a person's situation.

Such stupid regulations also encourage dishonesty since any help one does supply has to be hidden from the case worker and could result in a fraud charge.






We also need jobs.


We need jobs that pay a living wage. Most adults on welfare assistance already have jobs. People with jobs should not need public assistance, but as long as employers underpay them, as long as minimum wages are pegged too low, and as long as people like you act to depress wages, hard-working people putting in over 80 hours a week (assuming two adults on minimum wage) still can't make ends meet.


.
Then why are you a social worker?


I'm not and never have been. You may be confusing me with rambot. Looks like he works with Children's Aid.



Try to think of a relative who is living at a low-income level. Think of a relative that you wouldn't dare to ask money from because you know that they need the money for themselves. Ask yourself if you have any pride in your heart for not asking them for money. If you have no pride, ask yourself if you have love in your heart for them and would never do anything to hurt them. I'm sure you have the latter. If you don't relationships based on love, then at least in the area of stealing from your fellowman, you must have love for your fellowman, right? If you don't steal from your fellowman because you have pride that you don't need their money, isn't that a bit tenuous? I identify my emotions with love not with pride.

There is nothing wrong with having some pride in yourself.

It is when you start dissing other people and not allowing them dignity, that is when the arrogance starts showing up. You present yourself as better than them. The constant disgust you display toward people simply because they are poor is quite unChristian. When Jesus saw people like this he had compassion on them.

I would, just once, like to see a supporter of right-wing policies display a little compassion for people. It would be a breath of fresh air.

Why is it that the right constantly sees the wealthy as in more need of sympathy and compassion than the poor?

Perhaps they should read the Epistle of James
"But you have dishonoured the poor.
Is it not the rich who oppress you?
Is it not they who drag you into court?
Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?"


I understand addiction but I have read many stories and met people who were addicts and still say they are who don't give these people any excuses.

You certainly don't cure addictions by giving people excuses to continue with their addiction. But you don't cure addictions by abandoning people to back alleys to be preyed on by drug dealers either.



No, they wouldn't.

If they were following Christ's teachings, they would. Jesus would not turn from a person in distress simply because he brought it on himself. Have you never read the parable of the Prodigal Son?



And by the way, why don't those on welfare do this? I know they don't.

No, you don't know that. You may have personal knowledge of some people on assistance who don't, but there are also people on assistance who do.

This is the point. You are stereotyping thousands of individuals because of a few you may know personally. That is not right or fair. It is just as wrong to stereotype people based on their income or source of income as it is to do so on the basis of their race or nationality.

Consider some of the other stereotypes you are constantly coming back to:

1. Poor people are those who live on social assistance.

Not true. The majority of poor people do not receive any social assistance and often strive to avoid having to.

2. People on assistance don't work.

Not true. Many people on assistance do have paying jobs. The problem is not that they don't work (still less that they don't want to), but that the pay they receive is not enough to meet their needs

3. People on assistance should get it from their families.

Actually, it is a legal requirement that they seek help from their families so they have to try, even if their family will have nothing to do with them. But then there is the problem outlined above about how families who want to help feel they can do nothing significant because what they give is taken away by the system.

And in many cases, no, people don't have families they can turn to.


They get welfare and demand more and more


Did you try the Do the Math exercise I posted earlier?
When you do, you may understand why welfare rates and minimum wage rates need to be raised.




I don't think this system is transforming anyone.


Now that I agree with. Social assistance is a horrible system no person should have to undergo. Far from being transformative, it is degrading, discouraging, depressing, punitive and oppressive.

We are stuck with it until we have a different social system entirely that meets people's basic needs without a social assistance system.



Low-income housing areas of a city, where people are receiving far more from the government than the rest of us, are still the most run-down and dangerous places to be in.

Do some fact-checking. Those places are run-down and dangerous because they are not receiving more from the government than the rest of us. They are receiving much less.



I've honestly had to often work 10-12 hours a day just to break even and/or study so my efforts have been limited.


You see, you should be angry about this. I am angry about you having to work 10-12 hours a day just to break even. A century ago, laws were passed to make the 8-hour day the normal working day. Unions fought hard to get those laws passed. And an 8-hour day should not be so underpaid that you only just break even. It should pay enough that you can set aside something for retirement (pensions are another benefit unions fought for) and put a down payment on a home of your own.

My parents and grand-parents were proud of the achievements of their generation in getting a fair deal for working people. They were proud that they had made this country a better place for their children and grandchildren. If they knew that in a few decades everything they had built up was being destroyed again---that an 8-hour work day was not enough to live on any more--that even a 10-12 hour work day only allowed a person to just break even----that would break their hearts.

It is one thing for a wealthy CEO to be a workaholic and spend 60-70 hours on the job, as I have heard some do. That's stupid but it's voluntary and if he has no family life, at least he is able to provide well for his family.

But when you have no choice but to work that much just to pay rent and put food on the table---that is exploitation, that is oppression, you are being screwed by the system and you should be demanding justice.


You will never convince me of incorruption in the welfare system


No matter, for I certainly wasn't trying to do that. I am quite familiar with the corruption. I would never defend the welfare system as it is.



My concern is not about the welfare system, but about people living in poverty. I want to counter the negative stereotypes of people living in poverty; I want the poor-bashing to stop.

Only when we start thinking of the poor as people, instead of mindlessly treating them as criminals, will we start thinking of them with Christlike compassion and seeing how we can help instead of building the vicious trap of the current welfare system which helps nobody--except the very rich.

There has to be another way.


There is another way. Democratic (and I insist on the "democratic") socialism grounded in gospel values.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Don't you want to sacrifice for your country and the next generation?

Of course I do. Just like my father and mother and their parents before them did. That is why I support unions. I see how the union movement sacrificed and fought for decent wages, safe working conditions, worker's pension plans, sick leave and maternity/parental leave. As an adult, I benefited from those programs and so was able to remain home with my children. And I support the movements today that work sacrificially for the good of both the present and future generations.

I don't see anything the right is doing except destroy the lives of millions of working people. It seems they want working people to sacrifice the right to eat, to have a safe home, to be able to feed and clothe their children and even to be able to spend time with their children (because they have to work 10-12 hours a day just to break even)--and yet to have no where their children can be safe while they are working (no daycare spaces).

That sort of sacrifice--the sort of sacrifice that sends children to bed crying with hunger, that sends teenagers into prostitution, and young men into gangs and promises more of the same for the next generation---I call that is a sacrifice to Moloch.

The sacrifices I am willing to make are those that preserve clean water, put an end to wars, open up urban agriculture, invest in schools and libraries, and pay workers what they are worth so they can invest in things like homes and businesses and continue to improve life for all.

Yes, the free market has fruits but compare this with communism and the destruction of the environment under communism. Capitalism is very kind to the environment compared to communism. Just think of the Aral Sea. A guy who lived over there said the communists had no concern for that see and simply went about destroying as they pleased.


Of course, the bad fruits of both capitalism and communism come about through a lack of democracy. It doesn't really matter if it is Stalin or Enbridge who destroys the environment--both are ramming their agenda through without any consideration of what people actually want and value.

Several things:

Can I say something about the "big boys" who are CEO's in real life? I have worked with a fellow who is being considered for executive positions in the company I work for. He was top of his class in university and has an MBA.

So? One can also be a brilliant criminal. And some CEOs are.

But it is not just about individuals. It is about the assumed rights of corporations to do whatever they please without any democratic restraint. Even worse, corporations often influence legislators to make laws that favour their agenda, so the laws themselves become unjust.

Does the fact a CEO must be educated and intelligent justify suppressing the wages of workers while raising the wages of CEOs?

Why have CEO salaries exploded to more than 300 times the work of their lowest paid employees in the same years that the real wages of the average worker have declined? Why does a company which made over $14 billion in profit in 2011 think it has a right to demand a 6-year freeze in the wages of employees? If the company is doing so well, by all means give the CEO a raise---but in all fairness, give everyone else a raise as well. What is the point of making a profit if the benefit of the profit is restricted to only the most senior management?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/b...rkers-for-steep-cuts.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



Remember that the world banker's are like pimps who introduce drugs to their prostitutes.

True enough. And governments and corporations are both indebted to them and "can' t let them fail" except in Iceland where they put the bankers in prison and now have a better economy than either Europe or North America.


When companies are about to go bankrupt, those of us on the right feel they should close their doors. But the left always raises it's ugly head to demand bail-outs and to keep the company going.

I think you have that backwards. It is the companies and the banks that demand the bailouts. I don't know of anyone on the left that approved bailing out the banks on the backs of the people who lost their homes in that fiscal fiasco. Even if a bailout was a reasonable solution, it should not have been without accountability. And bankers should still have been prosecuted. Do we see anyone behind bars yet? Anyone even charged? Why they even had the nerve to spend some of the bailout funds on bonuses for people implicated in the mess!

And did one cent go to bailing out the families who lost their investments because bankers rolled dice with them? If the government had to come up with $700 billion, those are the people it should have gone to.

Thanks to the banks and their allies in Congress, there are now five homes sitting vacant for every homeless man, woman and child in the U.S.

Something is very, very wrong with this picture.



You speak of unions which are as leftist as can be. A guy who worked in a non-union role as a security guard on construction sites told me that the main unions (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, carpenters, labourers etc.) make sure that no non-union workers get on the job site - except for one exception. The union workers bring on their illegal/under-the-table immigrants undetected in the late evenings to make money off of their cheap labour. Typical union behaviour.

It is bad behaviour. Unions no more than any other group, should not be exploiting the labour of others. But it is not typical either.

In my neck of the woods, unions are working to help migrant labourers organize and get better pay and working conditions.

I am not a communist. I believe that everyone should receive the fruits of their labour.


That means you and communists have something in common. Communists and other socialists also believe that workers should receive the fruits of their labour. The capitalist should not be able to appropriate it all to himself just because he provides the capital. That doesn't give him any more right to the profits than the workers. Both capital and labour are needed to make a business successful and both the provider of capital and the provider of labour have a right to the benefit of that success.

The essential wrongness of capitalism is that it assigns the benefit only to the provider of capital and treats labour as mere input like a raw material. It doesn't recognize that the worker invests as much (often more) as the shareholder. (Some shareholders don't even know they are shareholders, since they merely purchased a mutual fund.)


If someone works hard and starts a business and makes a million bucks, God bless them.

If someone makes a million bucks, he didn't do it all by himself.
And if God blesses you, it is so you can be a blessing to others, not so you can hoard your stash in the Cayman Islands and avoid paying taxes on it.




Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. The newspaper carrier might have the love of a family whereas the millionaire might not. God is good and we need to trust Him.
Jesus Christ died, he suffered and died, just so that we could have life.



Private enterprise should exclude a welfare state because we need to understand the affects of our actions.


One of the things you are doing is confusing a welfare state with a welfare system.

In a welfare state, the welfare system, if there is one at all, can be very small. In an ideal welfare state, a welfare system would be unnecessary as everyone's basic needs would be met without needing a special system to see to it.

Working people would not need social assistance, because they would receive all the income they need from their employment.
Sole-support parents could get jobs because there is adequate daycare provided on the same basis as public schools.
When people are out of work because their job has become obsolete, they can take training for new employment and get back to work quickly. Possibly an arrangement could be made for government and business to share the expense of retraining unemployed workers.

There are many ways people's needs can be met without going through a welfare system.




Really? Jesus told us we would always have the poor with us because we would always have personal sin.


No he didn't. He didn't mention sin.
He was quoting the law of Moses in Deuteronomy which goes on to say "Therefore I command you, Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land."

So what Jesus was saying is that you will always have the opportunity to obey the commandment to supply the needs of your poor and needy neighbour.

Poverty is seldom a consequence of personal sin. At least not the personal sins of the poor. It is a consequence tyrannical and greedy rulers, unjust judges who pervert the law and unjust laws written to oppress the poor. It is a consequence of the powerful taking more and more from the poor, leaving them destitute. Jesus spoke of some of the origins of poverty when he said to beware of the scribes who seek respect and honour but devour widows' houses while saying long prayers. Isaiah likewise condemns those who "join house to house and field to field" till they alone own all.

As a modern saint has said:
God has provided enough for everyone's need,
but not enough for everyone's greed.

Corporations are always greedy. In fact, the law requires them to be greedy. And some people, though they have great wealth, are always greedy for more. Because they have wealth and power, they can pursue more wealth with zeal--but the consequence is that many will be poorer for it. There is simply no way a few dozen or a few hundred individuals can enjoy extreme wealth on a finite planet without condemning millions to poverty.

Yes, sin creates poverty, but the poor are the innocent victims of the sin that produces poverty. Those who committed the sin were those who robbed them and exploited and oppressed them--very often under the cover of legality, because they also wrote the laws that legalized their theft.



We cannot live without authority. This is the problem with the left. You honestly think there is such a thing as equality and egalitarianism in the world. You think that we actually have rights.

Yes, that is what we believe. We believe people are the authority--the only authority under God. And yes, we believe all people have rights.

The opposite of that belief is known as Fascism--a belief in dictatorship. Fascism is the opposite of freedom. It is freedom only for the elite. Everyone else is has to do their bidding.






We have to obey the laws of God and of nature.

And that is exactly what we are not getting under corporate rule. Instead we are getting the destruction of nature in disobedience to the mandate of care of creation given us by God.

To have millions of people on social benefits obeying no one is to create unmitigated diseastor.

Sure it would and if people did not have to obey anyone, they could talk to one another, share creative ideas and come up with a better system of providing for everyone. Fascism assumes that only one person or only one privileged group of persons has all the good ideas and everyone else must be forced to accept them--even when they plainly don't work for the benefits of the "servants".

If they were such good ideas, they would not have to be forced on people; people would be convinced by the worth of the ideas and accept them voluntarily. But Fascists are in too much of a hurry to get their own way. That is why our current Fascist leader has cut the time for hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and forbidden cancellation on environmental grounds.

It takes a free people not bound to obey anyone to share ideas of how to do things together. And it takes time to get to a consensus. You can't be in a hurry when a group of people need to make a decision that affects them all.




Jesus said in Luke 17:10, "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'" We are Christ's slaves.


And if I am Christ's, I can serve no man, nor Mammon. Fascism and plutocracy and every sort of tyranny is something I must resist because to accept them would be to deny my commitment to Christ and to disobey his command to love my neighbour as myself.



One cannot just take one or two sayings of Christ and make a whole political system out of that.

One can note, though, that what Christ and the apostles did say is of a piece with what Moses and the prophets said, and taken altogether, Law, Prophets and Gospel do provide the basis of a just social, political and economic system. More in terms of principles and values than of particular laws, for laws must fit the time and place, but nevertheless, some important principles that include the right of all to have their needs met in times of distress.




Paul the Apostle said we shouldn't eat if we don't work. He mentioned nothing about going on the Roman Empire dole which many of Roman citizenship had gone on (daily free wine and corn) and which was the reason for the games which saw the slaughter of many innocent people. When one has millions of people who don't need to work they need to be entertained - hence the games.


The games were provided to entertain a mass of people for whom the Empire could find no work. Ever hear a Depression song called "Hallelujah, I'm a bum"? In one line, in response to a goodwife's query "Oh why don't you work like other men do?" the bum responds "How can I work when there's no work to do?" That was the Roman Empires' problem. They had surplus labour--not enough jobs for the people who needed them. So free bread, free wine, free games. Sound familiar?



You mention guns and war. Do you really think that immigrants have come to Canada to assimilate or integrate? They haven't. They have come here to take over. I've listened to them and experienced their attitudes and believe me, they are not here to cooperate.

Ah, the refreshing candour of good old-fashioned racism and xenophobia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mzungu
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I'll summarize my stance on many things by saying this. I want probably more than anything in my life to have integrity. I was speaking with a union man one time who is completely dedicated to unions. He would not be the type to hire illegal immigrants at low cost just to make money on piecework as I have seen other union members do. He is so dedicated to unions that he once did not take a job with another company that was non-union and actually paid more. He wanted integrity and I found myself having great fellowship with this man because I could trust what he said. Many people don't want integrity. There are many public school teachers who send their children to private schools. There are many welfare workers who will not live among the poor that they serve and take the chance on seeing their property values go down etc. There are many egalitarians who demand higher wages at work for being supervisors or typing ten words a minute faster or for nothing at all. There are many communists who won't live in communes and share everything. There are many anti-racists who want nothing to do with certain races including their own. There are many animal rights activists who kill flies. There are many feminists who still want special rights for women. The list goes on and on.

I want integrity and if I believe that we shouldn't have socialism, I need to live it. The issues to do with public medicare are very obvious to me. If I or someone else drinks too much, of course, no one should pay for the liver damage. But even in such things as studying late for an exam and getting sick and going to the doctor for a visit for a check-up, there still needs to be personal accountability. No one in the public made that person study late and now that person has added to the public debt. Issues to do with public schooling are not as obvious but I do believe that much of the free or subsidized schooling socialism provides is hurting our countries badly and providing a deception to many people who think that they are well-educated for having spent four years in a university. In the culture I grew up in, there was public schooling provided but it was controlled by the families in the area who were often of the same or similar religious persuasion and if the school teacher couldn't be paid enough, the families would board him or her for free. The control over the material and the results was in the hands of the families.

The transit system or infrastructure of a country is much less obvious. I grew up in a society where at times the men in the community built their own roads. Even when a town council was in charge of this, the most important thing in those days was to keep on budget. There are few moral choices to be made in whether or not to have yellow or red signs or to build a beam bridge or a truss bridge. It was most important to keep on budget. The transit I access has said that if everyone pays honestly they will break even. The problem is that many don't. I think mass transit is good in that it really cuts down on roads and pollution and I always seek to pay my own way, even on "free" days to do with celebrations. I don't know what to do with the abuse of the system though.

I believe that Jesus was a person of integrity. I believe He trusted his Heavenly Father for everything. I don't believe my Heavenly Father wants me to go to anyone but Himself. At the time I crashed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I had also badly hurt my back at work through a problem with the job. My employer had arranged for medical payments for me and when these ran out, the people I was in contact sent me to a welfare office to pick up a cheque. It didn't dawn on me until about two weeks later that I had just gone on welfare. I had brain fog that was intense and I still struggle with memory problems. I honestly didn't understand I had just gone on welfare. When I realized what I had done, I returned to the welfare office and told them that my father was going to take care of me (received only one month of welfare). I didn't tell them that it was my Heavenly Father I was referring to. I felt that I had to honour my Heavenly Father whose resources far outweigh that of a government that is in debt. I still find on a daily basis that my God loves to and is honoured to take care of me. I don't believe that Jesus was any different.

Many people will have family that helps them in times of sickness. I didn't. Jesus wants us to take our cross and bear it. I believe that I was/am facing my cross(es) honestly and receiving God's help to bear them. Jesus could have easily demanded human rights on the way to Golgotha but He didn't because He was bearing His cross. My question is, what is the cross that we each must bear? And are we avoiding that cross when we turn to man? And if I say that I am against socialism, isn't it my responsibility to live a life free from government dependence? I believe it is. I believe that I am a much better man for it. And I believe that I need to challenge my government to greater accountability and responsibility. Those who oppose me are very much involved in political processes and feel the responsibility to be involved to change the government to their persuasion. Why shouldn't I be the same?
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I wish corporations and banks would do the same instead of sucking up so much public money that it can't be used for the people who provide it.

How is this happening on a large scale? I know that corporations go broke and die and move to other parts of the world. In what ways are they hooked into the government?

Of course, even then, you are using roads built with public funds.

I've miscommunicated something here. Just because a fund is public is not a bad thing in itself. Back where I grew up, when the people came together to do something whether it was using the money from allocated taxes or the money from people's personal contributions, that money was public. It's when a government decides that it's okay to go into debt or have a deficit or turn to these international bankers when things go awry. I see the NDP/left as the perfect tool of these bankers to increase the size of their purse. The NDP/left have no moral authority to stand up to bankers because you are hand-in-hand with them. How are you not? The bankers love the left. The social credit party of AB and BC kept a strict hand on their budgets until socialism reared its head. As soon as our governments started to go into debt even a dollar, we as individual taxpayers should have raised our heads and instantly become concerned. But the vast majority did not become concerned and said it was always someone elses fault.

As I see it, everything in a budget is a moral issue. Whether it is a personal, a corporate or a government budget.

Then why is the left so in love with deficits and debts?

Problem is, most welfare systems are set up so that families are discouraged from helping. Remember the case I told you about where Grandma's Sunday dinners were deducted from the welfare cheque that her daughter and grandchildren were depending on?

I remember and that was a sad story. I've heard that kind of story from others. The thing is this though, once we let the government come into our lives for one reason, why shouldn't they come into our lives for the opposite? I don't want the government to be involved in my poverty or that of any other person and I don't want the government to be involved anyone's riches. Technically we should be claiming everything a friend does for us as part of our income when it's none of the government's business whether someone gives me a ride or entertains me or helps me with a move. But if we want equalizations one way, shouldn't we accept them the other way?

My father was in a similar situation when my sister and her three children needed help. Of course he wanted to help them, but he certainly did not have the means to provide all the support they needed. All he could contribute was a temporary rent-free place to stay (his own home). But he couldn't come up with what was needed for food, clothing, transportation, etc.

At least your father gave you free rent and that should never have been none of the government's business. Success in life comes from preparing oneself with good education, good relationships, good environment, thrift, wise money management etc. Many people emerge from poverty better people because they learned some very serious lessons in the process.

Most families are in a similar bind. They want to help as much as they are able, but they are not able to provide all that is necessary.

This I would disagree with. I do see new immigrants that are there for each other and they are a good example to the rest of us. But I know of many families who could do much more for their relatives but don't because they want that relative to reach out first to the government.
They would probably help otherwise. It was disgusting to myself to go to the more liberal churches and present my needs (usually indirectly) to that church only to be asked when I was going to go on welfare or go to a government job bank. It was the conservative churches who took on the personal responsibility of providing for my needs.

How do you think that makes a family feel? Their help is not allowed to help!!! The person they want to help is left in the same situation as if the family were providing nothing.

Isn't this though an NDP/leftist invention? The right says none of this is part of the government's business.

We need jobs that pay a living wage. Most adults on welfare assistance already have jobs. People with jobs should not need public assistance, but as long as employers underpay them, as long as minimum wages are pegged too low, and as long as people like you act to depress wages, hard-working people putting in over 80 hours a week (assuming two adults on minimum wage) still can't make ends meet.

But, seriously, if wages go up business leaves. Many business' are leaving Canada as we speak. I don't blame them. When unions demand $30.00/hr for someone who pounds nails, I would take my business somewhere else.

I'm not and never have been. You may be confusing me with rambot. Looks like he works with Children's Aid.

My apologies.

It is when you start dissing other people and not allowing them dignity, that is when the arrogance starts showing up. You present yourself as better than them. The constant disgust you display toward people simply because they are poor is quite unChristian. When Jesus saw people like this he had compassion on them.

I don't care if people are poor. I try as much as possible to associate with people of integrity. I have given up friendships with very rich people that might have been beneficial as far as free dinners go but as soon as I see rich people not paying their taxes or defrauding the gov't, I usually leave their presence. I had a good friend whom I was having good fellowship with, an older man who was well set. When I asked him one day about gov't debt and my concern for it, he told me the gov't debt was none of my business. That was one of the last times I ever spoke with him. And I don't associate with rich people with addictions.

I would, just once, like to see a supporter of right-wing policies display a little compassion for people. It would be a breath of fresh air.

I received almost all my help from the right. Doesn't it depend on whom one associates with?

Why is it that the right constantly sees the wealthy as in more need of sympathy and compassion than the poor?

There are many wealthy people who have worked very hard for their money. They have studied hard and worked many hours a day. Most of the poor I know sitting around waiting for a welfare cheque. Am I supposed to despise the rich and honour the poor?

You certainly don't cure addictions by giving people excuses to continue with their addiction. But you don't cure addictions by abandoning people to back alleys to be preyed on by drug dealers either.

Isn't there a point when you have to let someone go to make their own choices?

If they were following Christ's teachings, they would. Jesus would not turn from a person in distress simply because he brought it on himself. Have you never read the parable of the Prodigal Son?

The father waited until his son returned. The father would never have gone to visit the son and rob him of his freedom of choice.

1. Poor people are those who live on social assistance.

I know of many poor who don't live on social assistance and who live honourable lives.

3. People on assistance should get it from their families.

But in many cases the welfare recipient has not complied to the families' wishes. If someone wants to smoke in their parents' house and the parents say no that behaviour, the child has a responsibility to not smoke in their parents' house. I don't see this attitude in many a recipients' life.

Do some fact-checking. Those places are run-down and dangerous because they are not receiving more from the government than the rest of us. They are receiving much less.

I know of those with AIDS for instance who receive thousands of dollars more than any working person does. Most welfare recipients receive much more than I accept from the government.

You see, you should be angry about this. I am angry about you having to work 10-12 hours a day just to break even.

But many a person has become quite affluent by working 12-16 hours a day. That was their choice so that instead of renting a nice apartment, they could own a nice apartment. All of that is none of the next door neighbour's business.

My parents and grand-parents were proud of the achievements of their generation in getting a fair deal for working people. They were proud that they had made this country a better place for their children and grandchildren.

Many of the people I know are proud that their parents and grand-parents fought that system.

But when you have no choice but to work that much just to pay rent and put food on the table---that is exploitation, that is oppression, you are being screwed by the system and you should be demanding justice.

Doesn't Jesus say to take up our cross? When did He ever say anything about an 8 hour work day?

No matter, for I certainly wasn't trying to do that. I am quite familiar with the corruption. I would never defend the welfare system as it is.

Thanks for saying this.

I want to counter the negative stereotypes of people living in poverty; I want the poor-bashing to stop.

Invite a bunch of street people into your home and prove that all get along harmoniously. Then present this model as an example to the public and report that none of these people stole from you and that they gave up their addictions immediately upon entry into your environment. That is what people want to hear because most people want to see answers.

There is another way. Democratic (and I insist on the "democratic") socialism grounded in gospel values.

Obviously there is a disconnect here because many would really, really disagree. It must be because of how we interpret scripture. Maybe that's where the disconnect is.
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I've miscommunicated something here. Just because a fund is public is not a bad thing in itself. Back where I grew up, when the people came together to do something whether it was using the money from allocated taxes or the money from people's personal contributions, that money was public. It's when a government decides that it's okay to go into debt or have a deficit or turn to these international bankers when things go awry. I see the NDP/left as the perfect tool of these bankers to increase the size of their purse. The NDP/left have no moral authority to stand up to bankers because you are hand-in-hand with them. How are you not? The bankers love the left. The social credit party of AB and BC kept a strict hand on their budgets until socialism reared its head. As soon as our governments started to go into debt even a dollar, we as individual taxpayers should have raised our heads and instantly become concerned. But the vast majority did not become concerned and said it was always someone elses fault.

I need to clarify what I have said here. The stance of evangelical Christians up until around 1900 was that the infrastructure of a city or community was the responsibility of the gov't/public and many Christians with a clear conscience participated in such activities. But when it came to any of the social issues including all education, the strong stance of all evangelical Christians was that this was the responsibility of each person to take care of their own needs. The founding fathers of the Salvation Army hated socialism. Socialism came in strength into the church through Catholicism and the United Church and through any church that started to deny the inherrancy of the Scriptures and doubt the creation story etc. Methodist for years prayed that the gov't would stay completely out of the personal lives of people.

It's the view of Scripture that is affecting everything here. That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Once a person deviates from the view that all scripture is inspired by God then socialism comes into society.

2 Thess. 3:10 says, "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

1 Cor. 5:11 says, "But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
So? One can also be a brilliant criminal. And some CEOs are.

But it is not just about individuals. It is about the assumed rights of corporations to do whatever they please without any democratic restraint. Even worse, corporations often influence legislators to make laws that favour their agenda, so the laws themselves become unjust.

Does the fact a CEO must be educated and intelligent justify suppressing the wages of workers while raising the wages of CEOs?

Why have CEO salaries exploded to more than 300 times the work of their lowest paid employees in the same years that the real wages of the average worker have declined? Why does a company which made over $14 billion in profit in 2011 think it has a right to demand a 6-year freeze in the wages of employees? If the company is doing so well, by all means give the CEO a raise---but in all fairness, give everyone else a raise as well. What is the point of making a profit if the benefit of the profit is restricted to only the most senior management?

No one at the company I work at has any jealousy of the CEO. They don't even want to be a department head with the money that that entails. It just seems that there are two different worlds, the world of the private worker and the world of the person depending on the gov't. Rarely do I find that there is a person who is in both. And very few of those who depend on the gov't ever live for any amount of time in private enterprise. And most churches are either one or the other. Rarely do they include both. Once I went into a church and instantly sensed that everyone in the church worked for the gov't or was on the dole. I found out later I was right - the whole church was such. This is an observation and not something I intended to look for.


I think you have that backwards. It is the companies and the banks that demand the bailouts. I don't know of anyone on the left that approved bailing out the banks on the backs of the people who lost their homes in that fiscal fiasco. Even if a bailout was a reasonable solution, it should not have been without accountability. And bankers should still have been prosecuted. Do we see anyone behind bars yet? Anyone even charged? Why they even had the nerve to spend some of the bailout funds on bonuses for people implicated in the mess!

And did one cent go to bailing out the families who lost their investments because bankers rolled dice with them? If the government had to come up with $700 billion, those are the people it should have gone to.

Thanks to the banks and their allies in Congress, there are now five homes sitting vacant for every homeless man, woman and child in the U.S.

The situation you have just described, I believe, has much more to do with ethnic ties and the certain groups taking care of their own. But, sadly, in the process there are many politicians betraying their countries for money. This still doesn't excuse us from however we are wasting gov't money.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Just a simple question:

We can survive without CEOs; Can CEOs survive without us? By "US" I mean: all garbage collectors, production line workers, police, doctors, pilots, mechanics, engineers, scientists, nurses, etc. ad infinitum.

What good are CEOs that they deserve such high bonuses and wages? It used to be that CEOs made 20 times more than the average employee in his company; Now the CEO makes thousands times more! How is this justified?


NO PASARAN!
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Just a simple question:

We can survive without CEOs; Can CEOs survive without us? By "US" I mean: all garbage collectors, production line workers, police, doctors, pilots, mechanics, engineers, scientists, nurses, etc. ad infinitum.

What good are CEOs that they deserve such high bonuses and wages? It used to be that CEOs made 20 times more than the average employee in his company; Now the CEO makes thousands times more! How is this justified?

NO PASARAN!

At work, when I am in a situation where I have to work with another person, I will often suggest a plan of action. If the other person doesn't want to listen to me, I'll ask him what he wants to do and then follow his lead. Why? Someone has to be in charge. We need bosses and supervisors and CEOs. It's a part of life everywhere except for those in the welfare system.

It is good for me to be interacting like this because it has been years since I was exposed to such things. In private enterprise which I have been immersed in quite a number of years, I have never heard of anyone being jealous of their bosses' salaries (unless one is in a union or leftist atmosphere which few business' tolerate). For most people, when opportunities arise for an advancement of even one level, few take it because everyone knows it's very hard work with alot of responsibility and managers come and go much more than those at the lower levels. It's only people in the social assistance system that seem to be angry about these big salaries of these CEO's. No one that I know of would ever, ever blame a CEO's salary for a company bankruptcy. They might blame the CEO for how he ran the company but not for his salary. But, that being said, there is ten times more anger toward the welfare system than toward anything business wise. Those of us who work know how much taxes go up and are fully aware of the taxes taken off our paycheques and added to purchases. And we know how many of these taxes go to people who don't work and live off of welfare. That's what makes the average person angry. The salaries of our bosses have nothing to do with it.

It must be the difference in Biblical interpretation that translates to other differences because this is all very strange to me to hear these things I am reading. People in private enterprise just don't talk this way.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
At work, when I am in a situation where I have to work with another person, I will often suggest a plan of action. If the other person doesn't want to listen to me, I'll ask him what he wants to do and then follow his lead. Why? Someone has to be in charge. We need bosses and supervisors and CEOs. It's a part of life everywhere except for those in the welfare system.

It is good for me to be interacting like this because it has been years since I was exposed to such things. In private enterprise which I have been immersed in quite a number of years, I have never heard of anyone being jealous of their bosses' salaries (unless one is in a union or leftist atmosphere which few business' tolerate). For most people, when opportunities arise for an advancement of even one level, few take it because everyone knows it's very hard work with alot of responsibility and managers come and go much more than those at the lower levels. It's only people in the social assistance system that seem to be angry about these big salaries of these CEO's. No one that I know of would ever, ever blame a CEO's salary for a company bankruptcy. They might blame the CEO for how he ran the company but not for his salary. But, that being said, there is ten times more anger toward the welfare system than toward anything business wise. Those of us who work know how much taxes go up and are fully aware of the taxes taken off our paycheques and added to purchases. And we know how many of these taxes go to people who don't work and live off of welfare. That's what makes the average person angry. The salaries of our bosses have nothing to do with it.

It must be the difference in Biblical interpretation that translates to other differences because this is all very strange to me to hear these things I am reading. People in private enterprise just don't talk this way.
You still have not answered my question!
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You still have not answered my question!

There are two issues here - money and the need for authority.

CEO's have to make decisions that make money. If they make a wrong decision many things and many people are affected they get fired. They have to be very, very good at many things and know about many things. If this isn't hard to do, prove it. Start a business that makes a profit. Money is a reality of life. Most decisions in life are made based on money like the decision of many to go on welfare and do nothing because do something might make only a couple of hundred dollars more. Or better yet, become a CEO if it is so easy and then take that million and give $970,000.00 to welfare recipients. It would be a good example to everyone.

As far as the CEO as a position of authority, if you get rid of the CEO then someone else will become the leader of the corporation, even with a different title. One always needs a leader. If you are angry about CEO's, tell the CEO of the CAS that he/she is no longer needed or is making way too much money. I mean, in 2008, this person was paid $481,158.00 a year + benefits. Unbelievable. No one in the welfare system though will cry foul about this salary or that of McGuinty or any other liberal (even Rob Ford though this man is trying to freeze salaries). Obama makes almost $400,000.00 a year (still way too much) but the CAS CEO makes more.

Ernest Manning, as premier of Alberta, had his own farm and was paid for three weeks of work along with the rest of the MLA's for many years. The more liberal the Alberta government has become, the more money they demand. Almost always works this way. The more leftist a country is the higher the salaries of the public servants get.

Whether it's the Children's Aid Society or MacDonalds, and whether it's a CEO or a President or a General Manager, a leader is needed otherwise the organization would fall apart. This should be obvious.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This is the real issue that needs to be talked about.

The following are theories of Inspiration

The natural theory--the Bible writers were inspired only in the sense that a poet or writer is inspired naturally. In other words, that spark of divine inspiration that supposedly is in all men simply burned a little brighter in the hearts of the Bible writers.

However, 2 Peter 1:20 says, "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

The mechanical theory--God coldly and woodenly dictated the Bible to his writers as an office manager would dictate an impersonal letter to his secretary.

The Bible is the story of divine love, and God is anything but mechanical or cold concerning inspiration. The Holy Spirit never transgressed beyond the limits of the writer's vocabulary. We can see this because the highly educated Paul used a larger, more complicated vocabulary than the fisherman, Peter. The Church has never held what has been stigmatized as the mechanical theory of inspiration. The sacred writers were not machines. Their self-consciousness was not suspended; nor were their intellectual powers superseded. Holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It was men, not machines; not unconscious instruments, but living, thinking, willing minds, whom the Spirit used as His organs....[T]he sacred writers impressed their peculiarities on their several productions as plainly as though they were the subjects of no extraordinary influence. [2]

The content theory--Only the main thoughts of the Bible are inspired. This is the position of the liberal theologian who would cheerfully accept those portions of the Bible which deal with love and brotherhood, but quickly reject the passages dealing with sin, righteousness, and future judgment. But this is contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16 (quoted above). Charles F. Baker writes,

A certain bishop is purported to have said that he believed the Bible to have been inspired in spots. When asked for his authority for such a statement, he quoted Hebrews 1:1, stating that this meant that God spoke at various times in varying degrees. Thus, some spots were fully inspired, others were only partially inspired, and still others were not inspired at all. The bishop was embarrassed when a layman asked: "How do you know that Hebrews 1:1, the one scripture upon which you base your argument, is one of those fully inspired spots?

The spiritual rule only theory--The Bible may be regarded as our infallible rule of faith and practice in all matters of religious, ethical, and spiritual value, but not in other matters, such as some of the historical and scientific statements found in the Word of God.

Jesus said, however, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"(John 3:12).

The verbal-plenary theory--All (plenary) the very words (verbal) of the Bible are inspired by God. Matthew 4:4 says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." First Corinthians 2:13 says, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Jesus says in John 17:8, "For I have given them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me." Jesus says in John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There are two issues here - money and the need for authority.

CEO's have to make decisions that make money. If they make a wrong decision many things and many people are affected they get fired. They have to be very, very good at many things and know about many things. If this isn't hard to do, prove it. Start a business that makes a profit. Money is a reality of life. Most decisions in life are made based on money like the decision of many to go on welfare and do nothing because do something might make only a couple of hundred dollars more. Or better yet, become a CEO if it is so easy and then take that million and give $970,000.00 to welfare recipients. It would be a good example to everyone.

As far as the CEO as a position of authority, if you get rid of the CEO then someone else will become the leader of the corporation, even with a different title. One always needs a leader. If you are angry about CEO's, tell the CEO of the CAS that he/she is no longer needed or is making way too much money. I mean, in 2008, this person was paid $481,158.00 a year + benefits. Unbelievable. No one in the welfare system though will cry foul about this salary or that of McGuinty or any other liberal (even Rob Ford though this man is trying to freeze salaries). Obama makes almost $400,000.00 a year (still way too much) but the CAS CEO makes more.

Ernest Manning, as premier of Alberta, had his own farm and was paid for three weeks of work along with the rest of the MLA's for many years. The more liberal the Alberta government has become, the more money they demand. Almost always works this way. The more leftist a country is the higher the salaries of the public servants get.

Whether it's the Children's Aid Society or MacDonalds, and whether it's a CEO or a President or a General Manager, a leader is needed otherwise the organization would fall apart. This should be obvious.
Leadership does not mean necessarily exploitation which in your case it does. You are for the rich and that is your prerogative and I respect that but remember; we may refuse to eat cake someday and woe betide the Goldman Sachs of this world!:wave:
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Leadership does not mean necessarily exploitation which in your case it does. You are for the rich and that is your prerogative and I respect that but remember; we may refuse to eat cake someday and woe betide the Goldman Sachs of this world!:wave:

You've used an interesting example. The American Revolution was about working people standing up to a government and saying, "Don't give us any money or socialism, leave us alone to take care of our families and societies ourselves!" The French Revolution, which you cite, was an attempt to imitate the American Revolution but it was about a bunch of people who didn't work who and were receiving welfare benefits who said to the richer government people, "We want more money and benefits and socialism!"

Corporations are hooked into the government somewhat but many a corporation will go under if they don't make money. Goldman Sachs is different. They are hooked into the government alot. You are right that we need to act against such organizations. The problem is this that in our protests we are often diverted in our energies into protesting against the wrong people. Bankers rarely are the recipients of any protests. It's often minor politicians etc. Would you agree with this?
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You've used an interesting example. The American Revolution was about working people standing up to a government and saying, "Don't give us any money or socialism, leave us alone to take care of our families and societies ourselves!" The French Revolution, which you cite, was an attempt to imitate the American Revolution but it was about a bunch of people who didn't work who and were receiving welfare benefits who said to the richer government people, "We want more money and benefits and socialism!"

Corporations are hooked into the government somewhat but many a corporation will go under if they don't make money. Goldman Sachs is different. They are hooked into the government alot. You are right that we need to act against such organizations. The problem is this that in our protests we are often diverted in our energies into protesting against the wrong people. Bankers rarely are the recipients of any protests. It's often minor politicians etc. Would you agree with this?
You are in want of a history lesson; Socialism did not exist during the American war of independence and during the French revolution.

Your hate for socialism borders on the ridiculous. Lest you forget; Jesus was a Communist if anything!

Also did you know that the word IDIOT is Greek and it means Privateer. Privateers were shunned upon in Ancient Greece!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
419047_10150700788621830_843106736_n.jpg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You are in want of a history lesson; Socialism did not exist during the American war of independence and during the French revolution.

Your hate for socialism borders on the ridiculous. Lest you forget; Jesus was a Communist if anything!

Also did you know that the word IDIOT is Greek and it means Privateer. Privateers were shunned upon in Ancient Greece!

I always have two choices when I wake up at the start of my day. I can have coffee or I can read one of your responses. Either one will get my blood going.:wave:

Of course there was socialism in France. There were government-run poorhouses and hospitals and orphanages. The church which represented a third of the government and received tax money ran schools and gave free education to the poor. The French Revolution was brought in to strengthen the role of government in people's lives and those revolutionaries such as Robespierre and Saint-Just felt very much that all children were the property of the state. The issues we talking about on this forum are the same ones they talked about. The leftists felt the government should do everything for them and the government did try after the French Revolution but it ran out of money.

When the founding fathers of America talked about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" they were talking about independence from the government, not dependence.

As for my "radical" views, everyone I work with has the same views. Like I said, there are two worlds we can live in - that of the government or that of private enterprise.

Socialism has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years. Read history.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This is something we would both agree on and its an awful thing to do to a not-for-profit bank that is trying to help the little guy:

A controversy in the banking community has arisen around the Occupy Wall Street movement. Greg Palast investigates the story behind Goldman Sachs’ recent decision to pull out of a fundraiser for the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union in New York City after it learned the event was honoring the protesters at Occupy Wall Street. The investment bank withdrew its name from the fundraiser and also canceled a $5,000 pledge. Was the $5,000 a Goldman Sachs donation or actually American taxpayer bailout money Goldman set aside for community banks?


www dot democracynow dot org...

One other thing, at least those who have responded on this thread have declared who they are and are probably acting upon their principles. I meet fundamentalist Christian after fundamentalist Christian who is accepting gladly OAS cheques (as God's goodness to them for their righteousness [????]) who then talk about "welfare bums". That is hypocrisy and that makes me very angry - much more than what anyone has said here. You are who you say you are much more than these people.

GS has gone too far in this instance - they've been going too far for many years. GS has said this small not-for-profit bank will never receive another dollar again from anyone - something to that affect.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is something we would both agree on and its an awful thing to do to a not-for-profit bank that is trying to help the little guy:

A controversy in the banking community has arisen around the Occupy Wall Street movement. Greg Palast investigates the story behind Goldman Sachs’ recent decision to pull out of a fundraiser for the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union in New York City after it learned the event was honoring the protesters at Occupy Wall Street. The investment bank withdrew its name from the fundraiser and also canceled a $5,000 pledge. Was the $5,000 a Goldman Sachs donation or actually American taxpayer bailout money Goldman set aside for community banks?


www dot democracynow dot org...

One other thing, at least those who have responded on this thread have declared who they are and are probably acting upon their principles. I meet fundamentalist Christian after fundamentalist Christian who is accepting gladly OAS cheques (as God's goodness to them for their righteousness [????]) who then talk about "welfare bums". That is hypocrisy and that makes me very angry - much more than what anyone has said here. You are who you say you are much more than these people.

GS has gone too far in this instance - they've been going too far for many years. GS has said this small not-for-profit bank will never receive another dollar again from anyone - something to that affect.
Goldman Sachs is basically an organised crime establishment. It has wreaked havoc with economies worldwide. They deserve nothing less than to be closed!
 
Upvote 0

FtcdatSAPoD

Newbie
Jul 15, 2012
242
4
Canada
✟7,893.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Goldman Sachs has apparently threatened this small bank with much legal action unless they stop having an Occupy Wall Street account. GS is basically using their money clout to promote a political agenda. It's quite disgusting. This is breaking the law and should be stopped but sadly the Dem's and Rep's are both in bed with the bank.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums