Moonangie wrote:IMO, the late Professor John Rawls had it right - Social Justice as "Fairness" (i.e., behind a veil of ignorance related to YOUR particular economic state in life, what would YOU be willing to accept as an acceptable and safe minimum).

For those interested - https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781

I look at my parents as an example.
They came to US and spend all their life savings for renting and necessities before getting the US citizenship and all relater help.
Now they have no savings of any kind.
They are getting 1.3K SSI fro 2 people, housing compensation which allows them 1-bedroom in subsidized house for $240, $130 in food-stamps, 90% electricity coverage, and 95% of medical expenses. They are in early 80th and they satisfied... but basically have nothing.
It all depends on live experience and expectations.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

martin wrote:

arkrud wrote:Sorry I am not in line with the political orientation of this blog so can only speak bbal...

Also, this isn't a blog, it's a discussion board; 2 very distinct things. And political orientation doesn't have anything to do with what you have been asked.

Come on Martin. It cannot be that you cannot see the background context.
I am anti-socialist and pro-free-market.
Most of the posters are liberal socialists.
Political context is unavoidable in today America.
But I never get personal, never call names, never use bad language and personal assaults, however get constantly subjected to it.
Ironically I do not complain about anyone... others do about me...

This isn’t Russia. The Social Programs this country created have improved people’s lives. Also pure Free Market doesn’t really work. The last 40 years have been one long Clawback of the Robber Barons from the rest of the people. The 99% did BEST when this country was at its BEST and that saw the creation of the Social Safety Net at the same time Taxes were higher for the Rich and CEO pay was within reason. We had more money to build infrastructure and now the Rich have rigged this system so that all the money is flowing only up to them.

How it makes any difference for someone who has 1 billion and then has 1.2 billion or 2 billion?
All this difference is going back into the business not into personal consumption.
And even if personal consumption increased the services and goods to be consumed needs to be produced by somebody which creates more employment and grows economy.
The problem of socialist countries always was and still is complete absence of stimulus to increase productivity and have any wealth creation.
They all concentrating on distribution and ruling elites and their agents in general population used corrupted distribution system to get advantage of the rest of population.
When all available wealth created by free market system prior to socialization is used up the system is falling apart and get back to starting point.
Typical definition of madness - trying things which are not working anywhere over and over again.

GustavBahler wrote:History of the "Free Market"...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/parasites-in-the-body-economic-the-disasters-of-neoliberalism/

The Austrian School vs. government regulation and pro-labor policies

ED: I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent because we have a lot to cover specific to your book. But I heard an interesting story when I was doing a bit of my own research throughout the years about the evolution of economic thought, and specifically the origins of the so-called Austrian School of Economics – people like von Mises and von Hayek. In the early 20th century they were essentially, as far as I could tell, creating an ideological framework in which they could make theoretical arguments to justify exorbitant rent and make it seem almost like a product of natural law – something akin to a phenomenon of nature.

MH: The key to the Austrian School is their hatred of labor and socialism. It saw the danger of democratic government spreading to the Habsburg Empire, and it said, “The one thing we have to stop is democracy. Their idea of a free market was one free of democracy and of democratic government regulating and taxing wealthy rentiers. It was a short step to fighting in the streets, using murder as a “persuader” for the particular kind of “free markets” they wanted – a privatized Thatcherite deregulated kind. To the rentiers they said: “It’s either our freedom or that of labor.”

Kari Polanyi-Levitt has recently written about how her father, Karl Polanyi, was confronted with these right-wing Viennese. His doctrine was designed to rescue economics from this school, which makes up a fake history of how economics and civilization originated.

One of the first Austrian’s was Carl Menger in the 1870s. His “individualistic” theory about the origins of money – without any role played by temples, palaces or other public institutions – still governs Austrian economics. Just as Margaret Thatcher said, “There’s no such thing as society,” the Austrians developed a picture of the economy without any positive role for government. It was as if money were created by producers and merchants bartering their output. This is a travesty of history. All ancient money was issued by temples or public mints so as to guarantee standards of purity and weight. You can read Biblical and Babylonian denunciation of merchants using false weights and measures so see why money had to be public. The major trading areas were agora spaces in front of temples, which kept the official weights and measures. And much exchange was between the community’s families and the public institutions.

Most important, money was brought into being not for trade (which was conducted mainly on credit), but for paying debts. And most debts were owed to the temples and palaces for pubic services or tribute. But to the Austrians, the idea was that anything the government does to protect labor, consumers and society from rentiers and grabbers is deadweight overhead.

Above all, they opposed governments creating their own money, e.g. as the United States did with its greenbacks in the Civil War. They wanted to privatize money creation in the hands of commercial banks, so that they could receive interest on their privilege of credit creation and also to determine the allocation of resources.

Today’s neoliberals follow this Austrian tradition of viewing government as a burden, instead of producing infrastructure free of rent extraction. As we just said in the previous discussion, the greatest fortunes of our time have come from privatizing the public domain. Obviously the government isn’t just deadweight. But it is becoming prey to the financial interests and the smashers and grabbers they have chosen to back.

In US Republic the regulations are at least possible while in autocratic and kleptocratic states it is not even possible (and every of so-called socialist state become autocratic and kleptocratic sooner or later as public wealth is looted).
Regulation can and are applied not only to businesses and financial institution but to the government itself.
The rule of the game can be not very good, but the most important thing that they are maintained.
If the rules of the game are set by the ruling as they wish, there is no stimulus to create wealth and work for any progress, as the fruits of the wealth cannot be used by those who put the work in and their descendants.
The social progress is slow and will never be fair to everybody.
But it is the only alternative to revolutionary destruction of civilization which drops the society hundreds year back to the position to start over in the best case.

https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy
How elites on both sides of the political spectrum have undermined our social, political, and environmental commons.
By Christopher Lydon JUNE 2, 2017
fbtwmailPrint

Noam Chomsky. (Illustration by Susan Coyne)
For 50 years, Noam Chomsky, has been America’s Socrates, our public pest with questions that sting. He speaks not to the city square of Athens but to a vast global village in pain and now, it seems, in danger.

This interview comes from Open Source with Christopher Lydon, a weekly program about arts, ideas and politics. Listen to rest of the conversation with Chomsky here.

The world in trouble today still beats a path to Noam Chomsky’s door, if only because he’s been forthright for so long about a whirlwind coming. Not that the world quite knows what do with Noam Chomsky’s warnings of disaster in the making. Remember the famous faltering of the patrician TV host William F. Buckley Jr., meeting Chomsky’s icy anger about the war in Vietnam, in 1969.

It’s a strange thing about Noam Chomsky: The New York Times calls him “arguably” the most important public thinker alive, though the paper seldom quotes him, or argues with him, and giant pop-media stars on network television almost never do. And yet the man is universally famous and revered in his 89th year: He’s the scientist who taught us to think of human language as something embedded in our biology, not a social acquisition; he’s the humanist who railed against the Vietnam War and other projections of American power, on moral grounds first, ahead of practical considerations. He remains a rock star on college campuses, here and abroad, and he’s become a sort of North Star for the post-Occupy generation that today refuses to feel the Bern-out.

ADVERTISING

He remains, unfortunately, a figure alien in the places where policy gets made. But on his home ground at MIT, he is a notably accessible old professor who answers his e-mail and receives visitors like us with a twinkle.

Last week, we visited Chomsky with an open-ended mission in mind: We were looking for a nonstandard account of our recent history from a man known for telling the truth. We’d written him that we wanted to hear not what he thinks but how. He’d written back that hard work and an open mind have a lot to do with it, also, in his words, a “Socratic-style willingness to ask whether conventional doctrines are justified.”

Christopher Lydon: All we want you to do is to explain where in the world we are at a time—

Noam Chomsky: That’s easy.

CL: [Laughs]—When so many people were on the edge of something, something historic. Is there a Chomsky summary?

NC: Brief summary?

CL: Yeah.

NC: Well, a brief summary I think is if you take a look at recent history since the Second World War, something really remarkable has happened. First, human intelligence created two huge sledgehammers capable of terminating our existence—or at least organized existence—both from the Second World War. One of them is familiar. In fact, both are by now familiar. The Second World War ended with the use of nuclear weapons. It was immediately obvious on August 6, 1945, a day that I remember very well. It was obvious that soon technology would develop to the point where it would lead to terminal disaster. Scientists certainly understood this.

In 1947 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists inaugurated its famous Doomsday Clock. You know, how close the minute hand was to midnight? And it started seven minutes to midnight. By 1953 it had moved to two minutes to midnight. That was the year when the United States and Soviet Union exploded hydrogen bombs. But it turns out we now understand that at the end of the Second World War the world also entered into a new geological epoch. It’s called the Anthropocene, the epoch in which humans have a severe, in fact maybe disastrous impact on the environment. It moved again in 2015, again in 2016. Immediately after the Trump election late January this year, the clock was moved again to two and a half minutes to midnight, the closest it’s been since ’53.

So there’s the two existential threats that we’ve created—which might in the case of nuclear war maybe wipe us out; in the case of environmental catastrophe, create a severe impact—and then some.

A third thing happened. Beginning around the ’70s, human intelligence dedicated itself to eliminating, or at least weakening, the main barrier against these threats. It’s called neoliberalism. There was a transition at that time from the period of what some people call “regimented capitalism,” the ’50s and ’60s, the great growth period, egalitarian growth, a lot of advances in social justice and so on—

CL: Social democracy…

NC: Social democracy, yeah. That’s sometimes called “the golden age of modern capitalism.” That changed in the ’70s with the onset of the neoliberal era that we’ve been living in since. And if you ask yourself what this era is, its crucial principle is undermining mechanisms of social solidarity and mutual support and popular engagement in determining policy.

It’s not called that. What it’s called is “freedom,” but “freedom” means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That’s what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism about “there is no society, only individuals.”

Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them.
She was actually, unconsciously no doubt, paraphrasing Marx, who in his condemnation of the repression in France said, “The repression is turning society into a sack of potatoes, just individuals, an amorphous mass can’t act together.” That was a condemnation. For Thatcher, it’s an ideal—and that’s neoliberalism. We destroy or at least undermine the governing mechanisms by which people at least in principle can participate to the extent that society’s democratic. So weaken them, undermine unions, other forms of association, leave a sack of potatoes and meanwhile transfer decisions to unaccountable private power all in the rhetoric of freedom.

Well, what does that do? The one barrier to the threat of destruction is an engaged public, an informed, engaged public acting together to develop means to confront the threat and respond to it. That’s been systematically weakened, consciously. I mean, back to the 1970s we’ve probably talked about this. There was a lot of elite discussion across the spectrum about the danger of too much democracy and the need to have what was called more “moderation” in democracy, for people to become more passive and apathetic and not to disturb things too much, and that’s what the neoliberal programs do. So put it all together and what do you have? A perfect storm.

CL: What everybody notices is all the headline things, including Brexit and Donald Trump and Hindu nationalism and nationalism everywhere and Le Pen all kicking in more or less together and suggesting some real world phenomenon.

NC: it’s very clear, and it was predictable. You didn’t know exactly when, but when you impose socioeconomic policies that lead to stagnation or decline for the majority of the population, undermine democracy, remove decision-making out of popular hands, you’re going to get anger, discontent, fear take all kinds of forms. And that’s the phenomenon that’s misleadingly called “populism.”

CL: I don’t know what you think of Pankaj Mishra, but I enjoy his book Age of Anger, and he begins with an anonymous letter to a newspaper from somebody who says, “We should admit that we are not only horrified but baffled. Nothing since the triumph of Vandals in Rome and North Africa has seemed so suddenly incomprehensible and difficult to reverse.”

NC: Well, that’s the fault of the information system, because it’s very comprehensible and very obvious and very simple. Take, say the United States, which actually suffered less from these policies than many other countries. Take the year 2007, a crucial year right before the crash.

(Illustration by Susan Coyne)
What was the wondrous economy that was then being praised? It was one in which the wages, the real wages of American workers, were actually lower than they were in 1979 when the neoliberal period began. That’s historically unprecedented except for trauma or war or something like that. Here is a long period in which real wages had literally declined, while there was some wealth created but in very few pockets. It was also a period in which new institutions developed, financial institutions. You go back to the ’50s and ’60s, a so-called Golden Age, banks were connected to the real economy. That was their function. There were also no crashes because there were New Deal regulations.

Starting in the early ’70s there was a sharp change. First of all, financial institutions exploded in scale. By 2007 they actually had 40 percent of corporate profits. Furthermore, they weren’t connected to the real economy anymore.

In Europe the way democracy is undermined is very direct. Decisions are placed in the hands of an unelected troika: the European Commission, which is unelected; the IMF, of course unelected; and the European Central Bank. They make the decisions. So people are very angry, they’re losing control of their lives. The economic policies are mostly harming them, and the result is anger, disillusion, and so on.

Noam Chomsky: What Did Adam Smith Really Mean by “The Invisible Hand”?
We just saw it two weeks ago in the last French election. The two candidates were both outside the establishment. Centrist political parties have collapsed. We saw it in the American election last November. There were two candidates who mobilized the base: one of them a billionaire hated by the establishment, the Republican candidate who won the nomination—but notice that once he’s in power it’s the old establishment that’s running things. You can rail against Goldman Sachs on the campaign trail, but you make sure that they run the economy once you’re in.

CL: So, the question is, at a moment when people are almost ready… when they’re ready to act and almost ready to recognize that this game is not working, this social system, do we have the endowment as a species to act on it, to move into that zone of puzzlement and then action?

NC: I think the fate of the species depends on it because, remember, it’s not just inequality, stagnation. It’s terminal disaster. We have constructed a perfect storm. That should be the screaming headlines every day. Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. That’s our pincers. That’s what we face, and if that problem isn’t solved, we’re done with.

CL: I want to go back Pankaj Mishra and the Age of Anger for a moment—

NC: It’s not the Age of Anger. It’s the Age of Resentment against socioeconomic policies which have harmed the majority of the population for a generation and have consciously and in principle undermined democratic participation. Why shouldn’t there be anger?

CL: Pankaj Mishra calls it—it’s a Nietzschean word—“ressentiment,” meaning this kind of explosive rage. But he says, “It’s the defining feature of a world where the modern promise of equality collides with massive disparities of power, education, status and—

NC: Which was designed that way, which was designed that way. Go back to the 1970s. Across the spectrum, elite spectrum, there was deep concern about the activism of the ’60s. It’s called the “time of troubles.” It civilized the country, which is dangerous. What happened is that large parts of the population—which had been passive, apathetic, obedient—tried to enter the political arena in one or another way to press their interests and concerns. They’re called “special interests.” That means minorities, young people, old people, farmers, workers, women. In other words, the population. The population are special interests, and their task is to just watch quietly. And that was explicit.

Two documents came out right in the mid-’70s, which are quite important. They came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both influential, and both reached the same conclusions. One of them, at the left end, was by the Trilateral Commission—liberal internationalists, three major industrial countries, basically the Carter administration, that’s where they come from. That is the more interesting one [The Crisis of Democracy, a Trilateral Commission report]. The American rapporteur Samuel Huntington of Harvard, he looked back with nostalgia to the days when, as he put it, Truman was able to run the country with the cooperation of a few Wall Street lawyers and executives. Then everything was fine. Democracy was perfect.

But in the ’60s they all agreed it became problematic because the special interests started trying to get into the act, and that causes too much pressure and the state can’t handle that.

CL: I remember that book well.

NC: We have to have more moderation in democracy.

CL: Not only that, he turned Al Smith’s line around. Al Smith said, “The cure for democracy is more democracy.” He said, “No, the cure for this democracy is less democracy.”

NC: It wasn’t him. It was the liberal establishment. He was speaking for them. This is a consensus view of the liberal internationalists and the three industrial democracies. They—in their consensus—they concluded that a major problem is what they called, their words, “the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young.” The schools, the universities, churches, they’re not doing their job. They’re not indoctrinating the young properly. The young have to be returned to passivity and obedience, and then democracy will be fine. That’s the left end.

Now what do you have at the right end? A very influential document, the Powell Memorandum, came out at the same time. Lewis Powell, a corporate lawyer, later Supreme Court justice, he produced a confidential memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce, which has been extremely influential. It more or less set off the modern so-called “conservative movement.” The rhetoric is kind of crazy. We don’t go through it, but the basic picture is that this rampaging left has taken over everything. We have to use the resources that we have to beat back this rampaging New Left which is undermining freedom and democracy.

Connected with this was something else. As a result of the activism of the ’60s and the militancy of labor, there was a falling rate of profit. That’s not acceptable. So we have to reverse the falling rate of profit, we have to undermine democratic participation, what comes? Neoliberalism, which has exactly those effects.

Listen to the full conversation with Noam Chomsky on Radio Open Source.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

martin wrote:

arkrud wrote:Sorry I am not in line with the political orientation of this blog so can only speak bbal...

Also, this isn't a blog, it's a discussion board; 2 very distinct things. And political orientation doesn't have anything to do with what you have been asked.

Come on Martin. It cannot be that you cannot see the background context.
I am anti-socialist and pro-free-market.
Most of the posters are liberal socialists.
Political context is unavoidable in today America.
But I never get personal, never call names, never use bad language and personal assaults, however get constantly subjected to it.
Ironically I do not complain about anyone... others do about me...

I am sure you are anti-socialist because you have seen its effects first hand. That is something "educated" liberals do not understand and Never will. They live off the crap that is fed to them in school about the utopia that can be created. That utopia is only achieved for a handful of the elite while the rest are either killed or enslaved. That IS THE GOAL!! (see modern day Venezuela)

My family escaped it too. What I have learned is that is no use explaining it as it will never be understood until its fully implemented. I often wonder how those who are always griping about the situation now will do then. My guess is they will be among the first ones extinguished for the "greater good".

Your experiences must have been so bad that you're in favor of privatizing all police depts, fire depts, schools, hospitals, the post office, prisons, roads bridges, parks, etc. Right?

nixluva wrote:Craven, Heartless Bastards!!!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/jennywilsonut/status/937022809615695872

This is WELFARE QUEEN BULLSHIT

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

martin wrote:

arkrud wrote:Sorry I am not in line with the political orientation of this blog so can only speak bbal...

Also, this isn't a blog, it's a discussion board; 2 very distinct things. And political orientation doesn't have anything to do with what you have been asked.

Come on Martin. It cannot be that you cannot see the background context.
I am anti-socialist and pro-free-market.
Most of the posters are liberal socialists.
Political context is unavoidable in today America.
But I never get personal, never call names, never use bad language and personal assaults, however get constantly subjected to it.
Ironically I do not complain about anyone... others do about me...

This isn’t Russia. The Social Programs this country created have improved people’s lives. Also pure Free Market doesn’t really work. The last 40 years have been one long Clawback of the Robber Barons from the rest of the people. The 99% did BEST when this country was at its BEST and that saw the creation of the Social Safety Net at the same time Taxes were higher for the Rich and CEO pay was within reason. We had more money to build infrastructure and now the Rich have rigged this system so that all the money is flowing only up to them.

ekstarks94 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Some refreshing thoughts from the Evangelical community.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2017/november/michael-flynn-fake-news.html

Michael Flynn Isn’t the Only Guilty One

Michael Flynn pled guilty today to lying to the FBI regarding his interactions with the Russian government—and is now cooperating with the investigation. Flynn’s guilty plea is a vindication of those who have objected to the “it’s all fake news” claims.

Mike Flynn just told you this is not fake news.

Now, that does not mean that everything else alleged is true, but it does raise the question again: Why are Christians so often the target audience for fake news?

Let me explain the connection.

Faking News

In a sad twist of irony, even as we have claimed to be the true ‘discerning ones’ of honest media, some Christians have been quick to fall for genuine fake news. I see, over and over, the Twitter feeds of some Christians crying “fake news!” at every story they don’t like.

And it appears that some—Russians no less—who spread fake news have caught on to the willingness of some of those Christians.

For example, last month, the House Intelligence Committee released a sample of ads Russians used to influence the 2016 election. As Christianity Today reported, among the demographics they targeted were American Christians. Accounts such as “Army of Jesus” regularly posted disturbing images blending spiritual themes and the election.

Or, perhaps consider Project Veritas—which exists to “investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty... in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.” An undercover Veritas employee was exposed attempting to plant a false sexual assault story against Roy Moore in the Washington Post.

The Veritas story is perhaps the most disturbing as they demonstrated a shocking and unrepentant willingness to cast doubt on victims of sexual assault everywhere for the sake of advancing their mission against news organizations because they see them as fake news.

Yet, for some Christians, this is just more fake news.

But it’s not.

The contrast of Project Veritas (which means truth, by the way) against the thorough reporting by the Washington Post in this case is telling. It is an example to believers that, while we may disagree with what some reporters in major media outlets write, the Washington Post employs capable and professional journalists that strive for integrity in their work.

Truth Matters

When Christians resort to dismissal of unpleasant truth as “fake news,” we are essentially saying that truth doesn’t matter. We are saying that we prefer the comfort of the lie to a hard truth.

On so many issues, it is time for some Christians to take their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling, “It’s all fake news.”

It’s not.

Some seem to believe that the propagation of false information and the discrediting of all other explanations as “fake news” are essential to the survival of our faith or the support of our side. We need to realize that our faith calls us to no party, media outlet, or political leader, but rather to a God of truth.

Truth matters.

This is not new news, but it seems to continually need repeating.

The Damage

When Christians buy into fake news it does have consequences.

First, we embarasses ourselves.

When we pursue something other than truth—the tall-tales and pernicious falsehoods put forth in these ads, for example—we are rejecting facts in exchange for something fake. Since we serve a God who is both the author and embodiment of truth, the absence of truth from our hearts and minds ultimately leads us away from God’s presence and gives a platform to manipulators and liars.

I’ve called Christians spreading fake news on #PizzaGate & #SethRich to repent. And, some Christians also need to stop pretending news they don’t like is fake. It’s embarrassing to see Christians call truth fake, and spread what is fake as truth.

Second, we hurt our witness.

As news continues to come out on how fake news and ads were used to influence the election, the fact that Christians were successful targets has damaged our credibility.

How can others trust us on the truth of Christ’s redemptive work and the authority of Scripture when we peddle falsehoods? The truth is, the credibility of our witness has been harmed as a result of our gullibility in letting fake news and ads impact us.

Moving from Gullible Target to Discerning Thinker

It is not enough to be critical. Christians must see the discrepancies in how we are acting and what Scripture calls us to. But there must be more.

Actually, I’d suggest four practices that can help us to be more discerning both in how we consume and how we disseminate the news.

First, learn to ‘think slow’ when online.

As technology has given rise to faster and faster communication and broadened the spread of news, scholars and theologians have warned of the effect that this lifestyle has had on our thinking. Daniel Kahneman and Alan Jacobs have pointed out that our intuitive thinking (fast thinking) is driven by our biases rather than critical thought.

In contrast, conscious thinking results from us slowing down and carefully weighing out the situation and our response.

It is this second kind that we as Christians need to pursue—the kind that prioritizes truth over speed, edifying the Body of Christ over generating clicks. We’re called to be people with discerning hearts and minds—let’s start allowing this to shape our thoughts and actions.

Second, think kingdom mission and responsibility.

Peope hear us.

Our words carry weight in our circles of influence for either the advancement or mockery of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus recognized this when he warned us to be as shrewd as snakes even as we are harmless as doves (Matt. 10:6). As representatives of Jesus, when we are duped and deceived needlessly, we make it easy for others to ridicule the one who sent us.

As his ambassadors, we have a responsibility to know that the information we rebroadcast is true so as not to damage the effectiveness of our Christian witness.

Third, resist the allure of ‘what-about-ism.’

It is perhaps a statement of our political climate that we need the reminder that two wrongs don’t make a right. Yet a common response this article is likely to garner is the defense that the other side is worse.

This is called whataboutism: when faced with some problem we have wittingly or unwittingly caused, rather than own responsibility and change, we point to the other side’s failings as if this should excuse our responsibility.

A major step towards combating this is having the humility to accept where our news consumption habits have erred, knowing that God’s grace will cover us through and through.

Fourth, pastors, protect your flock.

These Russian ads were targeted to everyday Christians, and many liked and shared. This gullibility is a pressing problem hurting the church and its witness.

And, the answer is discipleship.

Americans spend more time online and are more reliant on social media for their news than ever before. They need those who shepherd them to help them think more discerningly and biblically.

Our witness depends on it.

That’s the truth.

Ed Stetzer holds the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College, is executive director of the Billy Graham Center, and publishes church leadership resources through Mission Group.

Pharisees......nuff said

Did somebody say Pharisees?

meloshouldgo wrote:

TPercy wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:It's amazing how the Republicans have managed to keep people voting against their own best interests over and over again. This is just the final nail in the coffin that rich and big corps have been trying to put the Middle Class and Poor into for decades. They've managed to rig the system and push all the money to the top. Now they can suck the rest of the money from Social Security, Medicare and all social programs.

I shouldn't be so shocked by the Craven and Cruel nature of these people but it still does have me shaking my head in disbelief. These people already have IT ALL and yet that's not enough. They've gotta take the crumbs too.

They are sitting on over 2 Trillion in profits (2015 data - current #s would be a lot higher) and it was the measly 400B that was keeping them from creating jobs. FUCKING HYPOCRITES
And 50% of the country fall for this **** every time they vote - democracy is truly custom built for the STOOPID

Whats this graph supposed to prove exactly? You do realize that high corporate tax rates incentivize buisness and investment overseas right? Talk about democracy truly being for the stupid.

The above chart shows US companies are sitting on all time record profits - so one can logically conclude if they wanted to invest in wage growth and job growth and innovation they have all the means at their disposal to do so. Instead they have chosen to use their capital for stock buy backs to artificially raise share prices so the C-suite can keep getting 90% of all the growth. Corporations are sitting on over 3 trillion in profits and the real median wage has fallen. But it's the tax rate that's keeping them from investing here? Are you seriously this stupid?

Now let's examine your right wing "talking point". Please go ahead and provide data that backs up its the "corporate tax rate" that has "incentivized overseas business and investment"
And when you do that make sure you articulate exactly what the fukk the tax rate has to do with anything and connect that up with actual taxes paid by corporations.